Evaluating the adaptive performance of flexible sample size designs with treatment difference in an interval

A systematic approach to adaptive sequential design for clinical trials: using simulations to select a design with desired operating characteristics

The failure rates of phase 3 trials are high. Incorrect sample size due to uncertainty of effect size could be a critical contributing factor. Adaptive sequential design (ASD), which may include one or more sample size re-estimations (SSR), has been a popular approach for dealing with such uncertainties. The operating characteristics (OCs) of ASD, including the unconditional power and mean sample size, can be substantially affected by many factors, including the planned sample size, the interim analysis schedule and choice of critical boundaries and rules for interim analysis. We propose a systematic, comprehensive strategy which uses iterative simulations to investigate the operating characteristics of adaptive designs and help achieve adequate unconditional power and cost-effective mean sample size if the effect size is in a pre-identified range.

Sample size adaptation designs and efficiency comparison with group sequential designs

This study is to give a systematic account of sample size adaptation designs (SSADs) and to provide direct proof of the efficiency advantage of general SSADs over group sequential designs (GSDs) from a different perspective. For this purpose, a class of sample size mapping functions to define SSADs is introduced. Under the two-stage adaptive clinical trial setting, theorems are developed to describe the properties of SSADs. Sufficient conditions are derived and used to prove analytically that SSADs based on the weighted combination test can be uniformly more efficient than GSDs in a range of likely values of the true treatment differenceδ $$ \delta $$ . As shown in various scenarios, given a GSD, a fully adaptive SSAD can be obtained that has sufficient statistical power similar to that of the GSD but has a smaller average sample size for allδ $$ \delta $$ in the range. The associated sample size savings can be substantial. A practical design example and suggestions on the steps to find efficient SSADs are also provided.

Extension of a conditional performance score for sample size recalculation rules to the setting of binary endpoints

BACKGROUND

Sample size calculation is a central aspect in planning of clinical trials. The sample size is calculated based on parameter assumptions, like the treatment effect and the endpoint's variance. A fundamental problem of this approach is that the true distribution parameters are not known before the trial. Hence, sample size calculation always contains a certain degree of uncertainty, leading to the risk of underpowering or oversizing a trial. One way to cope with this uncertainty are adaptive designs. Adaptive designs allow to adjust the sample size during an interim analysis. There is a large number of such recalculation rules to choose from. To guide the choice of a suitable adaptive design with sample size recalculation, previous literature suggests a conditional performance score for studies with a normally distributed endpoint. However, binary endpoints are also frequently applied in clinical trials and the application of the conditional performance score to binary endpoints is not yet investigated.

METHODS

We extend the theory of the conditional performance score to binary endpoints by suggesting a related one-dimensional score parametrization. We moreover perform a simulation study to evaluate the operational characteristics and to illustrate application.

RESULTS

We find that the score definition can be extended without modification to the case of binary endpoints. We represent the score results by a single distribution parameter, and therefore derive a single effect measure, which contains the difference in proportions [Formula: see text] between the intervention and the control group, as well as the endpoint proportion [Formula: see text] in the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

This research extends the theory of the conditional performance score to binary endpoints and demonstrates its application in practice.

Optimization of adaptive designs with respect to a performance score

Adaptive designs are an increasingly popular method for the adaptation of design aspects in clinical trials, such as the sample size. Scoring different adaptive designs helps to make an appropriate choice among the numerous existing adaptive design methods. Several scores have been proposed to evaluate adaptive designs. Moreover, it is possible to determine optimal two-stage adaptive designs with respect to a customized objective score by solving a constrained optimization problem. In this paper, we use the conditional performance score by Herrmann et al. (2020) as the optimization criterion to derive optimal adaptive two-stage designs. We investigate variations of the original performance score, for example, by assigning different weights to the score components and by incorporating prior assumptions on the effect size. We further investigate a setting where the optimization framework is extended by a global power constraint, and additional optimization of the critical value function next to the stage-two sample size is performed. Those evaluations with respect to the sample size curves and the resulting design's performance can contribute to facilitate the score's usage in practice.

Sample size re-estimation for response-adaptive randomized clinical trials

Clinical trials usually take a period of time to recruit volunteers, and they become a steady accumulation of data. Traditionally, the sample size of a trial is determined in advance and data is collected before analysis proceeds. Over the past decades, many strategies have been proposed and rigorous theoretical groundings have been provided to conduct sample size re-estimation. However, the application of these methodologies has not been well extended to take care of trials with adaptive designs. Therefore, we aim to fill the gap by proposing a sample size re-estimation procedure on response-adaptive randomized trial. For ethical and economical concerns, we use multiple stopping criteria with the allowance of early termination. Statistical inference is studied for the hypothesis testing under doubly-adaptive biased coin design. We also prove that the test statistics for each stage are asymptotic independently normally distributed, though dependency exists between the two stages. We find that under our methods, compared to fixed sample size design and other commonly used randomization procedures: (1) power is increased for all scenarios with adjusted sample size; (2) sample size is reduced up to 40% when underestimating the treatment effect; (3) the duration of trials is shortened. These advantages are evidenced by numerical studies and real examples.

