Inference for multimarker adaptive enrichment trials

Toward Precision in Critical Care Research: Methods for Observational and Interventional Studies

Critical care trials evaluate the effect of interventions in patients with diverse personal histories and causes of illness, often under the umbrella of heterogeneous clinical syndromes, such as sepsis or acute respiratory distress syndrome. Given this variation, it is reasonable to expect that the effect of treatment on outcomes may differ for individuals with variable characteristics. However, in randomized controlled trials, efficacy is typically assessed by the average treatment effect (ATE), which quantifies the average effect of the intervention on the outcome in the study population. Importantly, the ATE may hide variations of the treatment's effect on a clinical outcome across levels of patient characteristics, which may erroneously lead to the conclusion that an intervention does not work overall when it may in fact benefit certain patients. In this review, we describe methodological approaches for assessing heterogeneity of treatment effect (HTE), including expert-derived subgrouping, data-driven subgrouping, baseline risk modeling, treatment effect modeling, and individual treatment rule estimation. Next, we outline how insights from HTE analyses can be incorporated into the design of clinical trials. Finally, we propose a research agenda for advancing the field and bringing HTE approaches to the bedside.

Cross-validated risk scores adaptive enrichment (CADEN) design

We propose a Cross-validated ADaptive ENrichment design (CADEN) in which a trial population is enriched with a subpopulation of patients who are predicted to benefit from the treatment more than an average patient (the sensitive group). This subpopulation is found using a risk score constructed from the baseline (potentially high-dimensional) information about patients. The design incorporates an early stopping rule for futility. Simulation studies are used to assess the properties of CADEN against the original (non-enrichment) cross-validated risk scores (CVRS) design which constructs a risk score at the end of the trial. We show that when there exists a sensitive group of patients, CADEN achieves a higher power and a reduction in the expected sample size compared to the CVRS design. We illustrate the application of the design in two real clinical trials. We conclude that the new design offers improved statistical efficiency over the existing non-enrichment method, as well as increased benefit to patients. The method has been implemented in an R package caden.

Design considerations for two-stage enrichment clinical trials

When there is a predictive biomarker, enrichment can focus the clinical trial on a benefiting subpopulation. We describe a two-stage enrichment design, in which the first stage is designed to efficiently estimate a threshold and the second stage is a "phase III-like" trial on the enriched population. The goal of this paper is to explore design issues: sample size in Stages 1 and 2, and re-estimation of the Stage 2 sample size following Stage 1. By treating these as separate trials, we can gain insight into how the predictive nature of the biomarker specifically impacts the sample size. We also show that failure to adequately estimate the threshold can have disastrous consequences in the second stage. While any bivariate model could be used, we assume a continuous outcome and continuous biomarker, described by a bivariate normal model. The correlation coefficient between the outcome and biomarker is the key to understanding the behavior of the design, both for predictive and prognostic biomarkers. Through a series of simulations we illustrate the impact of model misspecification, consequences of poor threshold estimation, and requisite sample sizes that depend on the predictive nature of the biomarker. Such insight should be helpful in understanding and designing enrichment trials.

Considerations for identifying the "right" subgroup in adaptive enrichment trials

Adaptive Enrichment Trials aim to make efficient use of data in a pivotal trial of a new targeted therapy to both (a) more precisely identify who benefits from that therapy and (b) improve the likelihood of successfully concluding that the drug is effective, while controlling the probability of false positives. There are a number of frameworks for conducting such a trial and decisions that must be made regarding how to identify that target subgroup. Among those decisions, one must choose how aggressively to restrict enrollment criteria based on the accumulating evidence in the trial. In this article, we empirically evaluate the impact of aggressive versus conservative enrollment restrictions on the power of the trial to detect an effect of treatment. We identify that, in some cases, a more aggressive strategy can substantially improve power. This additionally raises an important question regarding label indication: To what degree do we need a formal test of the hypothesis of no treatment effect in the exact population implied by the label indication? We discuss this question and evaluate how our answer for adaptive enrichment trials may relate to the answer implied by current practice for broad eligibility trials.

