An optimal Bayesian predictive probability design for phase II clinical trials with simple and complicated endpoints

Most existing phase II clinical trial designs focus on conventional chemotherapy with binary tumor response as the endpoint. The advent of novel therapies, such as molecularly targeted agents and immunotherapy, has made the endpoint of phase II trials more complicated, often involving ordinal, nested, and coprimary endpoints. We propose a simple and flexible Bayesian optimal phase II predictive probability (OPP) design that handles binary and complex endpoints in a unified way. The Dirichlet-multinomial model is employed to accommodate different types of endpoints. At each interim, given the observed interim data, we calculate the Bayesian predictive probability of success, should the trial continue to the maximum planned sample size, and use it to make the go/no-go decision. The OPP design controls the type I error rate, maximizes power or minimizes the expected sample size, and is easy to implement, because the go/no-go decision boundaries can be enumerated and included in the protocol before the onset of the trial. Simulation studies show that the OPP design has satisfactory operating characteristics.     

Optimal conditional error functions for the control of conditional power

Ethical considerations and the competitive environment of clinical trials usually require that any given trial have sufficient power to detect a treatment advance. If at an interim analysis the available data are used to decide whether the trial is promising enough to be continued, investigators and sponsors often wish to have a high conditional power, which is the probability to reject the null hypothesis given the interim data and the alternative of interest. Under this requirement a design with interim sample size recalculation, which keeps the overall and conditional power at a prespecified value and preserves the overall type I error rate, is a reasonable alternative to a classical group sequential design, in which the conditional power is often too small. In this article two-stage designs with control of overall and conditional power are constructed that minimize the expected sample size, either for a simple point alternative or for a random mixture of alternatives given by a prior density for the efficacy parameter. The presented optimality result applies to trials with and without an interim hypothesis test; in addition, one can account for constraints such as a minimal sample size for the second stage. The optimal designs will be illustrated with an example, and will be compared to the frequently considered method of using the conditional type I error level of a group sequential design.     

A sample size adjustment procedure for clinical trials based on conditional power

When designing clinical trials, researchers often encounter the uncertainty in the treatment effect or variability assumptions. Hence the sample size calculation at the planning stage of a clinical trial may also be questionable. Adjustment of the sample size during the mid-course of a clinical trial has become a popular strategy lately. In this paper we propose a procedure for calculating additional sample size needed based on conditional power, and adjusting the final-stage critical value to protect the overall type-I error rate. Compared to other previous procedures, the proposed procedure uses the definition of the conditional type-I error directly without appealing to an extra special function for it. It has better flexibility in setting up interim decision rules and the final-stage test is a likelihood ratio test.     

A Comparison of Procedures for Adaptive Choice of Location Tests in Flexible Two‐Stage Designs

Although linear rank statistics for the two‐sample problem are distribution free tests, their power depends on the distribution of the data. In the planning phase of an experiment, researchers are often uncertain about the shape of this distribution and so the choice of test statistic for the analysis and the determination of the required sample size are based on vague information. Adaptive designs with interim analysis can potentially overcome both problems. And in particular, adaptive tests based on a selector statistic are a solution to the first. We investigate whether adaptive tests can be usefully implemented in flexible two‐stage designs to gain power. In a simulation study, we compare several methods for choosing a test statistic for the second stage of an adaptive design based on interim data with the procedure that applies adaptive tests in both stages. We find that the latter is a sensible approach that leads to the best results in most situations considered here. The different methods are illustrated using a clinical trial example.     

