Combining factorial and multi-arm multi-stage platform designs to evaluate multiple interventions efficiently

A comparison of alternative ranking methods in two-stage clinical trials with multiple interventions: An application to the anxiolysis for laceration repair in children trial

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Multi-arm, multi-stage trials frequently include a standard care to which all interventions are compared. This may increase costs and hinders comparisons among the experimental arms. Furthermore, the standard care may not be evident, particularly when there is a large variation in standard practice. Thus, we aimed to develop an adaptive clinical trial that drops ineffective interventions following an interim analysis before selecting the best intervention at the final stage without requiring a standard care.

METHODS

We used Bayesian methods to develop a multi-arm, two-stage adaptive trial and evaluated two different methods for ranking interventions, the probability that each intervention was optimal (Pbest) and using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA), at both the interim and final analysis. The proposed trial design determines the maximum sample size for each intervention using the Average Length Criteria. The interim analysis takes place at approximately half the pre-specified maximum sample size and aims to drop interventions for futility if either Pbest or the SUCRA is below a pre-specified threshold. The final analysis compares all remaining interventions at the maximum sample size to conclude superiority based on either Pbest or the SUCRA. The two ranking methods were compared across 12 scenarios that vary the number of interventions and the assumed differences between the interventions. The thresholds for futility and superiority were chosen to control type 1 error, and then the predictive power and expected sample size were evaluated across scenarios. A trial comparing three interventions that aim to reduce anxiety for children undergoing a laceration repair in the emergency department was then designed, known as the Anxiolysis for Laceration Repair in Children Trial (ALICE) trial.

RESULTS

As the number of interventions increases, the SUCRA results in a higher predictive power compared with Pbest. Using Pbest results in a lower expected sample size when there is an effective intervention. Using the Average Length Criterion, the ALICE trial has a maximum sample size for each arm of 100 patients. This sample size results in a 86% and 85% predictive power using Pbest and the SUCRA, respectively. Thus, we chose Pbest as the ranking method for the ALICE trial.

CONCLUSION

Bayesian ranking methods can be used in multi-arm, multi-stage trials with no clear control intervention. When more interventions are included, the SUCRA results in a higher power than Pbest. Future work should consider whether other ranking methods may also be relevant for clinical trial design.

When should factorial designs be used for late-phase randomised controlled trials?

BACKGROUND

A 2×2 factorial design evaluates two interventions (A versus control and B versus control) by randomising to control, A-only, B-only or both A and B together. Extended factorial designs are also possible (e.g. 3×3 or 2×2×2). Factorial designs often require fewer resources and participants than alternative randomised controlled trials, but they are not widely used. We identified several issues that investigators considering this design need to address, before they use it in a late-phase setting.

METHODS

We surveyed journal articles published in 2000-2022 relating to designing factorial randomised controlled trials. We identified issues to consider based on these and our personal experiences.

RESULTS

We identified clinical, practical, statistical and external issues that make factorial randomised controlled trials more desirable. Clinical issues are (1) interventions can be easily co-administered; (2) risk of safety issues from co-administration above individual risks of the separate interventions is low; (3) safety or efficacy data are wanted on the combination intervention; (4) potential for interaction (e.g. effect of A differing when B administered) is low; (5) it is important to compare interventions with other interventions balanced, rather than allowing randomised interventions to affect the choice of other interventions; (6) eligibility criteria for different interventions are similar. Practical issues are (7) recruitment is not harmed by testing many interventions; (8) each intervention and associated toxicities is unlikely to reduce either adherence to the other intervention or overall follow-up; (9) blinding is easy to implement or not required. Statistical issues are (10) a suitable scale of analysis can be identified; (11) adjustment for multiplicity is not required; (12) early stopping for efficacy or lack of benefit can be done effectively. External issues are (13) adequate funding is available and (14) the trial is not intended for licensing purposes. An overarching issue (15) is that factorial design should give a lower sample size requirement than alternative designs. Across designs with varying non-adherence, retention, intervention effects and interaction effects, 2×2 factorial designs require lower sample size than a three-arm alternative when one intervention effect is reduced by no more than 24%-48% in the presence of the other intervention compared with in the absence of the other intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Factorial designs are not widely used and should be considered more often using our issues to consider. Low potential for at most small to modest interaction is key, for example, where the interventions have different mechanisms of action or target different aspects of the disease being studied.

Reporting of Factorial Randomized Trials: Extension of the CONSORT 2010 Statement

Importance

Transparent reporting of randomized trials is essential to facilitate critical appraisal and interpretation of results. Factorial trials, in which 2 or more interventions are assessed in the same set of participants, have unique methodological considerations. However, reporting of factorial trials is suboptimal.

Objective

To develop a consensus-based extension to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 Statement for factorial trials.

Design

Using the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) methodological framework, the CONSORT extension for factorial trials was developed by (1) generating a list of reporting recommendations for factorial trials using a scoping review of methodological articles identified using a MEDLINE search (from inception to May 2019) and supplemented with relevant articles from the personal collections of the authors; (2) a 3-round Delphi survey between January and June 2022 to identify additional items and assess the importance of each item, completed by 104 panelists from 14 countries; and (3) a hybrid consensus meeting attended by 15 panelists to finalize the selection and wording of items for the checklist.

Findings

This CONSORT extension for factorial trials modifies 16 of the 37 items in the CONSORT 2010 checklist and adds 1 new item. The rationale for the importance of each item is provided. Key recommendations are (1) the reason for using a factorial design should be reported, including whether an interaction is hypothesized, (2) the treatment groups that form the main comparisons should be clearly identified, and (3) for each main comparison, the estimated interaction effect and its precision should be reported.

Conclusions and Relevance

This extension of the CONSORT 2010 Statement provides guidance on the reporting of factorial randomized trials and should facilitate greater understanding of and transparency in their reporting.

Consensus Statement for Protocols of Factorial Randomized Trials: Extension of the SPIRIT 2013 Statement

Importance

Trial protocols outline a trial's objectives as well as the methods (design, conduct, and analysis) that will be used to meet those objectives, and transparent reporting of trial protocols ensures objectives are clear and facilitates appraisal regarding the suitability of study methods. Factorial trials, in which 2 or more interventions are assessed in the same set of participants, have unique methodological considerations. However, no extension of the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) 2013 Statement, which provides guidance on reporting of trial protocols, for factorial trials is available.

Objective

To develop a consensus-based extension to the SPIRIT 2013 Statement for factorial trials.

Evidence Review

The SPIRIT extension for factorial trials was developed using the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) methodological framework. First, a list of reporting recommendations was generated using a scoping review of methodological articles identified using a MEDLINE search (inception to May 2019), which was supplemented with relevant articles from the personal collections of the authors. Second, a 3-round Delphi survey (January to June 2022, completed by 104 panelists from 14 countries) was conducted to assess the importance of items and identify additional recommendations. Third, a hybrid consensus meeting was held, attended by 15 panelists to finalize selection and wording of the checklist.

Findings

This SPIRIT extension for factorial trials modified 9 of the 33 items in the SPIRIT 2013 checklist. Key reporting recommendations were that the rationale for using a factorial design should be provided, including whether an interaction is hypothesized; the treatment groups that will form the main comparisons should be identified; and statistical methods for each main comparison should be provided, including how interactions will be assessed.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this consensus statement, 9 factorial-specific items were provided that should be addressed in all protocols of factorial trials to increase the trial's utility and transparency.