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.