Sample size recalculation in multicenter randomized controlled clinical trials based on noncomparative data

Many late-phase clinical trials recruit subjects at multiple study sites. This introduces a hierarchical structure into the data that can result in a power-loss compared to a more homogeneous single-center trial. Building on a recently proposed approach to sample size determination, we suggest a sample size recalculation procedure for multicenter trials with continuous endpoints. The procedure estimates nuisance parameters at interim from noncomparative data and recalculates the sample size required based on these estimates. In contrast to other sample size calculation methods for multicenter trials, our approach assumes a mixed effects model and does not rely on balanced data within centers. It is therefore advantageous, especially for sample size recalculation at interim. We illustrate the proposed methodology by a study evaluating a diabetes management system. Monte Carlo simulations are carried out to evaluate operation characteristics of the sample size recalculation procedure using comparative as well as noncomparative data, assessing their dependence on parameters such as between-center heterogeneity, residual variance of observations, treatment effect size and number of centers. We compare two different estimators for between-center heterogeneity, an unadjusted and a bias-adjusted estimator, both based on quadratic forms. The type 1 error probability as well as statistical power are close to their nominal levels for all parameter combinations considered in our simulation study for the proposed unadjusted estimator, whereas the adjusted estimator exhibits some type 1 error rate inflation. Overall, the sample size recalculation procedure can be recommended to mitigate risks arising from misspecified nuisance parameters at the planning stage.     

Interim analysis incorporating short‐ and long‐term binary endpoints

Designs incorporating more than one endpoint have become popular in drug development. One of such designs allows for incorporation of short‐term information in an interim analysis if the long‐term primary endpoint has not been yet observed for some of the patients. At first we consider a two‐stage design with binary endpoints allowing for futility stopping only based on conditional power under both fixed and observed effects. Design characteristics of three estimators: using primary long‐term endpoint only, short‐term endpoint only, and combining data from both are compared. For each approach, equivalent cut‐off point values for fixed and observed effect conditional power calculations can be derived resulting in the same overall power. While in trials stopping for futility the type I error rate cannot get inflated (it usually decreases), there is loss of power. In this study, we consider different scenarios, including different thresholds for conditional power, different amount of information available at the interim, different correlations and probabilities of success. We further extend the methods to adaptive designs with unblinded sample size reassessments based on conditional power with inverse normal method as the combination function. Two different futility stopping rules are considered: one based on the conditional power, and one from P‐values based on Z‐statistics of the estimators. Average sample size, probability to stop for futility and overall power of the trial are compared and the influence of the choice of weights is investigated.     

Bayesian Adaptive Randomization and Trial Monitoring with Predictive Probability for Time-to-Event Endpoint

There has been much development in Bayesian adaptive designs in clinical trials. In the Bayesian paradigm, the posterior predictive distribution characterizes the future possible outcomes given the currently observed data. Based on the interim time-to-event data, we develop a new phase II trial design by combining the strength of both Bayesian adaptive randomization and the predictive probability. By comparing the mean survival times between patients assigned to two treatment arms, more patients are assigned to the better treatment on the basis of adaptive randomization. We continuously monitor the trial using the predictive probability for early termination in the case of superiority or futility. We conduct extensive simulation studies to examine the operating characteristics of four designs: the proposed predictive probability adaptive randomization design, the predictive probability equal randomization design, the posterior probability adaptive randomization design, and the group sequential design. Adaptive randomization designs using predictive probability and posterior probability yield a longer overall median survival time than the group sequential design, but at the cost of a slightly larger sample size. The average sample size using the predictive probability method is generally smaller than that of the posterior probability design.     

Bayesian meta-experimental design: evaluating cardiovascular risk in new antidiabetic therapies to treat type 2 diabetes

Recent guidance from the Food and Drug Administration for the evaluation of new therapies in the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2DM) calls for a program-wide meta-analysis of cardiovascular (CV) outcomes. In this context, we develop a new Bayesian meta-analysis approach using survival regression models to assess whether the size of a clinical development program is adequate to evaluate a particular safety endpoint. We propose a Bayesian sample size determination methodology for meta-analysis clinical trial design with a focus on controlling the type I error and power. We also propose the partial borrowing power prior to incorporate the historical survival meta data into the statistical design. Various properties of the proposed methodology are examined and an efficient Markov chain Monte Carlo sampling algorithm is developed to sample from the posterior distributions. In addition, we develop a simulation-based algorithm for computing various quantities, such as the power and the type I error in the Bayesian meta-analysis trial design. The proposed methodology is applied to the design of a phase 2/3 development program including a noninferiority clinical trial for CV risk assessment in T2DM studies.     

