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.^

A simulation study of the effects of small center enrollment in multi -center clinical trials

Multi-center clinical trials are very common in the development of new drugs and devices. One concern in such trials, is the effect of individual investigational sites enrolling small numbers of patients on the overall result. Can the presence of small centers cause an ineffective treatment to appear effective when treatment-by-center interaction is not statistically significant?^ In this research, simulations are used to study the effect that centers enrolling few patients may have on the analysis of clinical trial data. A multi-center clinical trial with 20 sites is simulated to investigate the effect of a new treatment in comparison to a placebo treatment. Twelve of these 20 investigational sites are considered small, each enrolling less than four patients per treatment group. Three clinical trials are simulated with sample sizes of 100, 170 and 300. The simulated data is generated with various characteristics, one in which treatment should be considered effective and another where treatment is not effective. Qualitative interactions are also produced within the small sites to further investigate the effect of small centers under various conditions.^ Standard analysis of variance methods and the "sometimes-pool" testing procedure are applied to the simulated data. One model investigates treatment and center effect and treatment-by-center interaction. Another model investigates treatment effect alone. These analyses are used to determine the power to detect treatment-by-center interactions, and the probability of type I error.^ We find it is difficult to detect treatment-by-center interactions when only a few investigational sites enrolling a limited number of patients participate in the interaction. However, we find no increased risk of type I error in these situations. In a pooled analysis, when the treatment is not effective, the probability of finding a significant treatment effect in the absence of significant treatment-by-center interaction is well within standard limits of type I error. ^