Stopping clinical trials because of treatment ineffectiveness: a comparison of a futility design with a method of stochastic curtailment

This paper introduces a simple futility design that allows a comparative clinical trial to be stopped due to lack of effect at any of a series of planned interim analyses. Stopping due to apparent benefit is not permitted. The design is for use when any positive claim should be based on the maximum sample size, for example to allow subgroup analyses or the evaluation of safety or secondary efficacy responses. A final frequentist analysis can be performed that is valid for the type of design employed. Here the design is described and its properties are presented. Its advantages and disadvantages relative to the use of stochastic curtailment are discussed. Copyright (C) 2003 John Wiley Sons, Ltd.

Sequential designs for phase III clinical trials incorporating treatment selection

Most statistical methodology for phase III clinical trials focuses on the comparison of a single experimental treatment with a control. An increasing desire to reduce the time before regulatory approval of a new drug is sought has led to development of two-stage or sequential designs for trials that combine the definitive analysis associated with phase III with the treatment selection element of a phase II study. In this paper we consider a trial in which the most promising of a number of experimental treatments is selected at the first interim analysis. This considerably reduces the computational load associated with the construction of stopping boundaries compared to the approach proposed by Follman, Proschan and Geller (Biometrics 1994; 50: 325-336). The computational requirement does not exceed that for the sequential comparison of a single experimental treatment with a control. Existing methods are extended in two ways. First, the use of the efficient score as a test statistic makes the analysis of binary, normal or failure-time data, as well as adjustment for covariates or stratification straightforward. Second, the question of trial power is also considered, enabling the determination of sample size required to give specified power. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Decision-theoretic designs for phase II clinical trials allowing for competing studies

This article describes an approach to optimal design of phase II clinical trials using Bayesian decision theory. The method proposed extends that suggested by Stallard (1998, Biometrics54, 279–294) in which designs were obtained to maximize a gain function including the cost of drug development and the benefit from a successful therapy. Here, the approach is extended by the consideration of other potential therapies, the development of which is competing for the same limited resources. The resulting optimal designs are shown to have frequentist properties much more similar to those traditionally used in phase II trials.

An adaptive group sequential design for phase II/III clinical trials that select a single treatment from several

There is increasing interest in combining Phases II and III of clinical development into a single trial in which one of a small number of competing experimental treatments is ultimately selected and where a valid comparison is made between this treatment and the control treatment. Such a trial usually proceeds in stages, with the least promising experimental treatments dropped as soon as possible. In this paper we present a highly flexible design that uses adaptive group sequential methodology to monitor an order statistic. By using this approach, it is possible to design a trial which can have any number of stages, begins with any number of experimental treatments, and permits any number of these to continue at any stage. The test statistic used is based upon efficient scores, so the method can be easily applied to binary, ordinal, failure time, or normally distributed outcomes. The method is illustrated with an example, and simulations are conducted to investigate its type I error rate and power under a range of scenarios.

Bayesian sample size for exploratory clinical trials incorporating historical data

This paper presents a simple Bayesian approach to sample size determination in clinical trials. It is required that the trial should be large enough to ensure that the data collected will provide convincing evidence either that an experimental treatment is better than a control or that it fails to improve upon control by some clinically relevant difference. The method resembles standard frequentist formulations of the problem, and indeed in certain circumstances involving 'non-informative' prior information it leads to identical answers. In particular, unlike many Bayesian approaches to sample size determination, use is made of an alternative hypothesis that an experimental treatment is better than a control treatment by some specified magnitude. The approach is introduced in the context of testing whether a single stream of binary observations are consistent with a given success rate p(0). Next the case of comparing two independent streams of normally distributed responses is considered, first under the assumption that their common variance is known and then for unknown variance. Finally, the more general situation in which a large sample is to be collected and analysed according to the asymptotic properties of the score statistic is explored. Copyright (C) 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Bayesian design and conduct of phase II single-arm clinical trials with binary outcomes: a tutorial