Sample size recalculation in internal pilot study designs: a review

The adequacy of sample size is important to clinical trials. In the planning phase of a trial, however, the investigators are often quite uncertain about the sizes of parameters which are needed for sample size calculations. A solution to this problem is mid-course recalculation of the sample size during the ongoing trial. In internal pilot study designs, nuisance parameters are estimated on the basis of interim data and the sample size is adjusted accordingly. This review attempts to give an overview on the available methods. It is written not only for biometricians who are already familar with the the topic and wish to update their knowledge but also for users new to the subject.     

Quantification of prior impact in terms of effective current sample size

Bayesian methods allow borrowing of historical information through prior distributions. The concept of prior effective sample size (prior ESS) facilitates quantification and communication of such prior information by equating it to a sample size. Prior information can arise from historical observations; thus, the traditional approach identifies the ESS with such a historical sample size. However, this measure is independent of newly observed data, and thus would not capture an actual “loss of information” induced by the prior in case of prior-data conflict. We build on a recent work to relate prior impact to the number of (virtual) samples from the current data model and introduce the effective current sample size (ECSS) of a prior, tailored to the application in Bayesian clinical trial designs. Special emphasis is put on robust mixture, power, and commensurate priors. We apply the approach to an adaptive design in which the number of recruited patients is adjusted depending on the effective sample size at an interim analysis. We argue that the ECSS is the appropriate measure in this case, as the aim is to save current (as opposed to historical) patients from recruitment. Furthermore, the ECSS can help overcome lack of consensus in the ESS assessment of mixture priors and can, more broadly, provide further insights into the impact of priors. An R package accompanies the paper.     

Bayesian sample size calculations for comparing two strategies in SMART studies

In the management of most chronic conditions characterized by the lack of universally effective treatments, adaptive treatment strategies (ATSs) have grown in popularity as they offer a more individualized approach. As a result, sequential multiple assignment randomized trials (SMARTs) have gained attention as the most suitable clinical trial design to formalize the study of these strategies. While the number of SMARTs has increased in recent years, sample size and design considerations have generally been carried out in frequentist settings. However, standard frequentist formulae require assumptions on interim response rates and variance components. Misspecifying these can lead to incorrect sample size calculations and correspondingly inadequate levels of power. The Bayesian framework offers a straightforward path to alleviate some of these concerns. In this paper, we provide calculations in a Bayesian setting to allow more realistic and robust estimates that account for uncertainty in inputs through the ‘two priors’ approach. Additionally, compared to the standard frequentist formulae, this methodology allows us to rely on fewer assumptions, integrate pre-trial knowledge, and switch the focus from the standardized effect size to the MDD. The proposed methodology is evaluated in a thorough simulation study and is implemented to estimate the sample size for a full-scale SMART of an internet-based adaptive stress management intervention on cardiovascular disease patients using data from its pilot study conducted in two Canadian provinces.     

Biomarker-Defined Subgroup Selection Adaptive Design for Phase III Confirmatory Trial with Time-to-Event Data: Comparing Group Sequential and Various Adaptive Enrichment Designs

Predictive and prognostic biomarkers play an important role in personalized medicine to determine strategies for drug evaluation and treatment selection. In the context of continuous biomarkers, identification of an optimal cutoff for patient selection can be challenging due to limited information on biomarker predictive value, the biomarker’s distribution in the intended use population, and the complexity of the biomarker relationship to clinical outcomes. As a result, prespecified candidate cutoffs may be rationalized based on biological and practical considerations. In this context, adaptive enrichment designs have been proposed with interim decision rules to select a biomarker-defined subpopulation to optimize study performance. With a group sequential design as a reference, the performance of several proposed adaptive designs are evaluated and compared under various scenarios (e.g., sample size, study power, enrichment effects) where type I error rates are well controlled through closed testing procedures and where subpopulation selections are based upon the predictive probability of trial success. It is found that when the treatment is more effective in a subpopulation, these adaptive designs can improve study power substantially. Furthermore, we identified one adaptive design to have generally higher study power than the other designs under various scenarios.     

