Adding experimental arms to platform clinical trials: randomization procedures and interim analyses.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Ventz S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5862294 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Apr
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Adding experimental arms to platform clinical trials: randomization procedures and interim analyses.
Ventz Steffen S Cellamare Matteo M Parmigiani Giovanni G Trippa Lorenzo L
Biostatistics (Oxford, England) 20180401 2
Multi-arm clinical trials use a single control arm to evaluate multiple experimental treatments. In most cases this feature makes multi-arm studies considerably more efficient than two-arm studies. A bottleneck for implementation of a multi-arm trial is the requirement that all experimental treatments have to be available at the enrollment of the first patient. New drugs are rarely at the same stage of development. These limitations motivate our study of statistical methods for adding new experi ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundExperimental treatments pass through various stages of development. If a treatment passes through early-phase experiments, the investigators may want to assess it in a late-phase randomised controlled trial. An efficient way to do this is adding it as a new research arm to an ongoing trial while the existing research arms continue, a so-called multi-arm platform trial. The familywise type I error rate is often a key quantity of interest in any multi-arm platform trial. We set out to clarify how it should be calculated when new arms are added to a trial some time after it has started.MethodsWe show how the familywise type I error rate, any-pair and all-pairs powers can be calculated when a new arm is added to a platform trial. We extend the Dunnett probability and derive analytical formulae for the correlation between the test statistics of the existing pairwise comparison and that of the newly added arm. We also verify our analytical derivation via simulations.ResultsOur results indicate that the familywise type I error rate depends on the shared control arm information (i.e. individuals in continuous and binary outcomes and primary outcome events in time-to-event outcomes) from the common control arm patients and the allocation ratio. The familywise type I error rate is driven more by the number of pairwise comparisons and the corresponding (pairwise) type I error rates than by the timing of the addition of the new arms. The familywise type I error rate can be estimated using Šidák's correction if the correlation between the test statistics of pairwise comparisons is less than 0.30.ConclusionsThe findings we present in this article can be used to design trials with pre-planned deferred arms or to add new pairwise comparisons within an ongoing platform trial where control of the pairwise error rate or familywise type I error rate (for a subset of pairwise comparisons) is required.
| S-EPMC7263043 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPlatform trials facilitate efficient use of resources by comparing multiple experimental agents to a common standard of care arm. They can accommodate a changing scientific paradigm within a single trial protocol by adding or dropping experimental arms-critical features for trials in rapidly developing disease areas such as COVID-19 or cancer therapeutics. However, in these trials, efficacy and safety issues may render certain participant subgroups ineligible to some experimental arms, and methods for stratified randomization do not readily apply to this setting.MethodsWe propose extensions for conventional methods of stratified randomization for platform trials whose experimental arms may differ in eligibility criteria. These methods balance on a prespecified set of stratification variables observable prior to arm assignment that remains the same across experimental arms. To do so, we suggest modifying block randomization by including experimental arm eligibility as a stratifying variable, and we suggest modifying the imbalance score calculation in dynamic balancing by performing pairwise comparisons between each eligible experimental arm and standard of care arm participants eligible to that experimental arm.ResultsWe provide worked examples to illustrate the proposed extensions. In addition, we also provide a formula to quantify the relative efficiency loss of platform trials with varying eligibility compared with trials with non-varying eligibility as measured by the size of the common standard of care arm.ConclusionsThis article presents important extensions to conventional methods for stratified randomization in order to facilitate the implementation of platform trials with differing experimental arm eligibility.
| S-EPMC8478711 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In randomized-controlled trials, interim analyses are often planned for possible early trial termination to claim superiority or futility of a new therapy. While unblinding is necessary to conduct the formal interim analysis in blinded studies, blinded data also have information about the potential treatment difference between the groups. We developed a blinded data monitoring tool that enables investigators to predict whether they observe such an unblinded interim analysis results that supports early termination of the trial. Investigators may skip some of the planned interim analyses if an early termination is unlikely. We specifically focused on blinded, randomized-controlled studies to compare binary endpoints of a new treatment with a control. Assuming one interim analysis is planned for early termination for superiority or futility, we conducted extensive simulation studies to assess the impact of the implementation of our tool on the size, power, expected number of interim analyses, and bias in the treatment effect. The numerical study showed the proposed monitoring tool does not affect size or power, but dramatically reduces the expected number of interim analyses when the effect of the treatment difference is small. The tool serves as a useful reference when interpreting the summary of the blinded data throughout the course of the trial, without losing integrity of the study. This tool could potentially save the study resources and budget by avoiding unnecessary interim analyses.
| S-EPMC5898570 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMultiple-arm randomized trials can be more complex in their design, data analysis, and result reporting than two-arm trials. We conducted a systematic review to assess the reporting of analyses in reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with multiple arms.MethodsThe literature in the MEDLINE database was searched for reports of RCTs with multiple arms published in 2009 in the core clinical journals. Two reviewers extracted data using a standardized extraction form.ResultsIn total, 298 reports were identified. Descriptions of the baseline characteristics and outcomes per group were missing in 45 reports (15.1%) and 48 reports (16.1%), respectively. More than half of the articles (n = 171, 57.4%) reported that a planned global test comparison was used (that is, assessment of the global differences between all groups), but 67 (39.2%) of these 171 articles did not report details of the planned analysis. Of the 116 articles reporting a global comparison test, 12 (10.3%) did not report the analysis as planned. In all, 60% of publications (n = 180) described planned pairwise test comparisons (that is, assessment of the difference between two groups), but 20 of these 180 articles (11.1%) did not report the pairwise test comparisons. Of the 204 articles reporting pairwise test comparisons, the comparisons were not planned for 44 (21.6%) of them. Less than half the reports (n = 137; 46%) provided baseline and outcome data per arm and reported the analysis as planned.ConclusionsOur findings highlight discrepancies between the planning and reporting of analyses in reports of multiple-arm trials.
| S-EPMC3621416 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRandomization is the foundation of any clinical trial involving treatment comparison. It helps mitigate selection bias, promotes similarity of treatment groups with respect to important known and unknown confounders, and contributes to the validity of statistical tests. Various restricted randomization procedures with different probabilistic structures and different statistical properties are available. The goal of this paper is to present a systematic roadmap for the choice and application of a restricted randomization procedure in a clinical trial.MethodsWe survey available restricted randomization procedures for sequential allocation of subjects in a randomized, comparative, parallel group clinical trial with equal (1:1) allocation. We explore statistical properties of these procedures, including balance/randomness tradeoff, type I error rate and power. We perform head-to-head comparisons of different procedures through simulation under various experimental scenarios, including cases when common model assumptions are violated. We also provide some real-life clinical trial examples to illustrate the thinking process for selecting a randomization procedure for implementation in practice.ResultsRestricted randomization procedures targeting 1:1 allocation vary in the degree of balance/randomness they induce, and more importantly, they vary in terms of validity and efficiency of statistical inference when common model assumptions are violated (e.g. when outcomes are affected by a linear time trend; measurement error distribution is misspecified; or selection bias is introduced in the experiment). Some procedures are more robust than others. Covariate-adjusted analysis may be essential to ensure validity of the results. Special considerations are required when selecting a randomization procedure for a clinical trial with very small sample size.ConclusionsThe choice of randomization design, data analytic technique (parametric or nonparametric), and analysis strategy (randomization-based or population model-based) are all very important considerations. Randomization-based tests are robust and valid alternatives to likelihood-based tests and should be considered more frequently by clinical investigators.
| S-EPMC8366748 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Randomization is considered to be a key feature to protect against bias in randomized clinical trials. Randomization induces comparability with respect to known and unknown covariates, mitigates selection bias, and provides a basis for inference. Although various randomization procedures have been proposed, no single procedure performs uniformly best. In the design phase of a clinical trial, the scientist has to decide which randomization procedure to use, taking into account the practical setting of the trial with respect to the potential of bias. Less emphasis has been placed on this important design decision than on analysis, and less support has been available to guide the scientist in making this decision.We propose a framework that weights the properties of the randomization procedure with respect to practical needs of the research question to be answered by the clinical trial. In particular, the framework assesses the impact of chronological and selection bias on the probability of a type I error. The framework is applied to a case study with a 2-arm parallel group, single center randomized clinical trial with continuous endpoint, with no-interim analysis, 1:1 allocation and no adaptation in the randomization process.In so doing, we derive scientific arguments for the selection of an appropriate randomization procedure and develop a template which is illustrated in parallel by a case study. Possible extensions are discussed.The proposed ERDO framework guides the investigator through a template for the choice of a randomization procedure, and provides easy to use tools for the assessment. The barriers for the thorough reporting and assessment of randomization procedures could be further reduced in the future when regulators and pharmaceutical companies employ similar, standardized frameworks for the choice of a randomization procedure.
