Bayesian doubly optimal group sequential designs for randomized clinical trials

When conducting a randomized comparative clinical trial, ethical, scientific or economic considerations often motivate the use of interim decision rules after successive groups of patients have been treated. These decisions may pertain to the comparative efficacy or safety of the treatments under study, cost considerations, the desire to accelerate the drug evaluation process, or the likelihood of therapeutic benefit for future patients. At the time of each interim decision, an important question is whether patient enrollment should continue or be terminated; either due to a high probability that one treatment is superior to the other, or a low probability that the experimental treatment will ultimately prove to be superior. The use of frequentist group sequential decision rules has become routine in the conduct of phase III clinical trials. In this dissertation, we will present a new Bayesian decision-theoretic approach to the problem of designing a randomized group sequential clinical trial, focusing on two-arm trials with time-to-failure outcomes. Forward simulation is used to obtain optimal decision boundaries for each of a set of possible models. At each interim analysis, we use Bayesian model selection to adaptively choose the model having the largest posterior probability of being correct, and we then make the interim decision based on the boundaries that are optimal under the chosen model. We provide a simulation study to compare this method, which we call Bayesian Doubly Optimal Group Sequential (BDOGS), to corresponding frequentist designs using either O'Brien-Fleming (OF) or Pocock boundaries, as obtained from EaSt 2000. Our simulation results show that, over a wide variety of different cases, BDOGS either performs at least as well as both OF and Pocock, or on average provides a much smaller trial. ^

A simulation study using the hybrid statistic and the meta-analysis t-test for data with matched and unmatched subjects in the interim analysis of clinical trials

An interim analysis is usually applied in later phase II or phase III trials to find convincing evidence of a significant treatment difference that may lead to trial termination at an earlier point than planned at the beginning. This can result in the saving of patient resources and shortening of drug development and approval time. In addition, ethics and economics are also the reasons to stop a trial earlier. In clinical trials of eyes, ears, knees, arms, kidneys, lungs, and other clustered treatments, data may include distribution-free random variables with matched and unmatched subjects in one study. It is important to properly include both subjects in the interim and the final analyses so that the maximum efficiency of statistical and clinical inferences can be obtained at different stages of the trials. So far, no publication has applied a statistical method for distribution-free data with matched and unmatched subjects in the interim analysis of clinical trials. In this simulation study, the hybrid statistic was used to estimate the empirical powers and the empirical type I errors among the simulated datasets with different sample sizes, different effect sizes, different correlation coefficients for matched pairs, and different data distributions, respectively, in the interim and final analysis with 4 different group sequential methods. Empirical powers and empirical type I errors were also compared to those estimated by using the meta-analysis t-test among the same simulated datasets. Results from this simulation study show that, compared to the meta-analysis t-test commonly used for data with normally distributed observations, the hybrid statistic has a greater power for data observed from normally, log-normally, and multinomially distributed random variables with matched and unmatched subjects and with outliers. Powers rose with the increase in sample size, effect size, and correlation coefficient for the matched pairs. In addition, lower type I errors were observed estimated by using the hybrid statistic, which indicates that this test is also conservative for data with outliers in the interim analysis of clinical trials.^