Unblinded Adaptive Statistical Information Design Based on Clinical Endpoint or Biomarker

Incorporating covariates information in adaptive clinical trials for precision medicine

Precision medicine is the systematic use of information that pertains to an individual patient to select or optimize that patient's preventative and therapeutic care. Recent studies have classified biomarkers into predictive and prognostic biomarkers based on their roles in clinical studies. To design a clinical trial for precision medicine, predictive biomarkers and prognostic biomarkers should both be included. In statistical analysis, biomarkers are mathematically treated as covariates. We first classify covariates into predictive and prognostic covariates according to their roles. We then provide a brief review of recent advances in adaptive designs that incorporate covariates. However, the literature includes no designs that incorporate both prognostic covariates and predictive covariates simultaneously. In this paper, we propose a new family of covariate-adjusted response-adaptive (CARA) designs that incorporate both prognostic and predictive covariates and the responses. It is important to note that the predictive biomarkers and prognostic biomarkers play different roles in the new designs. The advantages of the proposed methods are demonstrated via numerical studies, and some further statistical issues are also discussed.

A systematic review of the "promising zone" design

Introduction

Sample size calculations require assumptions regarding treatment response and variability. Incorrect assumptions can result in under- or overpowered trials, posing ethical concerns. Sample size re-estimation (SSR) methods investigate the validity of these assumptions and increase the sample size if necessary. The “promising zone” (Mehta and Pocock, Stat Med 30:3267–3284, 2011) concept is appealing to researchers for its design simplicity. However, it is still relatively new in the application and has been a source of controversy.

Objectives

This research aims to synthesise current approaches and practical implementation of the promising zone design.

Methods

This systematic review comprehensively identifies the reporting of methodological research and of clinical trials using promising zone. Databases were searched according to a pre-specified search strategy, and pearl growing techniques implemented.

Results

The combined search methods resulted in 270 unique records identified; 171 were included in the review, of which 30 were trials. The median time to the interim analysis was 60% of the original target sample size (IQR 41–73%). Of the 15 completed trials, 7 increased their sample size. Only 21 studies reported the maximum sample size that would be considered, for which the median increase was 50% (IQR 35–100%).

Conclusions

Promising zone is being implemented in a range of trials worldwide, albeit in low numbers. Identifying trials using promising zone was difficult due to the lack of reporting of SSR methodology. Even when SSR methodology was reported, some had key interim analysis details missing, and only eight papers provided promising zone ranges.

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.

Adaptive designs in clinical trials: why use them, and how to run and report them

Adaptive designs can make clinical trials more flexible by utilising results accumulating in the trial to modify the trial's course in accordance with pre-specified rules. Trials with an adaptive design are often more efficient, informative and ethical than trials with a traditional fixed design since they often make better use of resources such as time and money, and might require fewer participants. Adaptive designs can be applied across all phases of clinical research, from early-phase dose escalation to confirmatory trials. The pace of the uptake of adaptive designs in clinical research, however, has remained well behind that of the statistical literature introducing new methods and highlighting their potential advantages. We speculate that one factor contributing to this is that the full range of adaptations available to trial designs, as well as their goals, advantages and limitations, remains unfamiliar to many parts of the clinical community. Additionally, the term adaptive design has been misleadingly used as an all-encompassing label to refer to certain methods that could be deemed controversial or that have been inadequately implemented.We believe that even if the planning and analysis of a trial is undertaken by an expert statistician, it is essential that the investigators understand the implications of using an adaptive design, for example, what the practical challenges are, what can (and cannot) be inferred from the results of such a trial, and how to report and communicate the results. This tutorial paper provides guidance on key aspects of adaptive designs that are relevant to clinical triallists. We explain the basic rationale behind adaptive designs, clarify ambiguous terminology and summarise the utility and pitfalls of adaptive designs. We discuss practical aspects around funding, ethical approval, treatment supply and communication with stakeholders and trial participants. Our focus, however, is on the interpretation and reporting of results from adaptive design trials, which we consider vital for anyone involved in medical research. We emphasise the general principles of transparency and reproducibility and suggest how best to put them into practice.

Estimation of treatment effect in two-stage confirmatory oncology trials of personalized medicines

A personalized medicine may benefit a subpopulation with certain predictive biomarker signatures or certain disease types. However, there is great uncertainty about drug activity in a subpopulation when designing a confirmatory trial in practice, and it is logical to take a two-stage approach with the study unless credible external information is available for decision-making purpose. The first stage deselects (or prunes) non-performing subpopulations at an interim analysis, and the second stage pools the remaining subpopulations in the final analysis. The endpoints used at the two stages can be different in general. A key issue of interest is the statistical property of the test statistics and point estimate at the final analysis. Previous research has focused on type I error control and power calculation for such two-stage designs. This manuscript will investigate estimation bias of the treatment effect, which is implicit in the adjustment of nominal type I error for multiplicity control in such two-stage designs. Previous work handles the treatment effect of an intermediate endpoint as a nuisance parameter to provide the most conservative type I error control. This manuscript takes the same approach to explore the bias. The methodology is applied to the two previously studied designs. In the first design, patients with different biomarker levels are enrolled in a study, and the treatment effect is assumed to be in an order. The goal of the interim analysis is to identify a biomarker cut-off point for the subpopulations. In the second design, patients with different tumour types but the same biomarker signature are included in a trial applying a basket design. The goal of the interim analysis is to identify a subset of tumour types in the absence of treatment effect ordering. Closed-form equations are provided for the estimation bias as well as the variance under the two designs. Simulations are conducted under various scenarios to validate the analytic results that demonstrated that the bias can be properly estimated in practice. Worked examples are presented. Extensions to general adaptive designs and operational considerations are discussed. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Statistical challenges in a regulatory review of cardiovascular and CNS clinical trials

