Time-trend impact on treatment estimation in two-arm clinical trials with a binary outcome and Bayesian response adaptive randomization.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Jiang Y
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6825522 | biostudies-literature | 2020
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Time-trend impact on treatment estimation in two-arm clinical trials with a binary outcome and Bayesian response adaptive randomization.
Jiang Yunyun Y Zhao Wenle W Durkalski-Mauldin Valerie V
Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics 20190424 1
Clinical trial design and analysis often assume study population homogeneity, although patient baseline profile and standard of care may evolve over time, especially in trials with long recruitment periods. The time-trend phenomenon can affect the treatment estimation and the operating characteristics of trials with Bayesian response adaptive randomization (BRAR). The mechanism of time-trend impact on BRAR is increasingly being studied but some aspects remain unclear. The goal of this research i ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundIn phase II trials, the most efficacious dose is usually not known. Moreover, given limited resources, it is difficult to robustly identify a dose while also testing for a signal of efficacy that would support a phase III trial. Recent designs have sought to be more efficient by exploring multiple doses through the use of adaptive strategies. However, the added flexibility may potentially increase the risk of making incorrect assumptions and reduce the total amount of information available across the dose range as a function of imbalanced sample size.MethodsTo balance these challenges, a novel placebo-controlled design is presented in which a restricted Bayesian response adaptive randomization (RAR) is used to allocate a majority of subjects to the optimal dose of active drug, defined as the dose with the lowest probability of poor outcome. However, the allocation between subjects who receive active drug or placebo is held constant to retain the maximum possible power for a hypothesis test of overall efficacy comparing the optimal dose to placebo. The design properties and optimization of the design are presented in the context of a phase II trial for subarachnoid hemorrhage.ResultsFor a fixed total sample size, a trade-off exists between the ability to select the optimal dose and the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis. This relationship is modified by the allocation ratio between active and control subjects, the choice of RAR algorithm, and the number of subjects allocated to an initial fixed allocation period. While a responsive RAR algorithm improves the ability to select the correct dose, there is an increased risk of assigning more subjects to a worse arm as a function of ephemeral trends in the data. A subarachnoid treatment trial is used to illustrate how this design can be customized for specific objectives and available data.ConclusionsBayesian adaptive designs are a flexible approach to addressing multiple questions surrounding the optimal dose for treatment efficacy within the context of limited resources. While the design is general enough to apply to many situations, future work is needed to address interim analyses and the incorporation of models for dose response.
| S-EPMC5591573 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Randomizing patients among treatments with equal probabilities in clinical trials is the established method to obtain unbiased comparisons. In recent years, motivated by ethical considerations, many authors have proposed outcome adaptive randomization, wherein the randomization probabilities are unbalanced, based on interim data, to favor treatment arms having more favorable outcomes. While there has been substantial controversy regarding the merits and flaws of adaptive versus equal randomization, there has not yet been a systematic simulation study in the multi-arm setting. A simulation study was conducted to evaluate four different Bayesian adaptive randomization methods and compare them to equal randomization in five-arm clinical trials. All adaptive randomization methods included an initial burn-in with equal randomization and some combination of other modifications to avoid extreme randomization probabilities. Trials either with or without a control arm were evaluated, using designs that may terminate arms early for futility and select one or more experimental treatments at the end. The designs were evaluated under a range of scenarios and sample sizes. For trials with a control arm and maximum same size 250 or 500, several commonly used adaptive randomization methods have very low probabilities of correctly selecting a truly superior treatment. Of those studied, the only adaptive randomization method with desirable properties has a burn-in with equal randomization and thereafter randomization probabilities restricted to the interval 0.10-0.90. Compared to equal randomization, this method has a favorable sample size imbalance but lower probability of correctly selecting a superior treatment. In multi-arm trials, compared to equal randomization, several commonly used adaptive randomization methods give much lower probabilities of selecting superior treatments. Aside from randomization method, conducting a multi-arm trial without a control arm may lead to very low probabilities of selecting any superior treatments if differences between the treatment success probabilities are small.
