Re-estimating the sample size of an on-going blinded trial based on the method of randomization block sums

Sample size recalculation in multicenter randomized controlled clinical trials based on noncomparative data

Many late-phase clinical trials recruit subjects at multiple study sites. This introduces a hierarchical structure into the data that can result in a power-loss compared to a more homogeneous single-center trial. Building on a recently proposed approach to sample size determination, we suggest a sample size recalculation procedure for multicenter trials with continuous endpoints. The procedure estimates nuisance parameters at interim from noncomparative data and recalculates the sample size required based on these estimates. In contrast to other sample size calculation methods for multicenter trials, our approach assumes a mixed effects model and does not rely on balanced data within centers. It is therefore advantageous, especially for sample size recalculation at interim. We illustrate the proposed methodology by a study evaluating a diabetes management system. Monte Carlo simulations are carried out to evaluate operation characteristics of the sample size recalculation procedure using comparative as well as noncomparative data, assessing their dependence on parameters such as between-center heterogeneity, residual variance of observations, treatment effect size and number of centers. We compare two different estimators for between-center heterogeneity, an unadjusted and a bias-adjusted estimator, both based on quadratic forms. The type 1 error probability as well as statistical power are close to their nominal levels for all parameter combinations considered in our simulation study for the proposed unadjusted estimator, whereas the adjusted estimator exhibits some type 1 error rate inflation. Overall, the sample size recalculation procedure can be recommended to mitigate risks arising from misspecified nuisance parameters at the planning stage.

Blinded sample size re-estimation in three-arm trials with 'gold standard' design

In this article, we study blinded sample size re-estimation in the 'gold standard' design with internal pilot study for normally distributed outcomes. The 'gold standard' design is a three-arm clinical trial design that includes an active and a placebo control in addition to an experimental treatment. We focus on the absolute margin approach to hypothesis testing in three-arm trials at which the non-inferiority of the experimental treatment and the assay sensitivity are assessed by pairwise comparisons. We compare several blinded sample size re-estimation procedures in a simulation study assessing operating characteristics including power and type I error. We find that sample size re-estimation based on the popular one-sample variance estimator results in overpowered trials. Moreover, sample size re-estimation based on unbiased variance estimators such as the Xing-Ganju variance estimator results in underpowered trials, as it is expected because an overestimation of the variance and thus the sample size is in general required for the re-estimation procedure to eventually meet the target power. To overcome this problem, we propose an inflation factor for the sample size re-estimation with the Xing-Ganju variance estimator and show that this approach results in adequately powered trials. Because of favorable features of the Xing-Ganju variance estimator such as unbiasedness and a distribution independent of the group means, the inflation factor does not depend on the nuisance parameter and, therefore, can be calculated prior to a trial. Moreover, we prove that the sample size re-estimation based on the Xing-Ganju variance estimator does not bias the effect estimate. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Blinded versus unblinded estimation of a correlation coefficient to inform interim design adaptations

Regulatory authorities require that the sample size of a confirmatory trial is calculated prior to the start of the trial. However, the sample size quite often depends on parameters that might not be known in advance of the study. Misspecification of these parameters can lead to under- or overestimation of the sample size. Both situations are unfavourable as the first one decreases the power and the latter one leads to a waste of resources. Hence, designs have been suggested that allow a re-assessment of the sample size in an ongoing trial. These methods usually focus on estimating the variance. However, for some methods the performance depends not only on the variance but also on the correlation between measurements. We develop and compare different methods for blinded estimation of the correlation coefficient that are less likely to introduce operational bias when the blinding is maintained. Their performance with respect to bias and standard error is compared to the unblinded estimator. We simulated two different settings: one assuming that all group means are the same and one assuming that different groups have different means. Simulation results show that the naïve (one-sample) estimator is only slightly biased and has a standard error comparable to that of the unblinded estimator. However, if the group means differ, other estimators have better performance depending on the sample size per group and the number of groups.

