On convergence of the maximum likelihood estimator in adaptive designs

Otto-von-Guericke-Universität Magdeburg, Fakultät für Mathematik, Dissertation, 2016

A practical comparison of group-sequential and adaptive designs

Sequential methods provide a formal framework by which clinical trial data can be monitored as they accumulate. The results from interim analyses can be used either to modify the design of the remainder of the trial or to stop the trial as soon as sufficient evidence of either the presence or absence of a treatment effect is available. The circumstances under which the trial will be stopped with a claim of superiority for the experimental treatment, must, however, be determined in advance so as to control the overall type I error rate. One approach to calculating the stopping rule is the group-sequential method. A relatively recent alternative to group-sequential approaches is the adaptive design method. This latter approach provides considerable flexibility in changes to the design of a clinical trial at an interim point. However, a criticism is that the method by which evidence from different parts of the trial is combined means that a final comparison of treatments is not based on a sufficient statistic for the treatment difference, suggesting that the method may lack power. The aim of this paper is to compare two adaptive design approaches with the group-sequential approach. We first compare the form of the stopping boundaries obtained using the different methods. We then focus on a comparison of the power of the different trials when they are designed so as to be as similar as possible. We conclude that all methods acceptably control type I error rate and power when the sample size is modified based on a variance estimate, provided no interim analysis is so small that the asymptotic properties of the test statistic no longer hold. In the latter case, the group-sequential approach is to be preferred. Provided that asymptotic assumptions hold, the adaptive design approaches control the type I error rate even if the sample size is adjusted on the basis of an estimate of the treatment effect, showing that the adaptive designs allow more modifications than the group-sequential method.

Adaptive designs for Phase I dose-finding studies

Improving methodology for Phase I dose-finding studies is currently of great interest in pharmaceutical and medical research. This article discusses the current atmosphere and attitude towards adaptive designs and focuses on the influence of Bayesian approaches.

Missing steps in a staircase: a qualitative study of the perspectives of key stakeholders on the use of adaptive designs in confirmatory trials

Background Despite the promising benefits of adaptive designs (ADs), their routine use, especially in confirmatory trials, is lagging behind the prominence given to them in the statistical literature. Much of the previous research to understand barriers and potential facilitators to the use of ADs has been driven from a pharmaceutical drug development perspective, with little focus on trials in the public sector. In this paper, we explore key stakeholders’ experiences, perceptions and views on barriers and facilitators to the use of ADs in publicly funded confirmatory trials. Methods Semi-structured, in-depth interviews of key stakeholders in clinical trials research (CTU directors, funding board and panel members, statisticians, regulators, chief investigators, data monitoring committee members and health economists) were conducted through telephone or face-to-face sessions, predominantly in the UK. We purposively selected participants sequentially to optimise maximum variation in views and experiences. We employed the framework approach to analyse the qualitative data. Results We interviewed 27 participants. We found some of the perceived barriers to be: lack of knowledge and experience coupled with paucity of case studies, lack of applied training, degree of reluctance to use ADs, lack of bridge funding and time to support design work, lack of statistical expertise, some anxiety about the impact of early trial stopping on researchers’ employment contracts, lack of understanding of acceptable scope of ADs and when ADs are appropriate, and statistical and practical complexities. Reluctance to use ADs seemed to be influenced by: therapeutic area, unfamiliarity, concerns about their robustness in decision-making and acceptability of findings to change practice, perceived complexities and proposed type of AD, among others. Conclusions There are still considerable multifaceted, individual and organisational obstacles to be addressed to improve uptake, and successful implementation of ADs when appropriate. Nevertheless, inferred positive change in attitudes and receptiveness towards the appropriate use of ADs by public funders are supportive and are a stepping stone for the future utilisation of ADs by researchers.

