Dataset Information

Futility rules in bioequivalence trials with sequential designs.

ABSTRACT: Health Canada, the US Food and Drug Administration, as well as the European Medicines Agency consider sequential designs acceptable for bioequivalence studies as long as the type I error is controlled at 5%. The EU guideline explicitly asks for specification of stopping rules, so the goal of this work is to investigate how stopping rules may affect type I errors and power for recently published sequential bioequivalence trial designs. Using extensive trial simulations, five different futility rules were evaluated for their effect on type I error rates and power in two-stage scenarios. Under some circumstances, notably low sample size in stage 1 and/or high variability power may be very severely affected by the stopping rules, whereas type I error rates appear less affected. Because applicants may initiate sequential studies when the variability is not known in advance, achieving sufficient power and thereby complying with certain guideline requirements may be challenging and application of optimistic futility rules could possibly be unethical. This is the first work to investigate how futility rules affect type I errors and power in sequential bioequivalence trials.

SUBMITTER: Fuglsang A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3889523 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Futility rules in bioequivalence trials with sequential designs.

Fuglsang Anders A

The AAPS journal 20131112 1

Health Canada, the US Food and Drug Administration, as well as the European Medicines Agency consider sequential designs acceptable for bioequivalence studies as long as the type I error is controlled at 5%. The EU guideline explicitly asks for specification of stopping rules, so the goal of this work is to investigate how stopping rules may affect type I errors and power for recently published sequential bioequivalence trial designs. Using extensive trial simulations, five different futility ru ...[more]

PMID: 24218038

Similar Datasets

Project description:In clinical trials, the opportunity for an early stop during an interim analysis (either for efficacy or for futility) may relevantly save time and financial resources. This is especially important, if the planning assumptions required for power calculation are based on a low level of evidence. For example, when including two primary endpoints in the confirmatory analysis, the power of the trial depends on the effects of both endpoints and on their correlation. Assessing the feasibility of such a trial is therefore difficult, as the number of parameter assumptions to be correctly specified is large. For this reason, so-called 'group sequential designs' are of particular importance in this setting. Whereas the choice of adequate boundaries to stop a trial early for efficacy has been broadly discussed in the literature, the choice of optimal futility boundaries has not been investigated so far, although this may have serious consequences with respect to performance characteristics.In this work, we propose a general method to construct 'optimal' futility boundaries according to predefined criteria. Further, we present three different group sequential designs for two endpoints applying these futility boundaries. Our methods are illustrated by a real clinical trial example and by Monte-Carlo simulations.By construction, the provided method of choosing futility boundaries maximizes the probability to correctly stop in case of small or opposite effects while limiting the power loss and the probability of stopping the study 'wrongly'. Our results clearly demonstrate the benefit of using such 'optimal' futility boundaries, especially compared to futility boundaries commonly applied in practice.As the properties of futility boundaries are often not considered in practice and unfavorably chosen futility boundaries may imply bad properties of the study design, we recommend assessing the performance of these boundaries according to the criteria proposed in here.

Project description:BackgroundIn clinical trials with fixed study designs, statistical inference is only made when the trial is completed. In contrast, group sequential designs allow an early stopping of the trial at interim, either for efficacy when the treatment effect is significant or for futility when the treatment effect seems too small to justify a continuation of the trial. Efficacy stopping boundaries based on alpha spending functions have been widely discussed in the statistical literature, and there is also solid work on the choice of adequate futility stopping boundaries. Still, futility boundaries are often chosen with little or completely without theoretical justification, in particular in investigator initiated trails. Some authors contributed to fill this gap. In here, we rely on an idea of Schüler et al. (2017) who discuss optimality criteria for futility boundaries for the special case of trials with (multiple) time-to-event endpoints. Their concept can be adopted to define "optimal" futility boundaries (with respect to given performance indicators) for continuous endpoints.MethodsWe extend Schülers' definition for "optimal" futility boundaries to the most common study situation of a single continuous primary endpoint compared between two groups. First, we introduce the analytic algorithm to derive these futility boundaries. Second, the new concept is applied to a real clinical trial example. Finally, the performance of a study design with an "optimal" futility boundary is compared to designs with arbitrarily chosen futility boundaries.ResultsThe presented concept of deriving futility boundaries allows to control the probability of wrongly stopping for futility, that means stopping for futility even if the treatment effect is promizing. At the same time, the loss in power is also controlled by this approach. Moreover, "optimal" futility boundaries improve the probability of correctly stopping for futility under the null hypothesis of no difference between two groups.ConclusionsThe choice of futility boundaries should be thoroughly investigated at the planning stage. The sometimes met, arbitrary choice of futility boundaries can lead to a substantial negative impact on performance. Applying futility boundaries with predefined optimization criteria increases efficiency of group sequential designs. Other optimization criteria than proposed in here might be incorporated.

