A practical comparison of group-sequential and adaptive designs

Sequential methods provide a formal framework by which clinical trial data can be monitored as they accumulate. The results from interim analyses can be used either to modify the design of the remainder of the trial or to stop the trial as soon as sufficient evidence of either the presence or absence of a treatment effect is available. The circumstances under which the trial will be stopped with a claim of superiority for the experimental treatment, must, however, be determined in advance so as to control the overall type I error rate. One approach to calculating the stopping rule is the group-sequential method. A relatively recent alternative to group-sequential approaches is the adaptive design method. This latter approach provides considerable flexibility in changes to the design of a clinical trial at an interim point. However, a criticism is that the method by which evidence from different parts of the trial is combined means that a final comparison of treatments is not based on a sufficient statistic for the treatment difference, suggesting that the method may lack power. The aim of this paper is to compare two adaptive design approaches with the group-sequential approach. We first compare the form of the stopping boundaries obtained using the different methods. We then focus on a comparison of the power of the different trials when they are designed so as to be as similar as possible. We conclude that all methods acceptably control type I error rate and power when the sample size is modified based on a variance estimate, provided no interim analysis is so small that the asymptotic properties of the test statistic no longer hold. In the latter case, the group-sequential approach is to be preferred. Provided that asymptotic assumptions hold, the adaptive design approaches control the type I error rate even if the sample size is adjusted on the basis of an estimate of the treatment effect, showing that the adaptive designs allow more modifications than the group-sequential method.

Active control comparisons: the ideal trial design

This report describes the concept for a clinical trial that uses carbamazepine as the gold-standard active control for a study of newly diagnosed patients. The authors describe an endpoint including efficacy and tolerability, and a stopping rule that uses a series of interim analyses in order to reach a conclusion as efficiently as possible without sacrificing reliability.

Depth by The Rule

This note corrects a previous treatment of algorithms for the metric DTR, Depth by the Rule.

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.