Statistical inference for self-designing clinical trials with a one-sided hypothesis

In the process of monitoring clinical trials, it seems appealing to use the interim findings to determine whether the sample size originally planned will provide adequate power when the alternative hypothesis is true, and to adjust the sample size if necessary. In the present paper, we propose a flexible sequential monitoring method following the work of Fisher (1998), in which the maximum sample size does not have to be specified in advance. The final test statistic is constructed based on a weighted average of the sequentially collected data, where the weight function at each stage is determined by the observed data prior to that stage. Such a weight function is used to maintain the integrity of the variance of the final test statistic so that the overall type I error rate is preserved. Moreover, the weight function plays an implicit role in termination of a trial when a treatment difference exists. Finally, the design allows the trial to be stopped early when the efficacy result is sufficiently negative. Simulation studies confirm the performance of the method.     

Optimal promising zone designs

Clinical trials with adaptive sample size reassessment based on an unblinded analysis of interim results are perhaps the most popular class of adaptive designs (see Elsäßer et al., 2007). Such trials are typically designed by prespecifying a zone for the interim test statistic, termed the promising zone, along with a decision rule for increasing the sample size within that zone. Mehta and Pocock (2011) provided some examples of promising zone designs and discussed several procedures for controlling their type‐1 error. They did not, however, address how to choose the promising zone or the corresponding sample size reassessment rule, and proposed instead that the operating characteristics of alternative promising zone designs could be compared by simulation. Jennison and Turnbull (2015) developed an approach based on maximizing expected utility whereby one could evaluate alternative promising zone designs relative to a gold‐standard optimal design. In this paper, we show how, by eliciting a few preferences from the trial sponsor, one can construct promising zone designs that are both intuitive and achieve the Jennison and Turnbull (2015) gold‐standard for optimality.     

Inference on Multiple Endpoints in Clinical Trials with Adaptive Interim Analyses

Planned interim analyses which permit early stopping or sample size adaption of a trial are desirable for ethical and scientific reasons. Multiple test procedures allow inference about several hypotheses within a single clinical trial. In this paper, a method which combines multiple testing with adaptive interim analyses whilst controlling the experimentwise error rate is proposed. The general closed testing principle, the situation of a priori ordered hypotheses, and application of the Bonferroni-Holm method are considered. The practical application of the method is demonstrated by an example.     

A Bootstrap Procedure for Adaptive Selection of the Test Statistic in Flexible Two‐Stage Designs

Adaptive two‐stage designs allow a data‐driven change of design characteristics during the ongoing trial. One of the available options is an adaptive choice of the test statistic for the second stage of the trial based on the results of the interim analysis. Since there is often only a vague knowledge of the distribution shape of the primary endpoint in the planning phase of a study, a change of the test statistic may then be considered if the data indicate that the assumptions underlying the initial choice of the test are not correct. Collings and Hamilton proposed a bootstrap method for the estimation of the power of the two‐sample Wilcoxon test for shift alternatives. We use this approach for the selection of the test statistic. By means of a simulation study, we show that the gain in terms of power may be considerable when the initial assumption about the underlying distribution was wrong, whereas the loss is relatively small when in the first instance the optimal test statistic was chosen. The results also hold true for comparison with a one‐stage design. Application of the method is illustrated by a clinical trial example.     