Project description:BackgroundAn adequate sample size calculation is essential for designing a successful clinical trial. One way to tackle planning difficulties regarding parameter assumptions required for sample size calculation is to adapt the sample size during the ongoing trial.This can be attained by adaptive group sequential study designs. At a predefined timepoint, the interim effect is tested for significance. Based on the interim test result, the trial is either stopped or continued with the possibility of a sample size recalculation.ObjectivesSample size recalculation rules have different limitations in application like a high variability of the recalculated sample size. Hence, the goal is to provide a tool to counteract this performance limitation.MethodsSample size recalculation rules can be interpreted as functions of the observed interim effect. Often, a "jump" from the first stage's sample size to the maximal sample size at a rather arbitrarily chosen interim effect size is implemented and the curve decreases monotonically afterwards. This jump is one reason for a high variability of the sample size. In this work, we investigate how the shape of the recalculation function can be improved by implementing a smoother increase of the sample size. The design options are evaluated by means of Monte Carlo simulations. Evaluation criteria are univariate performance measures such as the conditional power and sample size as well as a conditional performance score which combines these components.ResultsWe demonstrate that smoothing corrections can reduce variability in conditional power and sample size as well as they increase the performance with respect to a recently published conditional performance score for medium and large standardized effect sizes.ConclusionBased on the simulation study, we present a tool that is easily implemented to improve sample size recalculation rules. The approach can be combined with existing sample size recalculation rules described in the literature.

Project description:BackgroundTrial design plays a key role in clinical trials. Traditional group sequential design has been used in cardiovascular clinical trials over decades as the trials can potentially be stopped early, therefore, it can reduce pre-planned sample size and trial resources. In contrast, trials with adoptive designs provide greater flexibility and are more efficient due to the ability to modify trial design according to the interim analysis results. In this systematic review, we aim to explore characteristics of adaptive and traditional group sequential trials in practice and to gain an understanding how these trial designs are currently being reported in cardiology.MethodsPubMed, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials database were searched from January 1980 to June 2022. Randomised controlled phase 2/3 trials with either adaptive or traditional group sequential design in patients with cardiovascular disease were included. Descriptive statistics were used to present the collected data.ResultsOf 456 articles found in the initial search, 56 were identified including 43 (76.8%) trials with traditional group sequential design and 13 (23.2%) with adaptive. Most trials were large, multicentre, led by the USA (50%) and Europe (28.6%), and were funded by companies (78.6%). For trials with group sequential design, frequency of interim analyses was determined mainly by the number of events (47%). 67% of the trials stopped early, in which 14 (32.6%) were due to efficacy, and 5 (11.6%) for futility. The commonly used stopping rule to terminate trials was O'Brien- Fleming-type alpha spending function (10 (23.3%)). For trials with adaptive designs, 54% of the trials stopped early, in which 4 (30.8%) were due to futility, and 2 (15.4%) for efficacy. Sample size re-estimation was commonly used (8 (61.5%)). In 69% of the trials, simulation including Bayesian approach was used to define the statistical stopping rules. The adaptive designs have been increasingly used (from 0 to 1999 to 38.6% after 2015 amongst adaptive trials). 25% of the trials reported "adaptive" in abstract or title of the studies.ConclusionsThe application of adaptive trials is increasingly popular in cardiovascular clinical trials. The reporting of adaptive design needs improving.

Dataset Information

Futility rules in bioequivalence trials with sequential designs.

Publications

Futility rules in bioequivalence trials with sequential designs.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets