Power determination during drug development: Is optimizing the sample size based on exposure-response analyses underutilized?
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Jones AK
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6430154 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Power Determination During Drug Development: Is Optimizing the Sample Size Based on Exposure-Response Analyses Underutilized?
Jones Aksana K AK Salem Ahmed Hamed AH Freise Kevin J KJ
CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology 20190205 3
The use of model-based drug development (MBDD) has been demonstrated to improve the efficiency of clinical trial design. However, MBDD complexity can limit its use, particularly early in clinical development. In this tutorial, a simple and generalizable exposure-response analysis approach to determine the power for dose-ranging studies is presented and described. We identified situations in which higher power and sample size reduction is achieved by utilizing the exposure-response powering metho ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Appropriate sample size calculation and power analysis have become major issues in research and publication processes. However, the complexity and difficulty of calculating sample size and power require broad statistical knowledge, there is a shortage of personnel with programming skills, and commercial programs are often too expensive to use in practice. The review article aimed to explain the basic concepts of sample size calculation and power analysis; the process of sample estimation; and how to calculate sample size using G*Power software (latest ver. 3.1.9.7; Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany) with 5 statistical examples. The null and alternative hypothesis, effect size, power, alpha, type I error, and type II error should be described when calculating the sample size or power. G*Power is recommended for sample size and power calculations for various statistical methods (F, t, χ2, Z, and exact tests), because it is easy to use and free. The process of sample estimation consists of establishing research goals and hypotheses, choosing appropriate statistical tests, choosing one of 5 possible power analysis methods, inputting the required variables for analysis, and selecting the “calculate” button. The G*Power software supports sample size and power calculation for various statistical methods (F, t, χ2, z, and exact tests). This software is helpful for researchers to estimate the sample size and to conduct power analysis.
| S-EPMC8441096 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWe describe a novel strategy for power and sample size determination developed for studies utilizing investigational technologies with limited available preliminary data, specifically of imaging biomarkers. We evaluated diffuse optical spectroscopic imaging (DOSI), an experimental noninvasive imaging technique that may be capable of assessing changes in mammographic density. Because there is significant evidence that tamoxifen treatment is more effective at reducing breast cancer risk when accompanied by a reduction of breast density, we designed a study to assess the changes from baseline in DOSI imaging biomarkers that may reflect fluctuations in breast density in premenopausal women receiving tamoxifen.MethodWhile preliminary data demonstrate that DOSI is sensitive to mammographic density in women about to receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer, there is no information on DOSI in tamoxifen treatment. Since the relationship between magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and DOSI has been established in previous studies, we developed a statistical simulation approach utilizing information from an investigation of MRI assessment of breast density in 16 women before and after treatment with tamoxifen to estimate the changes in DOSI biomarkers due to tamoxifen.ResultsThree sets of 10,000 pairs of MRI breast density data with correlation coefficients of 0.5, 0.8 and 0.9 were simulated and generated and were used to simulate and generate a corresponding 5,000,000 pairs of DOSI values representing water, ctHHB, and lipid. Minimum sample sizes needed per group for specified clinically-relevant effect sizes were obtained.ConclusionThe simulation techniques we describe can be applied in studies of other experimental technologies to obtain the important preliminary data to inform the power and sample size calculations.
| S-EPMC5406943 | biostudies-literature
Project description:When a researcher desires to test several treatment arms against a control arm, a two-stage adaptive design can be more efficient than a single-stage design where patients are equally allocated to all treatment arms and the control. We see this type of approach in clinical trials as a seamless Phase II - Phase III design. These designs require more statistical support and are less straightforward to plan and analyze than a standard single-stage design. To diminish the barriers associated with a Bayesian two-stage drop-the-losers design, we built a user-friendly point-and-click graphical user interface with R Shiny to aid researchers in planning such designs by allowing them to easily obtain trial operating characteristics, estimate statistical power and sample size, and optimize patient allocation in each stage to maximize power. We assume that endpoints are distributed normally with unknown but common variance between treatments. We recommend this software as an easy way to engage statisticians and researchers in two-stage designs as well as to actively investigate the power of two-stage designs relative to more traditional approaches. The software is freely available at https://github.com/stefangraw/Allocation-Power-Optimizer.
