Dataset Information

Power behind the throne: A clinical trial simulation study evaluating the impact of controllable design factors on the power of antidepressant trials.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To evaluate the impact of controllable design factors on the power of antidepressants trials.

Methods

Using clinical trial simulation (CTS), we analyzed the combined impact on the power of trials of controllable design factors (sample size, outcome metrics, and disease severity at inclusion) and uncontrollable parameters (heterogeneity of diseases labeled "depression" in the source population and selective effects of drugs on items of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale [HDRS], the most used outcome measurement tool). We elaborated 3,840 scenarios calibrated with real data, particularly the publication bias-corrected effect size.

Results

For an effect size of 0.26, simulations revealed that in trials with ?650 participants, power was less than 80%. Among the tested outcome metrics, the "remission" outcome provided more robustness for sample heterogeneity, whereas the continuous outcome "HDRS changes" provided more robustness when investigating drugs with a selective effect on the HDRS items. For the "remission" outcome, the power of trials increased with increasing HDRS threshold at inclusion but decreased with the outcomes "response" and "HDRS changes. Drugs with a selective effect on the HDRS items could not reach the same power as for the reference drug.

Conclusion

Our study allows for drawing recommendations to avoid underpowered trials of antidepressants.

SUBMITTER: Chevance A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6877224 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Power behind the throne: A clinical trial simulation study evaluating the impact of controllable design factors on the power of antidepressant trials.

Chevance Astrid A Naudet Florian F Gaillard Raphaël R Ravaud Philippe P Porcher Raphaël R

International journal of methods in psychiatric research 20190417 3

<h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate the impact of controllable design factors on the power of antidepressants trials.<h4>Methods</h4>Using clinical trial simulation (CTS), we analyzed the combined impact on the power of trials of controllable design factors (sample size, outcome metrics, and disease severity at inclusion) and uncontrollable parameters (heterogeneity of diseases labeled "depression" in the source population and selective effects of drugs on items of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale ...[more]

PMID: 30997716

Similar Datasets

Project description:Safe and effective vaccines could help to end the ongoing Ebola virus disease epidemic in parts of west Africa, and mitigate future outbreaks of the virus. We assess the statistical validity and power of randomised controlled trial (RCT) and stepped-wedge cluster trial (SWCT) designs in Sierra Leone, where the incidence of Ebola virus disease is spatiotemporally heterogeneous, and is decreasing rapidly.We projected district-level Ebola virus disease incidence for the next 6 months, using a stochastic model fitted to data from Sierra Leone. We then simulated RCT and SWCT designs in trial populations comprising geographically distinct clusters at high risk, taking into account realistic logistical constraints, and both individual-level and cluster-level variations in risk. We assessed false-positive rates and power for parametric and non-parametric analyses of simulated trial data, across a range of vaccine efficacies and trial start dates.For an SWCT, regional variation in Ebola virus disease incidence trends produced increased false-positive rates (up to 0·15 at ?=0·05) under standard statistical models, but not when analysed by a permutation test, whereas analyses of RCTs remained statistically valid under all models. With the assumption of a 6-month trial starting on Feb 18, 2015, we estimate the power to detect a 90% effective vaccine to be between 49% and 89% for an RCT, and between 6% and 26% for an SWCT, depending on the Ebola virus disease incidence within the trial population. We estimate that a 1-month delay in trial initiation will reduce the power of the RCT by 20% and that of the SWCT by 49%.Spatiotemporal variation in infection risk undermines the statistical power of the SWCT. This variation also undercuts the SWCT's expected ethical advantages over the RCT, because an RCT, but not an SWCT, can prioritise vaccination of high-risk clusters.US National Institutes of Health, US National Science Foundation, and Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