| S-EPMC5634533 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBayesian adaptive designs can be more efficient than traditional methods for multi-arm randomised controlled trials. The aim of this work was to demonstrate how Bayesian adaptive designs can be constructed for multi-arm phase III clinical trials and assess potential benefits that these designs offer.MethodsWe constructed several alternative Bayesian adaptive designs for the Collaborative Ankle Support Trial (CAST), which was a randomised controlled trial that compared four treatments for severe ankle sprain. These designs incorporated response adaptive randomisation (RAR), arm dropping, and early stopping for efficacy or futility. We studied the operating characteristics of the Bayesian designs via simulation. We then virtually re-executed the trial by implementing the Bayesian adaptive designs using patient data sampled from the CAST study to demonstrate the practical applicability of the designs.ResultsWe constructed five Bayesian adaptive designs, each of which had high power and recruited fewer patients on average than the original designs target sample size. The virtual executions showed that most of the Bayesian designs would have led to trials that declared superiority of one of the interventions over the control. Bayesian adaptive designs with RAR or arm dropping were more likely to allocate patients to better performing arms at each interim analysis. Similar estimates and conclusions were obtained from the Bayesian adaptive designs as from the original trial.ConclusionsUsing CAST as an example, this case study shows how Bayesian adaptive designs can be constructed for phase III multi-arm trials using clinically relevant decision criteria. These designs demonstrated that they can potentially generate earlier results and allocate more patients to better performing arms. We recommend the wider use of Bayesian adaptive approaches in phase III clinical trials.Trial registrationCAST study registration ISRCTN, ISRCTN37807450. Retrospectively registered on 25 April 2003.
| S-EPMC6961269 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The Gittins index provides a well established, computationally attractive, optimal solution to a class of resource allocation problems known collectively as the multi-arm bandit problem. Its development was originally motivated by the problem of optimal patient allocation in multi-arm clinical trials. However, it has never been used in practice, possibly for the following reasons: (1) it is fully sequential, i.e., the endpoint must be observable soon after treating a patient, reducing the medical settings to which it is applicable; (2) it is completely deterministic and thus removes randomization from the trial, which would naturally protect against various sources of bias. We propose a novel implementation of the Gittins index rule that overcomes these difficulties, trading off a small deviation from optimality for a fully randomized, adaptive group allocation procedure which offers substantial improvements in terms of patient benefit, especially relevant for small populations. We report the operating characteristics of our approach compared to existing methods of adaptive randomization using a recently published trial as motivation.
| S-EPMC4856210 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A Bayesian adaptive procedure for estimating the auditory-filter shape was proposed and evaluated using young, normal-hearing listeners at moderate stimulus levels. The resulting quick-auditory-filter (qAF) procedure assumed the power spectrum model of masking with the auditory-filter shape being modeled using a spectrally symmetric, two-parameter rounded-exponential (roex) function. During data collection using the qAF procedure, listeners detected the presence of a pure-tone signal presented in the spectral notch of a noise masker. Dependent on the listener's response on each trial, the posterior probability distributions of the model parameters were updated, and the resulting parameter estimates were then used to optimize the choice of stimulus parameters for the subsequent trials. Results showed that the qAF procedure gave similar parameter estimates to the traditional threshold-based procedure in many cases and was able to reasonably predict the masked signal thresholds. Additional measurements suggested that occasional failures of the qAF procedure to reliably converge could be a consequence of incorrect responses early in a qAF track. The addition of a parameter describing lapses of attention reduced the likelihood of such failures.
| S-EPMC3745480 | biostudies-other
Project description:Clinical trials in the era of precision cancer medicine aim to identify and validate biomarker signatures which can guide the assignment of individually optimal treatments to patients. In this article, we propose a group sequential randomized phase II design, which updates the biomarker signature as the trial goes on, utilizes enrichment strategies for patient selection, and uses Bayesian response-adaptive randomization for treatment assignment. To evaluate the performance of the new design, in addition to the commonly considered criteria of type I error and power, we propose four new criteria measuring the benefits and losses for individuals both inside and outside of the clinical trial. Compared with designs with equal randomization, the proposed design gives trial participants a better chance to receive their personalized optimal treatments and thus results in a higher response rate on the trial. This design increases the chance to discover a successful new drug by an adaptive enrichment strategy, i.e., identification and selective enrollment of a subset of patients who are sensitive to the experimental therapies. Simulation studies demonstrate these advantages of the proposed design. It is illustrated by an example based on an actual clinical trial in non-small-cell lung cancer.
| S-EPMC8132854 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We introduce a non-myopic, covariate-adjusted response adaptive (CARA) allocation design for multi-armed clinical trials. The allocation scheme is a computationally tractable procedure based on the Gittins index solution to the classic multi-armed bandit problem and extends the procedure recently proposed in Villar et al. (2015). Our proposed CARA randomization procedure is defined by reformulating the bandit problem with covariates into a classic bandit problem in which there are multiple combination arms, considering every arm per each covariate category as a distinct treatment arm. We then apply a heuristically modified Gittins index rule to solve the problem and define allocation probabilities from the resulting solution. We report the efficiency, balance, and ethical performance of our approach compared to existing CARA methods using a recently published clinical trial as motivation. The net savings in terms of expected number of treatment failures is considerably larger and probably enough to make this design attractive for certain studies where known covariates are expected to be important, stratification is not desired, treatment failures have a high ethical cost, and the disease under study is rare. In a two-armed context, this patient benefit advantage comes at the expense of increased variability in the allocation proportions and a reduction in statistical power. However, in a multi-armed context, simple modifications of the proposed CARA rule can be incorporated so that an ethical advantage can be offered without sacrificing power in comparison with balanced designs.
