Adaptive Designs for Non-inferiority Trials with Multiple Experimental Treatments

Single-stage, three-arm, adaptive test strategies for non-inferiority trials with an unstable reference

For indications where only unstable reference treatments are available and use of placebo is ethically justified, three-arm "gold standard" designs with an experimental, reference and placebo arm are recommended for non-inferiority trials. In such designs, the demonstration of efficacy of the reference or experimental treatment is a requirement. They have the disadvantage that only little can be concluded from the trial if the reference fails to be efficacious. To overcome this, we investigate novel single-stage, adaptive test strategies where non-inferiority is tested only if the reference shows sufficient efficacy and otherwise δ $$ \delta $$ -superiority of the experimental treatment over placebo is tested. With a properly chosen superiority margin, δ $$ \delta $$ -superiority indirectly shows non-inferiority. We optimize the sample size for several decision rules and find that the natural, data driven test strategy, which tests non-inferiority if the reference's efficacy test is significant, leads to the smallest overall and placebo sample sizes. We proof that under specific constraints on the sample sizes, this procedure controls the family-wise error rate. All optimal sample sizes are found to meet this constraint. We finally show how to account for a relevant placebo drop-out rate in an efficient way and apply the new test strategy to a real life data set.

Multi-arm covariate-adaptive randomization

Simultaneously investigating multiple treatments in a single study achieves considerable efficiency in contrast to the traditional two-arm trials. Balancing treatment allocation for influential covariates has become increasingly important in today's clinical trials. The multi-arm covariate-adaptive randomized clinical trial is one of the most powerful tools to incorporate covariate information and multiple treatments in a single study. Pocock and Simon's procedure has been extended to the multi-arm case. However, the theoretical properties of multi-arm covariate-adaptive randomization have remained largely elusive for decades. In this paper, we propose a general framework for multi-arm covariate-adaptive designs which also includes the two-arm case, and establish the corresponding theory under widely satisfied conditions. The theoretical results provide new insights into the balance properties of covariate-adaptive randomization procedures and make foundations for most existing statistical inferences under two-arm covariate-adaptive randomization. Furthermore, these open a door to study the theoretical properties of statistical inferences for clinical trials based on multi-arm covariate-adaptive randomization procedures.

Response-adaptive treatment randomization for multiple comparisons of treatments with recurrentevent responses

Recurrent event responses are frequently encountered during clinical trials of treatments for certain diseases, such as asthma. The recurrence rates of different treatments are often compared by applying the negative binomial model. In addition, a balanced treatment-allocation procedure that assigns the same number of patients to each treatment is often applied. Recently, a response-adaptive treatment-allocation procedure has been developed for trials with recurrent event data, and has been shown to be superior to balanced treatment allocation. However, this response-adaptive treatment allocation procedure is only applicable for the comparison of two treatments. In this paper, we derive response-adaptive treatment-allocation procedures for trials which comprise several treatments. As pairwise comparisons and multiple comparisons with a control are two common multiple-testing scenarios in trials with more than two treatments, corresponding treatment-allocation procedures for these scenarios are also investigated. The redesign of two clinical studies illustrates the clinical benefits that would be obtained from our proposed response-adaptive treatment-allocation procedures.

Using Adaptive Designs to Avoid Selecting the Wrong Arms in Multiarm Comparative Effectiveness Trials

Limited resources are a challenge when planning comparative effectiveness studies of multiple promising treatments, often prompting study planners to reduce the sample size to meet the financial constraints. The practical solution is often to increase the efficiency of this sample size by selecting a pair of treatments among the pool of promising treatments before the clinical trial begins. The problem with this approach is that the investigator may inadvertently leave out the most beneficial treatment. This paper demonstrates a possible solution to this problem by using Bayesian adaptive designs. We use a planned comparative effectiveness clinical trial of treatments for sialorrhea in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis as an example of the approach. Rather than having to guess at the two best treatments to compare based on limited data, we suggest putting more arms in the trial and letting response adaptive randomization (RAR) determine better arms. To ground this study relative to previous literature we first compare RAR, adaptive equal randomization (ER), arm(s) dropping, and a fixed design. Given the goals of this trial we demonstrate that we may avoid 'type III errors' - inadvertently leaving out the best treatment - with little loss in power compared to a two-arm design, even when choosing the correct two arms for the two-armed design. There are appreciable gains in power when the two arms are prescreened at random.