Cross-sector surveys assessing perceptions of key stakeholders towards barriers, concerns and facilitators to the appropriate use of adaptive designs in confirmatory trials

Background Appropriately conducted adaptive designs (ADs) offer many potential advantages over conventional trials. They make better use of accruing data, potentially saving time, trial participants, and limited resources compared to conventional, fixed sample size designs. However, one can argue that ADs are not implemented as often as they should be, particularly in publicly funded confirmatory trials. This study explored barriers, concerns, and potential facilitators to the appropriate use of ADs in confirmatory trials among key stakeholders. Methods We conducted three cross-sectional, online parallel surveys between November 2014 and January 2015. The surveys were based upon findings drawn from in-depth interviews of key research stakeholders, predominantly in the UK, and targeted Clinical Trials Units (CTUs), public funders, and private sector organisations. Response rates were as follows: 30(55 %) UK CTUs, 17(68 %) private sector, and 86(41 %) public funders. A Rating Scale Model was used to rank barriers and concerns in order of perceived importance for prioritisation. Results Top-ranked barriers included the lack of bridge funding accessible to UK CTUs to support the design of ADs, limited practical implementation knowledge, preference for traditional mainstream designs, difficulties in marketing ADs to key stakeholders, time constraints to support ADs relative to competing priorities, lack of applied training, and insufficient access to case studies of undertaken ADs to facilitate practical learning and successful implementation. Associated practical complexities and inadequate data management infrastructure to support ADs were reported as more pronounced in the private sector. For funders of public research, the inadequate description of the rationale, scope, and decision-making criteria to guide the planned AD in grant proposals by researchers were all viewed as major obstacles. Conclusions There are still persistent and important perceptions of individual and organisational obstacles hampering the use of ADs in confirmatory trials research. Stakeholder perceptions about barriers are largely consistent across sectors, with a few exceptions that reflect differences in organisations’ funding structures, experiences and characterisation of study interventions. Most barriers appear connected to a lack of practical implementation knowledge and applied training, and limited access to case studies to facilitate practical learning. Keywords: Adaptive designs; flexible designs; barriers; surveys; confirmatory trials; Phase 3; clinical trials; early stopping; interim analyses

Bayesian adaptive designs for drug combinations in early phase clinical trials

Treating patients with combined agents is a growing trend in cancer clinical trials. Evaluating the synergism of multiple drugs is often the primary motivation for such drug-combination studies. Focusing on the drug combination study in the early phase clinical trials, our research is composed of three parts: (1) We conduct a comprehensive comparison of four dose-finding designs in the two-dimensional toxicity probability space and propose using the Bayesian model averaging method to overcome the arbitrariness of the model specification and enhance the robustness of the design; (2) Motivated by a recent drug-combination trial at MD Anderson Cancer Center with a continuous-dose standard of care agent and a discrete-dose investigational agent, we propose a two-stage Bayesian adaptive dose-finding design based on an extended continual reassessment method; (3) By combining phase I and phase II clinical trials, we propose an extension of a single agent dose-finding design. We model the time-to-event toxicity and efficacy to direct dose finding in two-dimensional drug-combination studies. We conduct extensive simulation studies to examine the operating characteristics of the aforementioned designs and demonstrate the designs' good performances in various practical scenarios.^