| S-EPMC6055987 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We propose a class of phase II clinical trial designs with sequential stopping and adaptive treatment allocation to evaluate treatment efficacy. Our work is based on two-arm (control and experimental treatment) designs with binary endpoints. Our overall goal is to construct more efficient and ethical randomized phase II trials by reducing the average sample sizes and increasing the percentage of patients assigned to the better treatment arms of the trials. The designs combine the Bayesian decision-theoretic sequential approach with adaptive randomization procedures in order to achieve simultaneous goals of improved efficiency and ethics. The design parameters represent the costs of different decisions, for example, the decisions for stopping or continuing the trials. The parameters enable us to incorporate the actual costs of the decisions in practice. The proposed designs allow the clinical trials to stop early for either efficacy or futility. Furthermore, the designs assign more patients to better treatment arms by applying adaptive randomization procedures. We develop an algorithm based on the constrained backward induction and forward simulation to implement the designs. The algorithm overcomes the computational difficulty of the backward induction method, thereby making our approach practicable. The designs result in trials with desirable operating characteristics under the simulated settings. Moreover, the designs are robust with respect to the response rate of the control group.
| S-EPMC3873748 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Latent growth models (LGMs) are an application of structural equation modeling and frequently used in developmental and clinical research to analyze change over time in longitudinal outcomes. Maximum likelihood (ML), the most common approach for estimating LGMs, can fail to converge or may produce biased estimates in complex LGMs especially in studies with modest samples. Bayesian estimation is a logical alternative to ML for LGMs, but there is a lack of research providing guidance on when Bayesian estimation may be preferable to ML or vice versa. This study compared the performance of Bayesian versus ML estimators for LGMs by evaluating their accuracy via Monte Carlo (MC) simulations. For the MC study, longitudinal data sets were generated and estimated using LGM via both ML and Bayesian estimation with three different priors, and parameter recovery across the two estimators was evaluated to determine their relative performance. The findings suggest that ML estimation is a reasonable choice for most LGMs, unless it fails to converge, which can occur with limiting data situations (i.e., just a few time points, no covariate or outcome, modest sample sizes). When models do not converge using ML, we recommend Bayesian estimation with one caveat that the influence of the priors on estimation may have to be carefully examined, per recent recommendations on Bayesian modeling for applied researchers.
| S-EPMC7497844 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Randomized clinical trials (RCT) increasingly investigate combination therapies. Strong biological rationale or early clinical evidence commonly suggest that the effect of the combination treatment is importantly greater than the maximum effect of any of the individual treatments. While these relationships are commonly well-accepted, RCTs do not incorporate them into the design or analysis plans. We therefore propose a simple Bayesian framework for incorporating the known relationships that the effectiveness of a combination treatment exceeds that of any individual treatment, but does not necessarily exceed the sum of individual effects. We term the collation of these two relationships 'fractional additivity'. We performed a binary outcome simulation study of a response adaptive randomized three-arm clinical trial with treatment arms A, B, and A&B that allowed for dropping an inferior treatment arm and terminating the trial early for superiority during any of 4 interim analyses. We compared the Bayesian fractional additivity model to a conventional analysis by measuring the expected proportion of failures, sample size at trial termination, time to termination, and root mean squared error of final estimates. We also compared the fractional additivity model to a 'full additivity' model where the effect of A&B was assumed to be the sum of the effect of A and B. In simulation scenarios where important fractional additivity or full additivity existed, the Bayesian fractional additivity model yielded a 3-4% relative reduction in expected number of failures, and a 30%-50% relative reduction in sample size at trial termination compared to a conventional analysis. These results held true even when the Bayesian fractional additivity model employed a biased prior. The full additivity model had slightly higher gains, but too frequently terminated the trial at the first interim look. In scenarios where no or weak fractional additivity exists, the expected sample size and time to termination were similar for the Bayesian fractional additivity model with a moderately optimistic bias about fractional additivity and the conventional model. Lastly, the fractional additivity model generally yielded similar or lower root mean squared error compared to the other models. In conclusion, our proposed Bayesian fractional additivity model provides an efficient approach for estimating effects of combination treatments in clinical trials. The approach is not only highly applicable in adaptive clinical trials, but also provides added power in a conventional RCT.
| S-EPMC5898557 | biostudies-literature