Statistical design and analysis of pharmacogenetic trials

Pharmacogenetic trials investigate the effect of genotype on treatment response. When there are two or more treatment groups and two or more genetic groups, investigation of gene-treatment interactions is of key interest. However, calculation of the power to detect such interactions is complicated because this depends not only on the treatment effect size within each genetic group, but also on the number of genetic groups, the size of each genetic group, and the type of genetic effect that is both present and tested for. The scale chosen to measure the magnitude of an interaction can also be problematic, especially for the binary case. Elston et al. proposed a test for detecting the presence of gene-treatment interactions for binary responses, and gave appropriate power calculations. This paper shows how the same approach can also be used for normally distributed responses. We also propose a method for analysing and performing sample size calculations based on a generalized linear model (GLM) approach. The power of the Elston et al. and GLM approaches are compared for the binary and normal case using several illustrative examples. While more sensitive to errors in model specification than the Elston et al. approach, the GLM approach is much more flexible and in many cases more powerful. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

An adaptive group sequential design for phase II/III clinical trials that select a single treatment from several

There is increasing interest in combining Phases II and III of clinical development into a single trial in which one of a small number of competing experimental treatments is ultimately selected and where a valid comparison is made between this treatment and the control treatment. Such a trial usually proceeds in stages, with the least promising experimental treatments dropped as soon as possible. In this paper we present a highly flexible design that uses adaptive group sequential methodology to monitor an order statistic. By using this approach, it is possible to design a trial which can have any number of stages, begins with any number of experimental treatments, and permits any number of these to continue at any stage. The test statistic used is based upon efficient scores, so the method can be easily applied to binary, ordinal, failure time, or normally distributed outcomes. The method is illustrated with an example, and simulations are conducted to investigate its type I error rate and power under a range of scenarios.

Active-control trials with binary data: a comparison of methods for testing superiority or non-inferiority using the odds ratio

This paper considers methods for testing for superiority or non-inferiority in active-control trials with binary data, when the relative treatment effect is expressed as an odds ratio. Three asymptotic tests for the log-odds ratio based on the unconditional binary likelihood are presented, namely the likelihood ratio, Wald and score tests. All three tests can be implemented straightforwardly in standard statistical software packages, as can the corresponding confidence intervals. Simulations indicate that the three alternatives are similar in terms of the Type I error, with values close to the nominal level. However, when the non-inferiority margin becomes large, the score test slightly exceeds the nominal level. In general, the highest power is obtained from the score test, although all three tests are similar and the observed differences in power are not of practical importance. Copyright (C) 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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.