Sample size considerations in active-control non-inferiority trials with binary data based on the odds ratio

This paper presents an approximate closed form sample size formula for determining non-inferiority in active-control trials with binary data. We use the odds-ratio as the measure of the relative treatment effect, derive the sample size formula based on the score test and compare it with a second, well-known formula based on the Wald test. Both closed form formulae are compared with simulations based on the likelihood ratio test. Within the range of parameter values investigated, the score test closed form formula is reasonably accurate when non-inferiority margins are based on odds-ratios of about 0.5 or above and when the magnitude of the odds ratio under the alternative hypothesis lies between about 1 and 2.5. The accuracy generally decreases as the odds ratio under the alternative hypothesis moves upwards from 1. As the non-inferiority margin odds ratio decreases from 0.5, the score test closed form formula increasingly overestimates the sample size irrespective of the magnitude of the odds ratio under the alternative hypothesis. The Wald test closed form formula is also reasonably accurate in the cases where the score test closed form formula works well. Outside these scenarios, the Wald test closed form formula can either underestimate or overestimate the sample size, depending on the magnitude of the non-inferiority margin odds ratio and the odds ratio under the alternative hypothesis. Although neither approximation is accurate for all cases, both approaches lead to satisfactory sample size calculation for non-inferiority trials with binary data where the odds ratio is the parameter of interest.

Missing steps in a staircase: a qualitative study of the perspectives of key stakeholders on the use of adaptive designs in confirmatory trials

Background Despite the promising benefits of adaptive designs (ADs), their routine use, especially in confirmatory trials, is lagging behind the prominence given to them in the statistical literature. Much of the previous research to understand barriers and potential facilitators to the use of ADs has been driven from a pharmaceutical drug development perspective, with little focus on trials in the public sector. In this paper, we explore key stakeholders’ experiences, perceptions and views on barriers and facilitators to the use of ADs in publicly funded confirmatory trials. Methods Semi-structured, in-depth interviews of key stakeholders in clinical trials research (CTU directors, funding board and panel members, statisticians, regulators, chief investigators, data monitoring committee members and health economists) were conducted through telephone or face-to-face sessions, predominantly in the UK. We purposively selected participants sequentially to optimise maximum variation in views and experiences. We employed the framework approach to analyse the qualitative data. Results We interviewed 27 participants. We found some of the perceived barriers to be: lack of knowledge and experience coupled with paucity of case studies, lack of applied training, degree of reluctance to use ADs, lack of bridge funding and time to support design work, lack of statistical expertise, some anxiety about the impact of early trial stopping on researchers’ employment contracts, lack of understanding of acceptable scope of ADs and when ADs are appropriate, and statistical and practical complexities. Reluctance to use ADs seemed to be influenced by: therapeutic area, unfamiliarity, concerns about their robustness in decision-making and acceptability of findings to change practice, perceived complexities and proposed type of AD, among others. Conclusions There are still considerable multifaceted, individual and organisational obstacles to be addressed to improve uptake, and successful implementation of ADs when appropriate. Nevertheless, inferred positive change in attitudes and receptiveness towards the appropriate use of ADs by public funders are supportive and are a stepping stone for the future utilisation of ADs by researchers.

An investigation of the shortcomings of the CONSORT 2010 statement for the reporting of group sequential randomised controlled trials: a methodological systematic review

Background It can be argued that adaptive designs are underused in clinical research. We have explored concerns related to inadequate reporting of such trials, which may influence their uptake. Through a careful examination of the literature, we evaluated the standards of reporting of group sequential (GS) randomised controlled trials, one form of a confirmatory adaptive design. Methods We undertook a systematic review, by searching Ovid MEDLINE from the 1st January 2001 to 23rd September 2014, supplemented with trials from an audit study. We included parallel group, confirmatory, GS trials that were prospectively designed using a Frequentist approach. Eligible trials were examined for compliance in their reporting against the CONSORT 2010 checklist. In addition, as part of our evaluation, we developed a supplementary checklist to explicitly capture group sequential specific reporting aspects, and investigated how these are currently being reported. Results Of the 284 screened trials, 68(24%) were eligible. Most trials were published in “high impact” peer-reviewed journals. Examination of trials established that 46(68%) were stopped early, predominantly either for futility or efficacy. Suboptimal reporting compliance was found in general items relating to: access to full trials protocols; methods to generate randomisation list(s); details of randomisation concealment, and its implementation. Benchmarking against the supplementary checklist, GS aspects were largely inadequately reported. Only 3(7%) trials which stopped early reported use of statistical bias correction. Moreover, 52(76%) trials failed to disclose methods used to minimise the risk of operational bias, due to the knowledge or leakage of interim results. Occurrence of changes to trial methods and outcomes could not be determined in most trials, due to inaccessible protocols and amendments. Discussion and Conclusions There are issues with the reporting of GS trials, particularly those specific to the conduct of interim analyses. Suboptimal reporting of bias correction methods could potentially imply most GS trials stopping early are giving biased results of treatment effects. As a result, research consumers may question credibility of findings to change practice when trials are stopped early. These issues could be alleviated through a CONSORT extension. Assurance of scientific rigour through transparent adequate reporting is paramount to the credibility of findings from adaptive trials. Our systematic literature search was restricted to one database due to resource constraints.