The aim of phase II single-arm clinical trials of a new drug is to determine whether it has sufficient promising activity to warrant its further development. For the last several years Bayesian statistical methods have been proposed and used. Bayesian approaches are ideal for earlier phase trials as they take into account information that accrues during a trial. Predictive probabilities are then updated and so become more accurate as the trial progresses. Suitable priors can act as pseudo samples, which make small sample clinical trials more informative. Thus patients have better chances to receive better treatments. The goal of this paper is to provide a tutorial for statisticians who use Bayesian methods for the first time or investigators who have some statistical background. In addition, real data from three clinical trials are presented as examples to illustrate how to conduct a Bayesian approach for phase II single-arm clinical trials with binary outcomes.

A comparison of three different models for estimating relative risk in meta-analysis of clinical trials under unobserved heterogeneity

We focus on the comparison of three statistical models used to estimate the treatment effect in metaanalysis when individually pooled data are available. The models are two conventional models, namely a multi-level and a model based upon an approximate likelihood, and a newly developed model, the profile likelihood model which might be viewed as an extension of the Mantel-Haenszel approach. To exemplify these methods, we use results from a meta-analysis of 22 trials to prevent respiratory tract infections. We show that by using the multi-level approach, in the case of baseline heterogeneity, the number of clusters or components is considerably over-estimated. The approximate and profile likelihood method showed nearly the same pattern for the treatment effect distribution. To provide more evidence two simulation studies are accomplished. The profile likelihood can be considered as a clear alternative to the approximate likelihood model. In the case of strong baseline heterogeneity, the profile likelihood method shows superior behaviour when compared with the multi-level model. Copyright (C) 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

A combined score test for binary and ordinal endpoints from clinical trials

There is growing interest, especially for trials in stroke, in combining multiple endpoints in a single clinical evaluation of an experimental treatment. The endpoints might be repeated evaluations of the same characteristic or alternative measures of progress on different scales. Often they will be binary or ordinal, and those are the cases studied here. In this paper we take a direct approach to combining the univariate score statistics for comparing treatments with respect to each endpoint. The correlations between the score statistics are derived and used to allow a valid combined score test to be applied. A sample size formula is deduced and application in sequential designs is discussed. The method is compared with an alternative approach based on generalized estimating equations in an illustrative analysis and replicated simulations, and the advantages and disadvantages of the two approaches are discussed.

Proposed best practice for statisticians in the reporting and publication of pharmaceutical industry-sponsored clinical trials

In this paper we set out what we consider to be a set of best practices for statisticians in the reporting of pharmaceutical industry-sponsored clinical trials. We make eight recommendations covering: author responsibilities and recognition; publication timing; conflicts of interest; freedom to act; full author access to data; trial registration and independent review. These recommendations are made in the context of the prominent role played by statisticians in the design, conduct, analysis and reporting of pharmaceutical sponsored trials and the perception of the reporting of these trials in the wider community.

The potential for bias in reporting of industry-sponsored clinical trials

Concerns about potentially misleading reporting of pharmaceutical industry research have surfaced many times. The potential for duality (and thereby conflict) of interest is only too clear when you consider the sums of money required for the discovery, development and commercialization of new medicines. As the ability of major, mid-size and small pharmaceutical companies to innovate has waned, as evidenced by the seemingly relentless decline in the numbers of new medicines approved by Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency year-on-year, not only has the cost per new approved medicine risen: so too has the public and media concern about the extent to which the pharmaceutical industry is open and honest about the efficacy, safety and quality of the drugs we manufacture and sell. In 2005 an Editorial in Journal of the American Medical Association made clear that, so great was their concern about misleading reporting of industry-sponsored studies, henceforth no article would be published that was not also guaranteed by independent statistical analysis. We examine the precursors to this Editorial, as well as its immediate and lasting effects for statisticians, for the manner in which statistical analysis is carried out, and for the industry more generally.