Bayesian Adaptive Designs for Early Phase Clinical Trials

My dissertation focuses mainly on Bayesian adaptive designs for phase I and phase II clinical trials. It includes three specific topics: (1) proposing a novel two-dimensional dose-finding algorithm for biological agents, (2) developing Bayesian adaptive screening designs to provide more efficient and ethical clinical trials, and (3) incorporating missing late-onset responses to make an early stopping decision. Treating patients with novel biological agents is becoming a leading trend in oncology. Unlike cytotoxic agents, for which toxicity and efficacy monotonically increase with dose, biological agents may exhibit non-monotonic patterns in their dose-response relationships. Using a trial with two biological agents as an example, we propose a phase I/II trial design to identify the biologically optimal dose combination (BODC), which is defined as the dose combination of the two agents with the highest efficacy and tolerable toxicity. A change-point model is used to reflect the fact that the dose-toxicity surface of the combinational agents may plateau at higher dose levels, and a flexible logistic model is proposed to accommodate the possible non-monotonic pattern for the dose-efficacy relationship. During the trial, we continuously update the posterior estimates of toxicity and efficacy and assign patients to the most appropriate dose combination. We propose a novel dose-finding algorithm to encourage sufficient exploration of untried dose combinations in the two-dimensional space. Extensive simulation studies show that the proposed design has desirable operating characteristics in identifying the BODC under various patterns of dose-toxicity and dose-efficacy relationships. Trials of combination therapies for the treatment of cancer are playing an increasingly important role in the battle against this disease. To more efficiently handle the large number of combination therapies that must be tested, we propose a novel Bayesian phase II adaptive screening design to simultaneously select among possible treatment combinations involving multiple agents. Our design is based on formulating the selection procedure as a Bayesian hypothesis testing problem in which the superiority of each treatment combination is equated to a single hypothesis. During the trial conduct, we use the current values of the posterior probabilities of all hypotheses to adaptively allocate patients to treatment combinations. Simulation studies show that the proposed design substantially outperforms the conventional multi-arm balanced factorial trial design. The proposed design yields a significantly higher probability for selecting the best treatment while at the same time allocating substantially more patients to efficacious treatments. The proposed design is most appropriate for the trials combining multiple agents and screening out the efficacious combination to be further investigated. The proposed Bayesian adaptive phase II screening design substantially outperformed the conventional complete factorial design. Our design allocates more patients to better treatments while at the same time providing higher power to identify the best treatment at the end of the trial. Phase II trial studies usually are single-arm trials which are conducted to test the efficacy of experimental agents and decide whether agents are promising to be sent to phase III trials. Interim monitoring is employed to stop the trial early for futility to avoid assigning unacceptable number of patients to inferior treatments. We propose a Bayesian single-arm phase II design with continuous monitoring for estimating the response rate of the experimental drug. To address the issue of late-onset responses, we use a piece-wise exponential model to estimate the hazard function of time to response data and handle the missing responses using the multiple imputation approach. We evaluate the operating characteristics of the proposed method through extensive simulation studies. We show that the proposed method reduces the total length of the trial duration and yields desirable operating characteristics for different physician-specified lower bounds of response rate with different true response rates.

Bayesian adaptive designs in early phase clinical trials

There are two practical challenges in the phase I clinical trial conduct: lack of transparency to physicians, and the late onset toxicity. In my dissertation, Bayesian approaches are used to address these two problems in clinical trial designs. The proposed simple optimal designs cast the dose finding problem as a decision making process for dose escalation and deescalation. The proposed designs minimize the incorrect decision error rate to find the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). For the late onset toxicity problem, a Bayesian adaptive dose-finding design for drug combination is proposed. The dose-toxicity relationship is modeled using the Finney model. The unobserved delayed toxicity outcomes are treated as missing data and Bayesian data augment is employed to handle the resulting missing data. Extensive simulation studies have been conducted to examine the operating characteristics of the proposed designs and demonstrated the designs' good performances in various practical scenarios.^

Adaptive designs in the time to event setting: The potential for benefit and risk

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Washington, 2016-06

An investigation of the shortcomings of the CONSORT 2010 statement for the reporting of group sequential randomised controlled trials: a methodological systematic review

Background It can be argued that adaptive designs are underused in clinical research. We have explored concerns related to inadequate reporting of such trials, which may influence their uptake. Through a careful examination of the literature, we evaluated the standards of reporting of group sequential (GS) randomised controlled trials, one form of a confirmatory adaptive design. Methods We undertook a systematic review, by searching Ovid MEDLINE from the 1st January 2001 to 23rd September 2014, supplemented with trials from an audit study. We included parallel group, confirmatory, GS trials that were prospectively designed using a Frequentist approach. Eligible trials were examined for compliance in their reporting against the CONSORT 2010 checklist. In addition, as part of our evaluation, we developed a supplementary checklist to explicitly capture group sequential specific reporting aspects, and investigated how these are currently being reported. Results Of the 284 screened trials, 68(24%) were eligible. Most trials were published in “high impact” peer-reviewed journals. Examination of trials established that 46(68%) were stopped early, predominantly either for futility or efficacy. Suboptimal reporting compliance was found in general items relating to: access to full trials protocols; methods to generate randomisation list(s); details of randomisation concealment, and its implementation. Benchmarking against the supplementary checklist, GS aspects were largely inadequately reported. Only 3(7%) trials which stopped early reported use of statistical bias correction. Moreover, 52(76%) trials failed to disclose methods used to minimise the risk of operational bias, due to the knowledge or leakage of interim results. Occurrence of changes to trial methods and outcomes could not be determined in most trials, due to inaccessible protocols and amendments. Discussion and Conclusions There are issues with the reporting of GS trials, particularly those specific to the conduct of interim analyses. Suboptimal reporting of bias correction methods could potentially imply most GS trials stopping early are giving biased results of treatment effects. As a result, research consumers may question credibility of findings to change practice when trials are stopped early. These issues could be alleviated through a CONSORT extension. Assurance of scientific rigour through transparent adequate reporting is paramount to the credibility of findings from adaptive trials. Our systematic literature search was restricted to one database due to resource constraints.

