Choice of designs and doses for early phase trials

This paper reviews state-of-art statistical designs for dose-escalation procedures in first-into-man studies. The main focus will be on studies in oncology, as most statistical procedures for phase I trials have been proposed in this context. Extensions to situations such as the observation of bivariate outcomes and healthy volunteer studies are also discussed. The number of dose levels and cohort sizes used in early phase trials are considered. Finally, this paper raises some practical issues for dose-escalation procedures.

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.

Donepezil for the symptomatic treatment of patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease: a meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomised controlled trials

Background: The objective was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of donepezil (5 and 10 mg/day) compared with placebo in alleviating manifestations of mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease (AD). Method: A systematic review of individual patient data from Phase II and III double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled studies of up to 24 weeks and completed by 20 December 1999. The main outcome measures were the ADAS-cog, the CIBIC-plus, and reports of adverse events. Results: A total of 2376 patients from ten trials were randomised to either donepezil 5 mg/day (n = 821), 10 mg/day (n = 662) or placebo (n = 893). Cognitive performance was better in patients receiving donepezil than in patients receiving placebo. At 12 weeks the differences in ADAS-cog scores were 5 mg/day-placebo: - 2.1 [95% confidence interval (CI), - 2.6 to - 1.6; p < 0.001], 10 mg/day-placebo: - 2.5 ( - 3.1 to - 2.0; p < 0.001). The corresponding results at 24 weeks were - 2.0 ( - 2.7 to - 1.3; p < 0.001) and - 3.1 ( - 3.9 to - 2.4; p < 0.001). The difference between the 5 and 10 mg/day doses was significant at 24 weeks (p = 0.005). The odds ratios (OR) of improvement on the CIBIC-plus at 12 weeks were: 5 mg/day-placebo 1.8 (1.5 to 2.1; p < 0.001), 10 mg/day-placebo 1.9 (1.5 to 2.4; p < 0.001). The corresponding values at 24 weeks were 1.9 (1.5 to 2.4; p = 0.001) and 2.1 (1.6 to 2.8; p < 0.001). Donepezil was well tolerated; adverse events were cholinergic in nature and generally of mild severity and brief in duration. Conclusion: Donepezil (5 and 10 mg/day) provides meaningful benefits in alleviating deficits in cognitive and clinician-rated global function in AD patients relative to placebo. Increased improvements in cognition were indicated for the higher dose. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Point estimates and confidence regions for sequential trials involving selection

A number of authors have proposed clinical trial designs involving the comparison of several experimental treatments with a control treatment in two or more stages. At the end of the first stage, the most promising experimental treatment is selected, and all other experimental treatments are dropped from the trial. Provided it is good enough, the selected experimental treatment is then compared with the control treatment in one or more subsequent stages. The analysis of data from such a trial is problematic because of the treatment selection and the possibility of stopping at interim analyses. These aspects lead to bias in the maximum-likelihood estimate of the advantage of the selected experimental treatment over the control and to inaccurate coverage for the associated confidence interval. In this paper, we evaluate the bias of the maximum-likelihood estimate and propose a bias-adjusted estimate. We also propose an approach to the construction of a confidence region for the vector of advantages of the experimental treatments over the control based on an ordering of the sample space. These regions are shown to have accurate coverage, although they are also shown to be necessarily unbounded. Confidence intervals for the advantage of the selected treatment are obtained from the confidence regions and are shown to have more accurate coverage than the standard confidence interval based upon the maximum-likelihood estimate and its asymptotic standard error.

Sequential designs for phase III clinical trials incorporating treatment selection

Most statistical methodology for phase III clinical trials focuses on the comparison of a single experimental treatment with a control. An increasing desire to reduce the time before regulatory approval of a new drug is sought has led to development of two-stage or sequential designs for trials that combine the definitive analysis associated with phase III with the treatment selection element of a phase II study. In this paper we consider a trial in which the most promising of a number of experimental treatments is selected at the first interim analysis. This considerably reduces the computational load associated with the construction of stopping boundaries compared to the approach proposed by Follman, Proschan and Geller (Biometrics 1994; 50: 325-336). The computational requirement does not exceed that for the sequential comparison of a single experimental treatment with a control. Existing methods are extended in two ways. First, the use of the efficient score as a test statistic makes the analysis of binary, normal or failure-time data, as well as adjustment for covariates or stratification straightforward. Second, the question of trial power is also considered, enabling the determination of sample size required to give specified power. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Decision-theoretic designs for phase II clinical trials allowing for competing studies

This article describes an approach to optimal design of phase II clinical trials using Bayesian decision theory. The method proposed extends that suggested by Stallard (1998, Biometrics54, 279–294) in which designs were obtained to maximize a gain function including the cost of drug development and the benefit from a successful therapy. Here, the approach is extended by the consideration of other potential therapies, the development of which is competing for the same limited resources. The resulting optimal designs are shown to have frequentist properties much more similar to those traditionally used in phase II trials.

Meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomised trials: a review of methods used in practice

Background: Meta-analyses based on individual patient data (IPD) are regarded as the gold standard for systematic reviews. However, the methods used for analysing and presenting results from IPD meta-analyses have received little discussion. Methods We review 44 IPD meta-analyses published during the years 1999–2001. We summarize whether they obtained all the data they sought, what types of approaches were used in the analysis, including assumptions of common or random effects, and how they examined the effects of covariates. Results: Twenty-four out of 44 analyses focused on time-to-event outcomes, and most analyses (28) estimated treatment effects within each trial and then combined the results assuming a common treatment effect across trials. Three analyses failed to stratify by trial, analysing the data is if they came from a single mega-trial. Only nine analyses used random effects methods. Covariate-treatment interactions were generally investigated by subgrouping patients. Seven of the meta-analyses included data from less than 80% of the randomized patients sought, but did not address the resulting potential biases. Conclusions: Although IPD meta-analyses have many advantages in assessing the effects of health care, there are several aspects that could be further developed to make fuller use of the potential of these time-consuming projects. In particular, IPD could be used to more fully investigate the influence of covariates on heterogeneity of treatment effects, both within and between trials. The impact of heterogeneity, or use of random effects, are seldom discussed. There is thus considerable scope for enhancing the methods of analysis and presentation of IPD meta-analysis.