Distribution of the two-sample t-test statistic following blinded sample size re-estimation

We consider the blinded sample size re-estimation based on the simple one-sample variance estimator at an interim analysis. We characterize the exact distribution of the standard two-sample t-test statistic at the final analysis. We describe a simulation algorithm for the evaluation of the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis at given treatment effect. We compare the blinded sample size re-estimation method with two unblinded methods with respect to the empirical type I error, the empirical power, and the empirical distribution of the standard deviation estimator and final sample size. We characterize the type I error inflation across the range of standardized non-inferiority margin for non-inferiority trials, and derive the adjusted significance level to ensure type I error control for given sample size of the internal pilot study. We show that the adjusted significance level increases as the sample size of the internal pilot study increases. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Inference from blinded data in randomized clinical trials

Background

With blinded data, several authors have concluded that there is a negligible chance of inferring a non-null treatment effect. The recent Food and Drug Administration (FDA) draft guidance document on adaptive trials, by encouraging blinded sample size reestimation, implies the same.

Purpose

We derive methods to investigate whether the probability of inferring a treatment effect is much larger than previously thought, and whether that is of concern.

Methods

A statistic is developed that contributes to improving signal detection. Additionally, trials that are overpowered, for reasons external to powering the primary objective, further strengthen the chance of finding a signal.

Results

An example of data from a clinical trial shows how revealing a blinded analysis can be. The ability to infer a non-null effect while a blinded trial is ongoing is a serious matter.

Limitations

The methods apply to superiority trials and are of limited use for non-inferiority or equivalence trials.

Conclusion

It is important, therefore, that guidance documents include clear language to limit or prevent inference from blinded data to maintain trial integrity. Simple steps are proposed to make inference difficult.

Blinded sample size re-estimation in superiority and noninferiority trials: bias versus variance in variance estimation

The internal pilot study design allows for modifying the sample size during an ongoing study based on a blinded estimate of the variance thus maintaining the trial integrity. Various blinded sample size re-estimation procedures have been proposed in the literature. We compare the blinded sample size re-estimation procedures based on the one-sample variance of the pooled data with a blinded procedure using the randomization block information with respect to bias and variance of the variance estimators, and the distribution of the resulting sample sizes, power, and actual type I error rate. For reference, sample size re-estimation based on the unblinded variance is also included in the comparison. It is shown that using an unbiased variance estimator (such as the one using the randomization block information) for sample size re-estimation does not guarantee that the desired power is achieved. Moreover, in situations that are common in clinical trials, the variance estimator that employs the randomization block length shows a higher variability than the simple one-sample estimator and in turn the sample size resulting from the related re-estimation procedure. This higher variability can lead to a lower power as was demonstrated in the setting of noninferiority trials. In summary, the one-sample estimator obtained from the pooled data is extremely simple to apply, shows good performance, and is therefore recommended for application.

Blinded assessment of treatment effects for survival endpoint in an ongoing trial

Many assumptions, including assumptions regarding treatment effects, are made at the design stage of a clinical trial for power and sample size calculations. It is desirable to check these assumptions during the trial by using blinded data. Methods for sample size re-estimation based on blinded data analyses have been proposed for normal and binary endpoints. However, there is a debate that no reliable estimate of the treatment effect can be obtained in a typical clinical trial situation. In this paper, we consider the case of a survival endpoint and investigate the feasibility of estimating the treatment effect in an ongoing trial without unblinding. We incorporate information of a surrogate endpoint and investigate three estimation procedures, including a classification method and two expectation-maximization (EM) algorithms. Simulations and a clinical trial example are used to assess the performance of the procedures. Our studies show that the expectation-maximization algorithms highly depend on the initial estimates of the model parameters. Despite utilization of a surrogate endpoint, all three methods have large variations in the treatment effect estimates and hence fail to provide a precise conclusion about the treatment effect.

Blinded assessment of treatment effects utilizing information about the randomization block length

It is essential for the integrity of double-blind clinical trials that during the study course the individual treatment allocations of the patients as well as the treatment effect remain unknown to any involved person. Recently, methods have been proposed for which it was claimed that they would allow reliable estimation of the treatment effect based on blinded data by using information about the block length of the randomization procedure. If this would hold true, it would be difficult to preserve blindness without taking further measures. The suggested procedures apply to continuous data. We investigate the properties of these methods thoroughly by repeated simulations per scenario. Furthermore, a method for blinded treatment effect estimation in case of binary data is proposed, and blinded tests for treatment group differences are developed both for continuous and binary data. We report results of comprehensive simulation studies that investigate the features of these procedures. It is shown that for sample sizes and treatment effects which are typical in clinical trials, no reliable inference can be made on the treatment group difference which is due to the bias and imprecision of the blinded estimates.