| S-EPMC7517602 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In stepped wedge cluster randomized trials, intact clusters of individuals switch from control to intervention from a randomly assigned period onwards. Such trials are becoming increasingly popular in health services research. When a closed cohort is recruited from each cluster for longitudinal follow-up, proper sample size calculation should account for three distinct types of intraclass correlations: the within-period, the inter-period, and the within-individual correlations. Setting the latter two correlation parameters to be equal accommodates cross-sectional designs. We propose sample size procedures for continuous and binary responses within the framework of generalized estimating equations that employ a block exchangeable within-cluster correlation structure defined from the distinct correlation types. For continuous responses, we show that the intraclass correlations affect power only through two eigenvalues of the correlation matrix. We demonstrate that analytical power agrees well with simulated power for as few as eight clusters, when data are analyzed using bias-corrected estimating equations for the correlation parameters concurrently with a bias-corrected sandwich variance estimator.
| S-EPMC6461045 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Owing to the rapid development of biomarkers in clinical trials, joint modeling of longitudinal and survival data has gained its popularity in the recent years because it reduces bias and provides improvements of efficiency in the assessment of treatment effects and other prognostic factors. Although much effort has been put into inferential methods in joint modeling, such as estimation and hypothesis testing, design aspects have not been formally considered. Statistical design, such as sample size and power calculations, is a crucial first step in clinical trials. In this paper, we derive a closed-form sample size formula for estimating the effect of the longitudinal process in joint modeling, and extend Schoenfeld's sample size formula to the joint modeling setting for estimating the overall treatment effect. The sample size formula we develop is quite general, allowing for p-degree polynomial trajectories. The robustness of our model is demonstrated in simulation studies with linear and quadratic trajectories. We discuss the impact of the within-subject variability on power and data collection strategies, such as spacing and frequency of repeated measurements, in order to maximize the power. When the within-subject variability is large, different data collection strategies can influence the power of the study in a significant way. Optimal frequency of repeated measurements also depends on the nature of the trajectory with higher polynomial trajectories and larger measurement error requiring more frequent measurements.
| S-EPMC3278672 | biostudies-other
Project description:The cluster randomized crossover design has been proposed to improve efficiency over the traditional parallel cluster randomized design, which often involves a limited number of clusters. In recent years, the cluster randomized crossover design has been increasingly used to evaluate the effectiveness of health care policy or programs, and the interest often lies in quantifying the population-averaged intervention effect. In this paper, we consider the two-treatment two-period crossover design, and develop sample size procedures for continuous and binary outcomes corresponding to a population-averaged model estimated by generalized estimating equations, accounting for both within-period and interperiod correlations. In particular, we show that the required sample size depends on the correlation parameters through an eigenvalue of the within-cluster correlation matrix for continuous outcomes and through two distinct eigenvalues of the correlation matrix for binary outcomes. We demonstrate that the empirical power corresponds well with the predicted power by the proposed formulae for as few as eight clusters, when outcomes are analyzed using the matrix-adjusted estimating equations for the correlation parameters concurrently with a suitable bias-corrected sandwich variance estimator.
| S-EPMC6461037 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Statistical criterion for evaluation of individual bioequivalence (IBE) between generic and innovative products often involves a function of the second moments of normal distributions. Under replicated crossover designs, the aggregate criterion for IBE proposed by the guidance of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) contains the squared mean difference, variance of subject-by-formulation interaction, and the difference in within-subject variances between the generic and innovative products. The upper confidence bound for the linearized form of the criterion derived by the modified large sample (MLS) method is proposed in the 2001 U.S. FDA guidance as a testing procedure for evaluation of IBE. Due to the complexity of the power function for the criterion based on the second moments, literature on sample size determination for the inference of IBE is scarce. Under the two-sequence and four-period crossover design, we derive the asymptotic distribution of the upper confidence bound of the linearized criterion. Hence the asymptotic power can be derived for sample size determination for evaluation of IBE. Results of numerical studies are reported. Discussion of sample size determination for evaluation of IBE based on the aggregate criterion of the second moments in practical applications is provided.
