Bayesian sample size determination using commensurate priors to leverage preexperimental data

This paper develops Bayesian sample size formulae for experiments comparing two groups, where relevant preexperimental information from multiple sources can be incorporated in a robust prior to support both the design and analysis. We use commensurate predictive priors for borrowing of information and further place Gamma mixture priors on the precisions to account for preliminary belief about the pairwise (in)commensurability between parameters that underpin the historical and new experiments. Averaged over the probability space of the new experimental data, appropriate sample sizes are found according to criteria that control certain aspects of the posterior distribution, such as the coverage probability or length of a defined density region. Our Bayesian methodology can be applied to circumstances that compare two normal means, proportions, or event times. When nuisance parameters (such as variance) in the new experiment are unknown, a prior distribution can further be specified based on preexperimental data. Exact solutions are available based on most of the criteria considered for Bayesian sample size determination, while a search procedure is described in cases for which there are no closed-form expressions. We illustrate the application of our sample size formulae in the design of clinical trials, where pretrial information is available to be leveraged. Hypothetical data examples, motivated by a rare-disease trial with an elicited expert prior opinion, and a comprehensive performance evaluation of the proposed methodology are presented.

Adaptive blinded sample size adjustment for comparing two normal means--a mostly Bayesian approach

Adaptive sample size redetermination (SSR) for clinical trials consists of examining early subsets of on-trial data to adjust prior estimates of statistical parameters and sample size requirements. Blinded SSR, in particular, while in use already, seems poised to proliferate even further because it obviates many logistical complications of unblinded methods and it generally introduces little or no statistical or operational bias. On the other hand, current blinded SSR methods offer little to no new information about the treatment effect (TE); the obvious resulting problem is that the TE estimate scientists might simply 'plug in' to the sample size formulae could be severely wrong. This paper proposes a blinded SSR method that formally synthesizes sample data with prior knowledge about the TE and the within-treatment variance. It evaluates the method in terms of the type 1 error rate, the bias of the estimated TE, and the average deviation from the targeted power. The method is shown to reduce this average deviation, in comparison with another established method, over a range of situations. The paper illustrates the use of the proposed method with an example.

Comparison of Bayesian Sample Size Criteria: ACC, ALC, and WOC

A challenge for implementing performance based Bayesian sample size determination is selecting which of several methods to use. We compare three Bayesian sample size criteria: the average coverage criterion (ACC) which controls the coverage rate of fixed length credible intervals over the predictive distribution of the data, the average length criterion (ALC) which controls the length of credible intervals with a fixed coverage rate, and the worst outcome criterion (WOC) which ensures the desired coverage rate and interval length over all (or a subset of) possible datasets. For most models, the WOC produces the largest sample size among the three criteria, and sample sizes obtained by the ACC and the ALC are not the same. For Bayesian sample size determination for normal means and differences between normal means, we investigate, for the first time, the direction and magnitude of differences between the ACC and ALC sample sizes. For fixed hyperparameter values, we show that the difference of the ACC and ALC sample size depends on the nominal coverage, and not on the nominal interval length. There exists a threshold value of the nominal coverage level such that below the threshold the ALC sample size is larger than the ACC sample size, and above the threshold the ACC sample size is larger. Furthermore, the ACC sample size is more sensitive to changes in the nominal coverage. We also show that for fixed hyperparameter values, there exists an asymptotic constant ratio between the WOC sample size and the ALC (ACC) sample size. Simulation studies are conducted to show that similar relationships among the ACC, ALC, and WOC may hold for estimating binomial proportions. We provide a heuristic argument that the results can be generalized to a larger class of models.