Clinical trial design in non-invasive brain stimulation psychiatric research

Major depressive disorder (MDD) trials - investigating either non-pharmacological or pharmacological interventions - have shown mixed results. Many reasons explain this heterogeneity, but one that stands out is the trial design due to specific challenges in the field. We aimed therefore to review the methodology of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) trials and provide a framework to improve clinical trial design. We performed a systematic review for randomized, controlled MDD trials whose intervention was transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) or transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in MEDLINE and other databases from April 2002 to April 2008. We created an unstructured checklist based on CONSORT guidelines to extract items such as power analysis, sham method, blinding assessment, allocation concealment, operational criteria used for MDD, definition of refractory depression and primary study hypotheses. Thirty-one studies were included. We found that the main methodological issues can be divided in to three groups: (1) issues related to phase II/small trials, (2) issues related to MDD trials and, (3) specific issues of NIBS studies. Taken together, they can threaten study validity and lead to inconclusive results. Feasible solutions include: estimating the sample size a priori; measuring the degree of refractoriness of the subjects; specifying the primary hypothesis and statistical tests; controlling predictor variables through stratification randomization methods or using strict eligibility criteria; adjusting the study design to the target population; using adaptive designs and exploring NIBS efficacy employing biological markers. In conclusion, our study summarizes the main methodological issues of NIBS trials and proposes a number of alternatives to manage them. Copyright (C) 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Experimental investigation on adaptive robust controller designs applied to a free-floating space manipulator

This paper aims to formulate and investigate the application of various nonlinear H(infinity) control methods to a fiee-floating space manipulator subject to parametric uncertainties and external disturbances. From a tutorial perspective, a model-based approach and adaptive procedures based on linear parametrization, neural networks and fuzzy systems are covered by this work. A comparative study is conducted based on experimental implementations performed with an actual underactuated fixed-base planar manipulator which is, following the DEM concept, dynamically equivalent to a free-floating space manipulator. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

HIV-1 vaccines and adaptive trial designs.

Developing a vaccine against the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) poses an exceptional challenge. There are no documented cases of immune-mediated clearance of HIV from an infected individual, and no known correlates of immune protection. Although nonhuman primate models of lentivirus infection have provided valuable data about HIV pathogenesis, such models do not predict HIV vaccine efficacy in humans. The combined lack of a predictive animal model and undefined biomarkers of immune protection against HIV necessitate that vaccines to this pathogen be tested directly in clinical trials. Adaptive clinical trial designs can accelerate vaccine development by rapidly screening out poor vaccines while extending the evaluation of efficacious ones, improving the characterization of promising vaccine candidates and the identification of correlates of immune protection.

An adaptive approach to implementing bivariate group sequential clinical trial designs

In clinical trials, situations often arise where more than one response from each patient is of interest; and it is required that any decision to stop the study be based upon some or all of these measures simultaneously. Theory for the design of sequential experiments with simultaneous bivariate responses is described by Jennison and Turnbull (Jennison, C., Turnbull, B. W. (1993). Group sequential tests for bivariate response: interim analyses of clinical trials with both efficacy and safety endpoints. Biometrics 49:741-752) and Cook and Farewell (Cook, R. J., Farewell, V. T. (1994). Guidelines for monitoring efficacy and toxicity responses in clinical trials. Biometrics 50:1146-1152) in the context of one efficacy and one safety response. These expositions are in terms of normally distributed data with known covariance. The methods proposed require specification of the correlation, ρ between test statistics monitored as part of the sequential test. It can be difficult to quantify ρ and previous authors have suggested simply taking the lowest plausible value, as this will guarantee power. This paper begins with an illustration of the effect that inappropriate specification of ρ can have on the preservation of trial error rates. It is shown that both the type I error and the power can be adversely affected. As a possible solution to this problem, formulas are provided for the calculation of correlation from data collected as part of the trial. An adaptive approach is proposed and evaluated that makes use of these formulas and an example is provided to illustrate the method. Attention is restricted to the bivariate case for ease of computation, although the formulas derived are applicable in the general multivariate case.