Blinded sample size recalculation in multiple composite population designs with normal data and baseline adjustments

The increasing interest in subpopulation analysis has led to the development of various new trial designs and analysis methods in the fields of personalized medicine and targeted therapies. In this paper, subpopulations are defined in terms of an accumulation of disjoint population subsets and will therefore be called composite populations. The proposed trial design is applicable to any set of composite populations, considering normally distributed endpoints and random baseline covariates. Treatment effects for composite populations are tested by combining p-values, calculated on the subset levels, using the inverse normal combination function to generate test statistics for those composite populations while the closed testing procedure accounts for multiple testing. Critical boundaries for intersection hypothesis tests are derived using multivariate normal distributions, reflecting the joint distribution of composite population test statistics given no treatment effect exists. For sample size calculation and sample size, recalculation multivariate normal distributions are derived which describe the joint distribution of composite population test statistics under an assumed alternative hypothesis. Simulations demonstrate the absence of any practical relevant inflation of the type I error rate. The target power after sample size recalculation is typically met or close to being met.

Adaptive multiarm multistage clinical trials

Two methods for designing adaptive multiarm multistage (MAMS) clinical trials, originating from conceptually different group sequential frameworks are presented, and their operating characteristics are compared. In both methods pairwise comparisons are made, stage-by-stage, between each treatment arm and a common control arm with the goal of identifying active treatments and dropping inactive ones. At any stage one may alter the future course of the trial through adaptive changes to the prespecified decision rules for treatment selection and sample size reestimation, and notwithstanding such changes, both methods guarantee strong control of the family-wise error rate. The stage-wise MAMS approach was historically the first to be developed and remains the standard method for designing inferentially seamless phase 2-3 clinical trials. In this approach, at each stage, the data from each treatment comparison are summarized by a single multiplicity adjusted P-value. These stage-wise P-values are combined by a prespecified combination function and the resultant test statistic is monitored with respect to the classical two-arm group sequential efficacy boundaries. The cumulative MAMS approach is a more recent development in which a separate test statistic is constructed for each treatment comparison from the cumulative data at each stage. These statistics are then monitored with respect to multiplicity adjusted group sequential efficacy boundaries. We compared the powers of the two methods for designs with two and three active treatment arms, under commonly utilized decision rules for treatment selection, sample size reestimation and early stopping. In our investigations, which were carried out over a reasonably exhaustive exploration of the parameter space, the cumulative MAMS designs were more powerful than the stage-wise MAMS designs, except for the homogeneous case of equal treatment effects, where a small power advantage was discernable for the stage-wise MAMS designs.

Blinded sample size reestimation for negative binomial regression with baseline adjustment

In randomized clinical trials, it is standard to include baseline variables in the primary analysis as covariates, as it is recommended by international guidelines. For the study design to be consistent with the analysis, these variables should also be taken into account when calculating the sample size to appropriately power the trial. Because assumptions made in the sample size calculation are always subject to some degree of uncertainty, a blinded sample size reestimation (BSSR) is recommended to adjust the sample size when necessary. In this article, we introduce a BSSR approach for count data outcomes with baseline covariates. Count outcomes are common in clinical trials and examples include the number of exacerbations in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, relapses, and scan lesions in multiple sclerosis and seizures in epilepsy. The introduced methods are based on Wald and likelihood ratio test statistics. The approaches are illustrated by a clinical trial in epilepsy. The BSSR procedures proposed are compared in a Monte Carlo simulation study and shown to yield power values close to the target while not inflating the type I error rate.

Adaptive trial designs in diagnostic accuracy research

The aim of diagnostic accuracy studies is to evaluate how accurately a diagnostic test can distinguish diseased from nondiseased individuals. Depending on the research question, different study designs and accuracy measures are appropriate. As the prior knowledge in the planning phase is often very limited, modifications of design aspects such as the sample size during the ongoing trial could increase the efficiency of diagnostic trials. In intervention studies, group sequential and adaptive designs are well established. Such designs are characterized by preplanned interim analyses, giving the opportunity to stop early for efficacy or futility or to modify elements of the study design. In contrast, in diagnostic accuracy studies, such flexible designs are less common, even if they are as important as for intervention studies. However, diagnostic accuracy studies have specific features, which may require adaptations of the statistical methods or may lead to specific advantages or limitations of sequential and adaptive designs. In this article, we summarize the current status of methodological research and applications of flexible designs in diagnostic accuracy research. Furthermore, we indicate and advocate future development of adaptive design methodology and their use in diagnostic accuracy trials from an interdisciplinary viewpoint. The term "interdisciplinary viewpoint" describes the collaboration of experts of the academic and nonacademic research.

An efficient sample size adaptation strategy with adjustment of randomization ratio

In clinical trials, sample size reestimation is a useful strategy for mitigating the risk of uncertainty in design assumptions and ensuring sufficient power for the final analysis. In particular, sample size reestimation based on unblinded interim effect size can often lead to sample size increase, and statistical adjustment is usually needed for the final analysis to ensure that type I error rate is appropriately controlled. In current literature, sample size reestimation and corresponding type I error control are discussed in the context of maintaining the original randomization ratio across treatment groups, which we refer to as "proportional increase." In practice, not all studies are designed based on an optimal randomization ratio due to practical reasons. In such cases, when sample size is to be increased, it is more efficient to allocate the additional subjects such that the randomization ratio is brought closer to an optimal ratio. In this research, we propose an adaptive randomization ratio change when sample size increase is warranted. We refer to this strategy as "nonproportional increase," as the number of subjects increased in each treatment group is no longer proportional to the original randomization ratio. The proposed method boosts power not only through the increase of the sample size, but also via efficient allocation of the additional subjects. The control of type I error rate is shown analytically. Simulations are performed to illustrate the theoretical results.