New insights into adaptive enrichment designs

The transition towards personalized medicine is happening and the new experimental framework is raising several challenges, from a clinical, ethical, logistical, regulatory, and statistical perspective. To face these challenges, innovative study designs with increasing complexity have been proposed. In particular, adaptive enrichment designs are becoming more attractive for their flexibility. However, these procedures rely on an increasing number of parameters that are unknown at the planning stage of the clinical trial, so the study design requires particular care. This review is dedicated to adaptive enrichment studies with a focus on design aspects. While many papers deal with methods for the analysis, the sample size determination and the optimal allocation problem have been overlooked. We discuss the multiple aspects involved in adaptive enrichment designs that contribute to their advantages and disadvantages. The decision-making process of whether or not it is worth enriching should be driven by clinical and ethical considerations as well as scientific and statistical concerns.

Opportunity for efficiency in clinical development: An overview of adaptive clinical trial designs and innovative machine learning tools, with examples from the cardiovascular field

Modern data analysis tools and statistical modeling techniques are increasingly used in clinical research to improve diagnosis, estimate disease progression and predict treatment outcomes. What seems less emphasized is the importance of the study design, which can have a serious impact on the study cost, time and statistical efficiency. This paper provides an overview of different types of adaptive designs in clinical trials and their applications to cardiovascular trials. We highlight recent proliferation of work on adaptive designs over the past two decades, including some recent regulatory guidelines on complex trial designs and master protocols. We also describe the increasing role of machine learning and use of metaheuristics to construct increasingly complex adaptive designs or to identify interesting features for improved predictions and classifications.

Multi-stage adaptive enrichment trial design with subgroup estimation

We consider the problem of estimating the best subgroup and testing for treatment effect in a clinical trial. We define the best subgroup as the subgroup that maximizes a utility function that reflects the trade-off between the subgroup size and the treatment effect. For moderate effect sizes and sample sizes, simpler methods for subgroup estimation worked better than more complex tree-based regression approaches. We propose a three-stage design with a weighted inverse normal combination test to test the hypothesis of no treatment effect across the three stages.

The adaptive designs CONSORT extension (ACE) statement: a checklist with explanation and elaboration guideline for reporting randomised trials that use an adaptive design

Adaptive designs (ADs) allow pre-planned changes to an ongoing trial without compromising the validity of conclusions and it is essential to distinguish pre-planned from unplanned changes that may also occur. The reporting of ADs in randomised trials is inconsistent and needs improving. Incompletely reported AD randomised trials are difficult to reproduce and are hard to interpret and synthesise. This consequently hampers their ability to inform practice as well as future research and contributes to research waste. Better transparency and adequate reporting will enable the potential benefits of ADs to be realised.This extension to the Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statement was developed to enhance the reporting of randomised AD clinical trials. We developed an Adaptive designs CONSORT Extension (ACE) guideline through a two-stage Delphi process with input from multidisciplinary key stakeholders in clinical trials research in the public and private sectors from 21 countries, followed by a consensus meeting. Members of the CONSORT Group were involved during the development process.The paper presents the ACE checklists for AD randomised trial reports and abstracts, as well as an explanation with examples to aid the application of the guideline. The ACE checklist comprises seven new items, nine modified items, six unchanged items for which additional explanatory text clarifies further considerations for ADs, and 20 unchanged items not requiring further explanatory text. The ACE abstract checklist has one new item, one modified item, one unchanged item with additional explanatory text for ADs, and 15 unchanged items not requiring further explanatory text.The intention is to enhance transparency and improve reporting of AD randomised trials to improve the interpretability of their results and reproducibility of their methods, results and inference. We also hope indirectly to facilitate the much-needed knowledge transfer of innovative trial designs to maximise their potential benefits. In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on the BMJ and Trials journal websites."To maximise the benefit to society, you need to not just do research but do it well" Douglas G Altman.

The Adaptive designs CONSORT Extension (ACE) statement: a checklist with explanation and elaboration guideline for reporting randomised trials that use an adaptive design