| S-EPMC5715815 | biostudies-other
Project description:The authors present a new centralized randomization method for multicenter emergency treatment clinical trials. With this step-forward method, treatment randomization for the next subject is performed immediately after the enrollment of the current subject. This design ensures the readiness of the treatment assignment for each subject at the point of study enrollment, and it simultaneously provides effective control on treatment assignments balance and distributions of covariates. The authors also discuss procedures of the step-forward randomization method along with its implementation for two National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke-funded multicenter acute stroke trials, one double-blinded and one open-labeled. Advantages and limitations are presented based on experience gained in these two trials.
| S-EPMC3052925 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The multiphase optimization strategy (MOST) is an increasingly popular framework to prepare, optimize, and evaluate multicomponent behavioral health interventions. Within this framework, it is common to use a factorial trial to assemble an optimized multicomponent intervention by simultaneously testing several intervention components. With the possibility of a large number of conditions (unique combinations of components) and a goal to balance conditions on both sample size (for statistical efficiency) and baseline covariates (for internal validity), such trials face additional randomization challenges compared to the standard two-arm trial. The purpose of the current paper is to compare and contrast potential randomization methods for factorial trials in the context of MOST and to provide guidance for the reporting of those methods. We describe the principles, advantages, and disadvantages of several randomization methods in the context of factorial trials. We then provide examples to examine current practice in the MOST-related literature and provide recommendations for reporting of randomization. We identify two key randomization decisions for MOST-related factorial trials: (i) whether to randomize to components or conditions and (ii) whether to use restricted randomization techniques, such as stratification, permuted blocks, and minimization. We also provide a checklist to assist researchers in ensuring complete reporting of randomization methods used. As more investigators use factorial trials within the MOST framework for assembling optimized multicomponent behavioral interventions, appropriate implementation and rigorous reporting of randomization procedures will be essential for ensuring the efficiency and validity of the results.
| S-EPMC6875651 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We review and compare multiple hypothesis testing procedures used in clinical trials and those in genomic studies. Clinical trials often employ global tests, which draw an overall conclusion for all the hypotheses, such as SUM test, Two-Step test, Approximate Likelihood Ratio test (ALRT), Intersection-Union Test (IUT), and MAX test. The SUM and Two-Step tests are most powerful under homogeneous treatment effects, while the ALRT and MAX test are robust in cases with non-homogeneous treatment effects. Furthermore, the ALRT is robust to unequal sample sizes in testing different hypotheses. In genomic studies, stepwise procedures are used to draw marker-specific conclusions and control family wise error rate (FWER) or false discovery rate (FDR). FDR refers to the percent of false positives among all significant results and is preferred over FWER in screening high-dimensional genomic markers due to its interpretability. In cases where correlations between test statistics cannot be ignored, Westfall-Young resampling method generates the joint distribution of P-values under the null and maintains their correlation structure. Finally, the GWAS data from a clinical trial searching for SNPs associated with nephropathy among Type 1 diabetic patients are used to illustrate various procedures.
| S-EPMC3859974 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAn important component of a systematic strategy for safety surveillance is prospective identification of anticipated serious adverse events (SAEs). Developing a structured approach to identify anticipated events and estimating their incidence can help align the safety strategy and the safety surveillance efforts.MethodsWe developed a novel approach to identify anticipated events for a hypothetical randomized, double-blind, controlled trial in subjects with bipolar disorder using the adverse events reported in the placebo arm of trials from the ClinicalTrials.gov database. We searched the ClinicalTrials.gov database for all trials on bipolar depression with similar inclusion/exclusion criteria and study duration as our hypothetical study. The frequencies of anticipated events in placebo arms were abstracted from each trial and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using the Clopper-Pearson method. Meta-analysis with a random effects model was performed to obtain a summary estimate and 95% CI for the events identified in more than one trial.ResultsA total of 129 clinical trials were initially identified, and 18 were ultimately selected as they met all the selection criteria. There were 69 unique anticipated SAEs identified, and 13 out of 69 were reported in at least 2 clinical trials. The top 5 anticipated SAEs for our study were: (1) hospitalization, psychiatric symptom (3.57%); (2) suicidal behavior, overdose (3.57%), (3) cholecystitis (2.86%); (4) fall (2.86%); (5) road traffic accident, injury (2.86%).ConclusionWe successfully identified the anticipated events from registered trials that included a population similar to our trial. This method for identifying anticipated events could be applied to other disease areas.
| S-EPMC7864837 | biostudies-literature