Blinded continuous monitoring in clinical trials with recurrent event endpoints

In studies with recurrent event endpoints, misspecified assumptions of event rates or dispersion can lead to underpowered trials or overexposure of patients. Specification of overdispersion is often a particular problem as it is usually not reported in clinical trial publications. Changing event rates over the years have been described for some diseases, adding to the uncertainty in planning. To mitigate the risks of inadequate sample sizes, internal pilot study designs have been proposed with a preference for blinded sample size reestimation procedures, as they generally do not affect the type I error rate and maintain trial integrity. Blinded sample size reestimation procedures are available for trials with recurrent events as endpoints. However, the variance in the reestimated sample size can be considerable in particular with early sample size reviews. Motivated by a randomized controlled trial in paediatric multiple sclerosis, a rare neurological condition in children, we apply the concept of blinded continuous monitoring of information, which is known to reduce the variance in the resulting sample size. Assuming negative binomial distributions for the counts of recurrent relapses, we derive information criteria and propose blinded continuous monitoring procedures. The operating characteristics of these are assessed in Monte Carlo trial simulations demonstrating favourable properties with regard to type I error rate, power, and stopping time, ie, sample size.

Blinded and unblinded sample size reestimation in crossover trials balanced for period

The determination of the sample size required by a crossover trial typically depends on the specification of one or more variance components. Uncertainty about the value of these parameters at the design stage means that there is often a risk a trial may be under- or overpowered. For many study designs, this problem has been addressed by considering adaptive design methodology that allows for the re-estimation of the required sample size during a trial. Here, we propose and compare several approaches for this in multitreatment crossover trials. Specifically, regulators favor reestimation procedures to maintain the blinding of the treatment allocations. We therefore develop blinded estimators for the within and between person variances, following simple or block randomization. We demonstrate that, provided an equal number of patients are allocated to sequences that are balanced for period, the proposed estimators following block randomization are unbiased. We further provide a formula for the bias of the estimators following simple randomization. The performance of these procedures, along with that of an unblinded approach, is then examined utilizing three motivating examples, including one based on a recently completed four-treatment four-period crossover trial. Simulation results show that the performance of the proposed blinded procedures is in many cases similar to that of the unblinded approach, and thus they are an attractive alternative.

Controlling the type I error rate in two-stage sequential adaptive designs when testing for average bioequivalence

In a 2×2 crossover trial for establishing average bioequivalence (ABE) of a generic agent and a currently marketed drug, the recommended approach to hypothesis testing is the two one-sided test (TOST) procedure, which depends, among other things, on the estimated within-subject variability. The power of this procedure, and therefore the sample size required to achieve a minimum power, depends on having a good estimate of this variability. When there is uncertainty, it is advisable to plan the design in two stages, with an interim sample size reestimation after the first stage, using an interim estimate of the within-subject variability. One method and 3 variations of doing this were proposed by Potvin et al. Using simulation, the operating characteristics, including the empirical type I error rate, of the 4 variations (called Methods A, B, C, and D) were assessed by Potvin et al and Methods B and C were recommended. However, none of these 4 variations formally controls the type I error rate of falsely claiming ABE, even though the amount of inflation produced by Method C was considered acceptable. A major disadvantage of assessing type I error rate inflation using simulation is that unless all possible scenarios for the intended design and analysis are investigated, it is impossible to be sure that the type I error rate is controlled. Here, we propose an alternative, principled method of sample size reestimation that is guaranteed to control the type I error rate at any given significance level. This method uses a new version of the inverse-normal combination of p-values test, in conjunction with standard group sequential techniques, that is more robust to large deviations in initial assumptions regarding the variability of the pharmacokinetic endpoints. The sample size reestimation step is based on significance levels and power requirements that are conditional on the first-stage results. This necessitates a discussion and exploitation of the peculiar properties of the power curve of the TOST testing procedure. We illustrate our approach with an example based on a real ABE study and compare the operating characteristics of our proposed method with those of Method B of Povin et al.

Stepwise two-stage sample size adaptation

Several adaptive design methods have been proposed to reestimate sample size using the observed treatment effect after an initial stage of a clinical trial while preserving the overall type I error at the time of the final analysis. One unfortunate property of the algorithms used in some methods is that they can be inverted to reveal the exact treatment effect at the interim analysis. We propose using a step function with an inverted U-shape of observed treatment difference for sample size reestimation to lessen the information on treatment effect revealed. This will be referred to as stepwise two-stage sample size adaptation. This method applies calculation methods used for group sequential designs. We minimize expected sample size among a class of these designs and compare efficiency with the fully optimized two-stage design, optimal two-stage group sequential design, and designs based on promising conditional power. The trade-off between efficiency versus the improved blinding of the interim treatment effect will be discussed.