Adaptive designs (ADs) allow pre-planned changes to an ongoing trial without compromising the validity of conclusions and it is essential to distinguish pre-planned from unplanned changes that may also occur. The reporting of ADs in randomised trials is inconsistent and needs improving. Incompletely reported AD randomised trials are difficult to reproduce and are hard to interpret and synthesise. This consequently hampers their ability to inform practice as well as future research and contributes to research waste. Better transparency and adequate reporting will enable the potential benefits of ADs to be realised.This extension to the Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statement was developed to enhance the reporting of randomised AD clinical trials. We developed an Adaptive designs CONSORT Extension (ACE) guideline through a two-stage Delphi process with input from multidisciplinary key stakeholders in clinical trials research in the public and private sectors from 21 countries, followed by a consensus meeting. Members of the CONSORT Group were involved during the development process.The paper presents the ACE checklists for AD randomised trial reports and abstracts, as well as an explanation with examples to aid the application of the guideline. The ACE checklist comprises seven new items, nine modified items, six unchanged items for which additional explanatory text clarifies further considerations for ADs, and 20 unchanged items not requiring further explanatory text. The ACE abstract checklist has one new item, one modified item, one unchanged item with additional explanatory text for ADs, and 15 unchanged items not requiring further explanatory text.The intention is to enhance transparency and improve reporting of AD randomised trials to improve the interpretability of their results and reproducibility of their methods, results and inference. We also hope indirectly to facilitate the much-needed knowledge transfer of innovative trial designs to maximise their potential benefits.

Merging new-age biomarkers and nanodiagnostics for precision prostate cancer management

The accurate identification and stratified treatment of clinically significant early-stage prostate cancer have been ongoing concerns since the outcomes of large international prostate cancer screening trials were reported. The controversy surrounding clinical and cost benefits of prostate cancer screening has highlighted the lack of strategies for discriminating high-risk disease (that requires early treatment) from low-risk disease (that could be managed using watchful waiting or active surveillance). Advances in molecular subtyping and multiomics nanotechnology-based prostate cancer risk delineation can enable refinement of prostate cancer molecular taxonomy into clinically meaningful and treatable subtypes. Furthermore, the presence of intertumoural and intratumoural heterogeneity in prostate cancer warrants the development of novel nanodiagnostic technologies to identify clinically significant prostate cancer in a rapid, cost-effective and accurate manner. Circulating and urinary next-generation prostate cancer biomarkers for disease molecular subtyping and the newest complementary nanodiagnostic platforms for enhanced biomarker detection are promising tools for precision prostate cancer management. However, challenges in merging both aspects and clinical translation still need to be overcome.

Review of Statistical Methods for Biomarker-Driven Clinical Trials

The discovery of somatic driver mutations in kinases and receptors has stimulated the development of molecularly targeted treatments that require companion diagnostics and new approaches to clinical development. This article reviews some of the clinical trial designs that have been developed to address these opportunities, including phase II basket and platform trials as well as phase III enrichment and biomarker adaptive designs. It also re-examines some of the conventional wisdom that previously dominated clinical trial design and discusses development and internal validation of a predictive biomarker as a new paradigm for optimizing the intended-use subset for a treatment. Statistical methods now being used in adaptive biomarker-driven clinical trials are reviewed. Some previous paradigms for clinical trial design can limit the development of more effective methods on the basis of prospectively planned adaptive methods, but useful new methods have been developed for analysis of genome-wide data and for the design of adaptively enriched studies. In many cases, the heterogeneity of populations eligible for clinical trials as traditionally defined makes it unlikely that molecularly targeted treatments will be effective for a majority of the eligible patients. New methods for dealing with patient heterogeneity in therapeutic response should be used in the design of phase III clinical trials.

Auxiliary variable-enriched biomarker-stratified design

Clinical trials in the era of precision medicine require assessment of biomarkers to identify appropriate subgroups of patients for targeted therapy. In a biomarker-stratified design (BSD), biomarkers are measured on all patients and used as stratification variables. However, such a trial can be both inefficient and costly, especially when the prevalence of the subgroup of primary interest is low and the cost of assessing the biomarkers is high. Efficiency can be improved and costs reduced by using enriched biomarker-stratified designs, in which patients of primary interest, typically the biomarker-positive patients, are oversampled. We consider a special type of enrichment design, an auxiliary variable-enriched design (AEBSD), in which enrichment is based on some inexpensive auxiliary variable that is positively correlated with the true biomarker. The proposed AEBSD reduces the total cost of the trial compared with a standard BSD when the prevalence rate of true biomarker positivity is small and the positive predictive value (PPV) of the auxiliary biomarker is larger than the prevalence rate. In addition, for an AEBSD, we can immediately randomize the patients selected in the screening process without waiting for the result of the true biomarker test, reducing the treatment waiting time. We propose an adaptive Bayesian method to adjust the assumed PPV while the trial is ongoing. Numerical studies and an example illustrate the approach. An R package is available.