Sample size re-estimation for covariate-adaptive randomized clinical trials

Covariate-adaptive randomization (CAR) procedures have been developed in clinical trials to mitigate the imbalance of treatments among covariates. In recent years, an increasing number of trials have started to use CAR for the advantages in statistical efficiency and enhancing credibility. At the same time, sample size re-estimation (SSR) has become a common technique in industry to reduce time and cost while maintaining a good probability of success. Despite the widespread popularity of combining CAR designs with SSR, few researchers have investigated this combination theoretically. More importantly, the existing statistical inference must be adjusted to protect the desired type I error rate when a model that omits some covariates is used. In this article, we give a framework for the application of SSR in CAR trials and study the underlying theoretical properties. We give the adjusted test statistic and derive the sample size calculation formula under the CAR setting. We can tackle the difficulties caused by the adaptive features in CAR and prove the asymptotic independence between stages. Numerical studies are conducted under multiple parameter settings and scenarios that are commonly encountered in practice. The results show that all advantages of CAR and SSR can be preserved and further improved in terms of power and sample size.

An automation-based adaptive seamless design for dose selection and confirmation with improved power and efficiency

In a drug development program, the efficacy and safety of multiple doses can be evaluated in patients through a phase 2b dose ranging study. With a demonstrated dose response in the trial, promising doses are identified. Their effectiveness then is further investigated and confirmed in phase 3 studies. Although this two-step approach serves the purpose of the program, in general, it is inefficient because of its prolonged development duration and the exclusion of the phase 2b data in the final efficacy evaluation and confirmation which are only based on phase 3 data. To address the issue, we propose a new adaptive design, which seamlessly integrates the dose finding and confirmation steps under one pivotal study. Unlike existing adaptive seamless phase 2b/3 designs, the proposed design combines the response adaptive randomization, sample size modification, and multiple testing techniques to achieve better efficiency. The design can be easily implemented through an automated randomization process. At the end, a number of targeted doses are selected and their effectiveness is confirmed with guaranteed control of family-wise error rate.

Choice of futility boundaries for group sequential designs with two endpoints

BACKGROUND

In clinical trials, the opportunity for an early stop during an interim analysis (either for efficacy or for futility) may relevantly save time and financial resources. This is especially important, if the planning assumptions required for power calculation are based on a low level of evidence. For example, when including two primary endpoints in the confirmatory analysis, the power of the trial depends on the effects of both endpoints and on their correlation. Assessing the feasibility of such a trial is therefore difficult, as the number of parameter assumptions to be correctly specified is large. For this reason, so-called 'group sequential designs' are of particular importance in this setting. Whereas the choice of adequate boundaries to stop a trial early for efficacy has been broadly discussed in the literature, the choice of optimal futility boundaries has not been investigated so far, although this may have serious consequences with respect to performance characteristics.

METHODS

In this work, we propose a general method to construct 'optimal' futility boundaries according to predefined criteria. Further, we present three different group sequential designs for two endpoints applying these futility boundaries. Our methods are illustrated by a real clinical trial example and by Monte-Carlo simulations.

RESULTS

By construction, the provided method of choosing futility boundaries maximizes the probability to correctly stop in case of small or opposite effects while limiting the power loss and the probability of stopping the study 'wrongly'. Our results clearly demonstrate the benefit of using such 'optimal' futility boundaries, especially compared to futility boundaries commonly applied in practice.

CONCLUSIONS

As the properties of futility boundaries are often not considered in practice and unfavorably chosen futility boundaries may imply bad properties of the study design, we recommend assessing the performance of these boundaries according to the criteria proposed in here.

Two-stage designs for cross-over bioequivalence trials

The topic of applying two-stage designs in the field of bioequivalence studies has recently gained attention in the literature and in regulatory guidelines. While there exists some methodological research on the application of group sequential designs in bioequivalence studies, implementation of adaptive approaches has focused up to now on superiority and non-inferiority trials. Especially, no comparison of the features and performance characteristics of these designs has been performed, and therefore, the question of which design to employ in this setting remains open. In this paper, we discuss and compare 'classical' group sequential designs and three types of adaptive designs that offer the option of mid-course sample size recalculation. A comprehensive simulation study demonstrates that group sequential designs can be identified, which show power characteristics that are similar to those of the adaptive designs but require a lower average sample size. The methods are illustrated with a real bioequivalence study example.

Performance of adaptive designs for single-armed phase II oncology trials

When planning a single-armed clinical trial with binary endpoint, the sample size is determined such that the desired power is achieved for a single value of the target rate. However, there is usually some uncertainty with respect to the true treatment effect. It is therefore more realistic to specify an interval for the possible true rate to accommodate this uncertainty. For this situation, we examine comprehensively the overall performance of various Phase II oncology designs and sample size recalculation strategies. The methods and results of our investigations can be used to identify the most appropriate approach for a specific clinical trial situation at hand. Application is illustrated with a clinical trial in rectal cancer.

On efficient two-stage adaptive designs for clinical trials with sample size adjustment

Group sequential designs are rarely used for clinical trials with substantial over running due to fast enrollment or long duration of treatment and follow-up. Traditionally, such trials rely on fixed sample size designs. Recently, various two-stage adaptive designs have been introduced to allow sample size adjustment to increase statistical power or avoid unnecessarily large trials. However, these adaptive designs can be seriously inefficient. To address this infamous problem, we propose a likelihood-based two-stage adaptive design where sample size adjustment is derived from a pseudo group sequential design using cumulative conditional power. We show through numerical examples that this design cannot be improved by group sequential designs. In addition, the approach may uniformly improve any existing two-stage adaptive designs with sample size adjustment. For statistical inference, we provide methods for sequential p-values and confidence intervals, as well as median unbiased and minimum variance unbiased estimates. We show that the claim of inefficiency of adaptive designs by Tsiatis and Mehta ( 2003 ) is logically flawed, and thereby provide a strong defense of Cui et al. ( 1999 ).