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.

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.

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.

A combined score test for binary and ordinal endpoints from clinical trials

There is growing interest, especially for trials in stroke, in combining multiple endpoints in a single clinical evaluation of an experimental treatment. The endpoints might be repeated evaluations of the same characteristic or alternative measures of progress on different scales. Often they will be binary or ordinal, and those are the cases studied here. In this paper we take a direct approach to combining the univariate score statistics for comparing treatments with respect to each endpoint. The correlations between the score statistics are derived and used to allow a valid combined score test to be applied. A sample size formula is deduced and application in sequential designs is discussed. The method is compared with an alternative approach based on generalized estimating equations in an illustrative analysis and replicated simulations, and the advantages and disadvantages of the two approaches are discussed.

Proposed best practice for statisticians in the reporting and publication of pharmaceutical industry-sponsored clinical trials

In this paper we set out what we consider to be a set of best practices for statisticians in the reporting of pharmaceutical industry-sponsored clinical trials. We make eight recommendations covering: author responsibilities and recognition; publication timing; conflicts of interest; freedom to act; full author access to data; trial registration and independent review. These recommendations are made in the context of the prominent role played by statisticians in the design, conduct, analysis and reporting of pharmaceutical sponsored trials and the perception of the reporting of these trials in the wider community.

The potential for bias in reporting of industry-sponsored clinical trials

Concerns about potentially misleading reporting of pharmaceutical industry research have surfaced many times. The potential for duality (and thereby conflict) of interest is only too clear when you consider the sums of money required for the discovery, development and commercialization of new medicines. As the ability of major, mid-size and small pharmaceutical companies to innovate has waned, as evidenced by the seemingly relentless decline in the numbers of new medicines approved by Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency year-on-year, not only has the cost per new approved medicine risen: so too has the public and media concern about the extent to which the pharmaceutical industry is open and honest about the efficacy, safety and quality of the drugs we manufacture and sell. In 2005 an Editorial in Journal of the American Medical Association made clear that, so great was their concern about misleading reporting of industry-sponsored studies, henceforth no article would be published that was not also guaranteed by independent statistical analysis. We examine the precursors to this Editorial, as well as its immediate and lasting effects for statisticians, for the manner in which statistical analysis is carried out, and for the industry more generally.

A practical comparison of blinded methods for sample size reviews in survival data clinical trials.

This paper presents practical approaches to the problem of sample size re-estimation in the case of clinical trials with survival data when proportional hazards can be assumed. When data are readily available at the time of the review, on a full range of survival experiences across the recruited patients, it is shown that, as expected, performing a blinded re-estimation procedure is straightforward and can help to maintain the trial's pre-specified error rates. Two alternative methods for dealing with the situation where limited survival experiences are available at the time of the sample size review are then presented and compared. In this instance, extrapolation is required in order to undertake the sample size re-estimation. Worked examples, together with results from a simulation study are described. It is concluded that, as in the standard case, use of either extrapolation approach successfully protects the trial error rates. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Conditionally unbiased estimation in phase II/III clinical trials with early stopping for futility

Seamless phase II/III clinical trials combine traditional phases II and III into a single trial that is conducted in two stages, with stage 1 used to answer phase II objectives such as treatment selection and stage 2 used for the confirmatory analysis, which is a phase III objective. Although seamless phase II/III clinical trials are efficient because the confirmatory analysis includes phase II data from stage 1, inference can pose statistical challenges. In this paper, we consider point estimation following seamless phase II/III clinical trials in which stage 1 is used to select the most effective experimental treatment and to decide if, compared with a control, the trial should stop at stage 1 for futility. If the trial is not stopped, then the phase III confirmatory part of the trial involves evaluation of the selected most effective experimental treatment and the control. We have developed two new estimators for the treatment difference between these two treatments with the aim of reducing bias conditional on the treatment selection made and on the fact that the trial continues to stage 2. We have demonstrated the properties of these estimators using simulations

A comparison of methods for constructing confidence intervals after phase II/III clinical trials

Recently, in order to accelerate drug development, trials that use adaptive seamless designs such as phase II/III clinical trials have been proposed. Phase II/III clinical trials combine traditional phases II and III into a single trial that is conducted in two stages. Using stage 1 data, an interim analysis is performed to answer phase II objectives and after collection of stage 2 data, a final confirmatory analysis is performed to answer phase III objectives. In this paper we consider phase II/III clinical trials in which, at stage 1, several experimental treatments are compared to a control and the apparently most effective experimental treatment is selected to continue to stage 2. Although these trials are attractive because the confirmatory analysis includes phase II data from stage 1, the inference methods used for trials that compare a single experimental treatment to a control and do not have an interim analysis are no longer appropriate. Several methods for analysing phase II/III clinical trials have been developed. These methods are recent and so there is little literature on extensive comparisons of their characteristics. In this paper we review and compare the various methods available for constructing confidence intervals after phase II/III clinical trials.

A comparison of methods for treatment selection in seamless phase II/III clinical trials incorporating information on short-term endpoints

In an adaptive seamless phase II/III clinical trial interim analysis, data are used for treatment selection, enabling resources to be focused on comparison of more effective treatment(s) with a control. In this paper, we compare two methods recently proposed to enable use of short-term endpoint data for decision-making at the interim analysis. The comparison focuses on the power and the probability of correctly identifying the most promising treatment. We show that the choice of method depends on how well short-term data predict the best treatment, which may be measured by the correlation between treatment effects on short- and long-term endpoints.