Cross-sector surveys assessing perceptions of key stakeholders towards barriers, concerns and facilitators to the appropriate use of adaptive designs in confirmatory trials

Background Appropriately conducted adaptive designs (ADs) offer many potential advantages over conventional trials. They make better use of accruing data, potentially saving time, trial participants, and limited resources compared to conventional, fixed sample size designs. However, one can argue that ADs are not implemented as often as they should be, particularly in publicly funded confirmatory trials. This study explored barriers, concerns, and potential facilitators to the appropriate use of ADs in confirmatory trials among key stakeholders. Methods We conducted three cross-sectional, online parallel surveys between November 2014 and January 2015. The surveys were based upon findings drawn from in-depth interviews of key research stakeholders, predominantly in the UK, and targeted Clinical Trials Units (CTUs), public funders, and private sector organisations. Response rates were as follows: 30(55 %) UK CTUs, 17(68 %) private sector, and 86(41 %) public funders. A Rating Scale Model was used to rank barriers and concerns in order of perceived importance for prioritisation. Results Top-ranked barriers included the lack of bridge funding accessible to UK CTUs to support the design of ADs, limited practical implementation knowledge, preference for traditional mainstream designs, difficulties in marketing ADs to key stakeholders, time constraints to support ADs relative to competing priorities, lack of applied training, and insufficient access to case studies of undertaken ADs to facilitate practical learning and successful implementation. Associated practical complexities and inadequate data management infrastructure to support ADs were reported as more pronounced in the private sector. For funders of public research, the inadequate description of the rationale, scope, and decision-making criteria to guide the planned AD in grant proposals by researchers were all viewed as major obstacles. Conclusions There are still persistent and important perceptions of individual and organisational obstacles hampering the use of ADs in confirmatory trials research. Stakeholder perceptions about barriers are largely consistent across sectors, with a few exceptions that reflect differences in organisations’ funding structures, experiences and characterisation of study interventions. Most barriers appear connected to a lack of practical implementation knowledge and applied training, and limited access to case studies to facilitate practical learning. Keywords: Adaptive designs; flexible designs; barriers; surveys; confirmatory trials; Phase 3; clinical trials; early stopping; interim analyses

Randomized control trials in an imperfect world

Randomized control trials (RCTs) have become increasingly important as an evidence-based method to evaluate interventions such as government programs and policy initiatives. Frequently, however, RCTs are characterized by ``imperfect compliance'' in that not all the subjects who are randomly assigned to take a treatment choose to do so. This could result in a failure to identify the treatment effect, or the impact of the treatment on the the population. However, useful information on treatment effectiveness can still be recovered by estimating ``bounds'' or a range of values in which treatment effectiveness can lie.

Can milk proteins be a useful tool in the management of cardiometabolic health? An updated review of human intervention trials

The prevalence of cardiometabolic diseases is a significant public health burden worldwide. Emerging evidence supports the inverse association between greater dairy consumption and reduced risk of cardiometabolic diseases. Dairy proteins may have in important role in the favourable impact of dairy on human health such as blood pressure (BP) control, blood lipid and glucose control. The purpose of this review is to update and critically evaluate the evidence on the impacts of casein and whey protein in relation to metabolic function. Evidence from acute clinical studies assessing postprandial responses to milk protein ingestion suggests benefits on vascular function independent of BP, as well as improvement in glycaemic homeostasis. Chronic interventions have been less conclusive, with some showing benefits and others indicating a lack of improvement in vascular function. During chronic consumption BP appears to be lowered and both dyslipidaemia and hyperglacaemia seems to be controlled. Limited number of trials investigated the effects of dairy proteins on oxidative stress and inflammation. The beneficial changes in cardiometabolic homeostasis are likely mediated through improvements in insulin resistance, however to gain more detailed understanding on the underlying mechanism of milk proteins warrants further research. The incorporation of meals enriched with dairy protein in the habitual diet may result in the beneficial effects on cardiometabolic health. Nevertheless, future well-designed, controlled studies are needed to investigate the relative effects of both casein and whey protein on BP, vascular function, glucose homeostasis and inflammation.