There are several challenging statistical problems identified in the regulatory review of large cardiovascular (CV) clinical outcome trials and central nervous system (CNS) trials. The problems can be common or distinct due to disease characteristics and the differences in trial design elements such as endpoints, trial duration, and trial size. In schizophrenia trials, heavy missing data is a big problem. In Alzheimer trials, the endpoints for assessing symptoms and the endpoints for assessing disease progression are essentially the same; it is difficult to construct a good trial design to evaluate a test drug for its ability to slow the disease progression. In CV trials, reliance on a composite endpoint with low event rate makes the trial size so large that it is infeasible to study multiple doses necessary to find the right dose for study patients. These are just a few typical problems. In the past decade, adaptive designs were increasingly used in these disease areas and some challenges occur with respect to that use. Based on our review experiences, group sequential designs (GSDs) have borne many successful stories in CV trials and are also increasingly used for developing treatments targeting CNS diseases. There is also a growing trend of using more advanced unblinded adaptive designs for producing efficacy evidence. Many statistical challenges with these kinds of adaptive designs have been identified through our experiences with the review of regulatory applications and are shared in this article.

Twenty-five years of confirmatory adaptive designs: opportunities and pitfalls

'Multistage testing with adaptive designs' was the title of an article by Peter Bauer that appeared 1989 in the German journal Biometrie und Informatik in Medizin und Biologie. The journal does not exist anymore but the methodology found widespread interest in the scientific community over the past 25 years. The use of such multistage adaptive designs raised many controversial discussions from the beginning on, especially after the publication by Bauer and Köhne 1994 in Biometrics: Broad enthusiasm about potential applications of such designs faced critical positions regarding their statistical efficiency. Despite, or possibly because of, this controversy, the methodology and its areas of applications grew steadily over the years, with significant contributions from statisticians working in academia, industry and agencies around the world. In the meantime, such type of adaptive designs have become the subject of two major regulatory guidance documents in the US and Europe and the field is still evolving. Developments are particularly noteworthy in the most important applications of adaptive designs, including sample size reassessment, treatment selection procedures, and population enrichment designs. In this article, we summarize the developments over the past 25 years from different perspectives. We provide a historical overview of the early days, review the key methodological concepts and summarize regulatory and industry perspectives on such designs. Then, we illustrate the application of adaptive designs with three case studies, including unblinded sample size reassessment, adaptive treatment selection, and adaptive endpoint selection. We also discuss the availability of software for evaluating and performing such designs. We conclude with a critical review of how expectations from the beginning were fulfilled, and - if not - discuss potential reasons why this did not happen.

Maximum type I error rate inflation from sample size reassessment when investigators are blind to treatment labels

Consider a parallel group trial for the comparison of an experimental treatment to a control, where the second‐stage sample size may depend on the blinded primary endpoint data as well as on additional blinded data from a secondary endpoint. For the setting of normally distributed endpoints, we demonstrate that this may lead to an inflation of the type I error rate if the null hypothesis holds for the primary but not the secondary endpoint.

We derive upper bounds for the inflation of the type I error rate, both for trials that employ random allocation and for those that use block randomization. We illustrate the worst‐case sample size reassessment rule in a case study. For both randomization strategies, the maximum type I error rate increases with the effect size in the secondary endpoint and the correlation between endpoints. The maximum inflation increases with smaller block sizes if information on the block size is used in the reassessment rule. Based on our findings, we do not question the well‐established use of blinded sample size reassessment methods with nuisance parameter estimates computed from the blinded interim data of the primary endpoint. However, we demonstrate that the type I error rate control of these methods relies on the application of specific, binding, pre‐planned and fully algorithmic sample size reassessment rules and does not extend to general or unplanned sample size adjustments based on blinded data. © 2015 The Authors. Statistics in Medicine Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Adaptive sample size modification in clinical trials: start small then ask for more?

We consider sample size re-estimation in a clinical trial, in particular when there is a significant delay before the measurement of patient response. Mehta and Pocock have proposed methods in which sample size is increased when interim results fall in a 'promising zone' where it is deemed worthwhile to increase conditional power by adding more subjects. Our analysis reveals potential pitfalls in applying this approach. Mehta and Pocock use results of Chen, DeMets and Lan to identify when increasing sample size, but applying a conventional level α significance test at the end of the trial does not inflate the type I error rate: we have found the greatest gains in power per additional observation are liable to lie outside the region defined by this method. Mehta and Pocock increase sample size to achieve a particular conditional power, calculated under the current estimate of treatment effect: this leads to high increases in sample size for a small range of interim outcomes, whereas we have found it more efficient to make moderate increases in sample size over a wider range of cases. If the aforementioned pitfalls are avoided, we believe the broad framework proposed by Mehta and Pocock is valuable for clinical trial design. Working in this framework, we propose sample size rules that apply explicitly the principle of adding observations when they are most beneficial. The resulting trial designs are closely related to efficient group sequential tests for a delayed response proposed by Hampson and Jennison.