Design considerations for two-stage enrichment clinical trials

When there is a predictive biomarker, enrichment can focus the clinical trial on a benefiting subpopulation. We describe a two-stage enrichment design, in which the first stage is designed to efficiently estimate a threshold and the second stage is a “phase III-like” trial on the enriched population. The goal of this paper is to explore design issues: sample size in Stages 1 and 2, and re-estimation of the Stage 2 sample size following Stage 1. By treating these as separate trials, we can gain insight into how the predictive nature of the biomarker specifically impacts the sample size. We also show that failure to adequately estimate the threshold can have disastrous consequences in the second stage. While any bivariate model could be used, we assume a continuous outcome and continuous biomarker, described by a bivariate normal model. The correlation coefficient between the outcome and biomarker is the key to understanding the behavior of the design, both for predictive and prognostic biomarkers. Through a series of simulations we illustrate the impact of model misspecification, consequences of poor threshold estimation, and requisite sample sizes that depend on the predictive nature of the biomarker. Such insight should be helpful in understanding and designing enrichment trials.     

Sample size calculation for studies comparing binary outcomes using historical controls

In historical control trials (HCTs), the experimental therapy is compared with a control therapy that has been evaluated in a previously conducted trial. Makuch and Simon developed a sample size formula where the observations from the HC group were considered not subject to sampling variability. Many researchers have pointed out that the Makuch–Simon sample size formula does not preserve the nominal power and type I error. We develop a sample size calculation approach that properly accounts for the uncertainty in the true response rate of the HC group. We demonstrate that the empirical power and type I error, obtained over the simulated HC data, have extremely skewed distributions. We then derive a closed‐form sample size formula that enables researchers to control percentiles, instead of means, of the power and type I error accounting for the skewness of the distributions. A simulation study demonstrates that this approach preserves the operational characteristics in a more realistic scenario where the true response rate of the HC group is unknown. We also show that the controlling percentiles can be used to describe the joint behavior of the power and type I error. It provides a new perspective on the assessment of HCTs.     

Efficiency Considerations for Group Sequential Designs with Adaptive Unblinded Sample Size Re-assessment

Clinical trials with adaptive sample size re-assessment, based on an analysis of the unblinded interim results (ubSSR), have gained in popularity due to uncertainty regarding the value of \(\delta \) at which to power the trial at the start of the study. While the statistical methodology for controlling the type-1 error of such designs is well established, there remain concerns that conventional group sequential designs with no ubSSR can accomplish the same goals with greater efficiency. The precise manner in which this efficiency comparison can be objectified has been difficult to quantify, however. In this paper, we present a methodology for making this comparison in a standard, well-accepted manner by plotting the unconditional power curves of the two approaches while holding constant their expected sample size, at each value of \(\delta \) in the range of interest. It is seen that under reasonable decision rules for increasing sample size (conservative promising zones, and no more than a 50% increase in sample size) there is little or no loss of efficiency for the adaptive designs in terms of unconditional power. The two approaches, however, have very different conditional power profiles. More generally, a methodology has been provided for comparing any design with ubSSR relative to a comparable group sequential design with no ubSSR, so one can determine whether the efficiency loss, if any, of the ubSSR design is offset by the advantages it confers for re-powering the study at the time of the interim analysis.     

Interim monitoring in sequential multiple assignment randomized trials

A sequential multiple assignment randomized trial (SMART) facilitates the comparison of multiple adaptive treatment strategies (ATSs) simultaneously. Previous studies have established a framework to test the homogeneity of multiple ATSs by a global Wald test through inverse probability weighting. SMARTs are generally lengthier than classical clinical trials due to the sequential nature of treatment randomization in multiple stages. Thus, it would be beneficial to add interim analyses allowing for an early stop if overwhelming efficacy is observed. We introduce group sequential methods to SMARTs to facilitate interim monitoring based on the multivariate chi-square distribution. Simulation studies demonstrate that the proposed interim monitoring in SMART (IM-SMART) maintains the desired type I error and power with reduced expected sample size compared to the classical SMART. Finally, we illustrate our method by reanalyzing a SMART assessing the effects of cognitive behavioral and physical therapies in patients with knee osteoarthritis and comorbid subsyndromal depressive symptoms.