| S-EPMC4195669 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: Research for developing search strategies to retrieve high-quality clinical journal articles from MEDLINE is expensive and time-consuming. The objective of this study was to determine the minimal number of high-quality articles in a journal subset that would need to be hand-searched to update or create new MEDLINE search strategies for treatment, diagnosis, and prognosis studies. METHODS: The desired width of the 95% confidence intervals (W) for the lowest sensitivity among existing search strategies was used to calculate the number of high-quality articles needed to reliably update search strategies. New search strategies were derived in journal subsets formed by 2 approaches: random sampling of journals and top journals (having the most high-quality articles). The new strategies were tested in both the original large journal database and in a low-yielding journal (having few high-quality articles) subset. RESULTS: For treatment studies, if W was 10% or less for the lowest sensitivity among our existing search strategies, a subset of 15 randomly selected journals or 2 top journals were adequate for updating search strategies, based on each approach having at least 99 high-quality articles. The new strategies derived in 15 randomly selected journals or 2 top journals performed well in the original large journal database. Nevertheless, the new search strategies developed using the random sampling approach performed better than those developed using the top journal approach in a low-yielding journal subset. For studies of diagnosis and prognosis, no journal subset had enough high-quality articles to achieve the expected W (10%). CONCLUSION: The approach of randomly sampling a small subset of journals that includes sufficient high-quality articles is an efficient way to update or create search strategies for high-quality articles on therapy in MEDLINE. The concentrations of diagnosis and prognosis articles are too low for this approach.
| S-EPMC2569926 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBefore conducting a microarray experiment, one important issue that needs to be determined is the number of arrays required in order to have adequate power to identify differentially expressed genes. This paper discusses some crucial issues in the problem formulation, parameter specifications, and approaches that are commonly proposed for sample size estimation in microarray experiments. Common methods for sample size estimation are formulated as the minimum sample size necessary to achieve a specified sensitivity (proportion of detected truly differentially expressed genes) on average at a specified false discovery rate (FDR) level and specified expected proportion (pi1) of the true differentially expression genes in the array. Unfortunately, the probability of detecting the specified sensitivity in such a formulation can be low. We formulate the sample size problem as the number of arrays needed to achieve a specified sensitivity with 95% probability at the specified significance level. A permutation method using a small pilot dataset to estimate sample size is proposed. This method accounts for correlation and effect size heterogeneity among genes.ResultsA sample size estimate based on the common formulation, to achieve the desired sensitivity on average, can be calculated using a univariate method without taking the correlation among genes into consideration. This formulation of sample size problem is inadequate because the probability of detecting the specified sensitivity can be lower than 50%. On the other hand, the needed sample size calculated by the proposed permutation method will ensure detecting at least the desired sensitivity with 95% probability. The method is shown to perform well for a real example dataset using a small pilot dataset with 4-6 samples per group.ConclusionsWe recommend that the sample size problem should be formulated to detect a specified proportion of differentially expressed genes with 95% probability. This formulation ensures finding the desired proportion of true positives with high probability. The proposed permutation method takes the correlation structure and effect size heterogeneity into consideration and works well using only a small pilot dataset.
| S-EPMC2837028 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and Objectives:Researchers typically use Cohen's guidelines of Pearson's r = .10, .30, and .50, and Cohen's d = 0.20, 0.50, and 0.80 to interpret observed effect sizes as small, medium, or large, respectively. However, these guidelines were not based on quantitative estimates and are only recommended if field-specific estimates are unknown. This study investigated the distribution of effect sizes in both individual differences research and group differences research in gerontology to provide estimates of effect sizes in the field. Research Design and Methods:Effect sizes (Pearson's r, Cohen's d, and Hedges' g) were extracted from meta-analyses published in 10 top-ranked gerontology journals. The 25th, 50th, and 75th percentile ranks were calculated for Pearson's r (individual differences) and Cohen's d or Hedges' g (group differences) values as indicators of small, medium, and large effects. A priori power analyses were conducted for sample size calculations given the observed effect size estimates. Results:Effect sizes of Pearson's r = .12, .20, and .32 for individual differences research and Hedges' g = 0.16, 0.38, and 0.76 for group differences research were interpreted as small, medium, and large effects in gerontology. Discussion and Implications:Cohen's guidelines appear to overestimate effect sizes in gerontology. Researchers are encouraged to use Pearson's r = .10, .20, and .30, and Cohen's d or Hedges' g = 0.15, 0.40, and 0.75 to interpret small, medium, and large effects in gerontology, and recruit larger samples.
| S-EPMC6736231 | biostudies-literature