Project description:BackgroundThe 2014-6 West African Ebola epidemic highlights the need for rigorous, rapid clinical trial methods for vaccines. A challenge for trial design is making sample size calculations based on incidence within the trial, total vaccine effect, and intracluster correlation, when these parameters are uncertain in the presence of indirect effects of vaccination.Methods and findingsWe present a stochastic, compartmental model for a ring vaccination trial. After identification of an index case, a ring of contacts is recruited and either vaccinated immediately or after 21 days. The primary outcome of the trial is total vaccine effect, counting cases only from a pre-specified window in which the immediate arm is assumed to be fully protected and the delayed arm is not protected. Simulation results are used to calculate necessary sample size and estimated vaccine effect. Under baseline assumptions about vaccine properties, monthly incidence in unvaccinated rings and trial design, a standard sample-size calculation neglecting dynamic effects estimated that 7,100 participants would be needed to achieve 80% power to detect a difference in attack rate between arms, while incorporating dynamic considerations in the model increased the estimate to 8,900. This approach replaces assumptions about parameters at the ring level with assumptions about disease dynamics and vaccine characteristics at the individual level, so within this framework we were able to describe the sensitivity of the trial power and estimated effect to various parameters. We found that both of these quantities are sensitive to properties of the vaccine, to setting-specific parameters over which investigators have little control, and to parameters that are determined by the study design.ConclusionsIncorporating simulation into the trial design process can improve robustness of sample size calculations. For this specific trial design, vaccine effectiveness depends on properties of the ring vaccination design and on the measurement window, as well as the epidemiologic setting.

Project description:BackgroundConditional power of network meta-analysis (NMA) can support the planning of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing medical interventions. Conditional power is the probability that updating existing inconclusive evidence in NMA with additional trial(s) will result in conclusive evidence, given assumptions regarding trial design, anticipated effect sizes, or event probabilities.MethodsThe present work aimed to estimate conditional power for potential future trials on antidepressant treatments. Existing evidence was based on a published network of 502 RCTs conducted between 1979-2018 assessing acute antidepressant treatment in major depressive disorder (MDD). Primary outcomes were efficacy in terms of the symptom change on the Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD) and tolerability in terms of the dropout rate due to adverse events. The network compares 21 antidepressants consisting of 231 relative treatment comparisons, 164 (efficacy) and 127 (tolerability) of which are currently assumed to have inconclusive evidence.ResultsRequired sample sizes to achieve new conclusive evidence with at least 80% conditional power were estimated to range between N = 894 - 4190 (efficacy) and N = 521 - 1246 (tolerability). Otherwise, sample sizes ranging between N = 49 - 485 (efficacy) and N = 40 - 320 (tolerability) may require stopping for futility based on a boundary at 20% conditional power. Optimizing trial designs by considering multiple trials that contribute both direct and indirect evidence, anticipating alternative effect sizes or alternative event probabilities, may increase conditional power but required sample sizes remain high. Antidepressants having the greatest conditional power associated with smallest required sample sizes were identified as those on which current evidence is low, i.e., clomipramine, levomilnacipran, milnacipran, nefazodone, and vilazodone, with respect to both outcomes.ConclusionsThe present results suggest that conditional power to achieve new conclusive evidence in ongoing or future trials on antidepressant treatments is low. Limiting the use of the presented conditional power analysis are primarily due to the estimated large sample sizes which would be required in future trials as well as due to the well-known small effect sizes in antidepressant treatments. These findings may inform researchers and decision-makers regarding the clinical relevance and justification of research in ongoing or future antidepressant RCTs in MDD.

Project description:Background:There is debate in the literature as to whether inclusion of a placebo arm may alter characteristics of antidepressant trials. However, previous research has focused on response rates of various antidepressants on average only, ignoring potential differences among drugs or other aspects of trial findings. Little is known about the impact of a placebo arm on all-cause dropout and dropout due to adverse events. Methods:We carried out a systematic review of published and unpublished double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for the acute treatment of unipolar major depression (update: January 2016). The probability of being allocated to placebo (?) was the exposure of interest, and we examined its influence on responders (efficacy), all-cause dropouts (acceptability) and dropouts due to adverse events (tolerability), while accounting for differences in drugs, trials and patient characteristics in multivariate random effects meta-regression. Results:We included 421 studies (68 305 participants) comparing 16 antidepressants or placebo; ? ranged from 20% to 50%. Response rate was lower [risk ratio (RR) 0.87; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83, 0.92] and all-cause dropout rate higher (RR 1.19; 95% CI 1.08, 1.31) for the same antidepressants in placebo-controlled trials compared with head-to-head trials. The probability of responding decreased by 3% (95% CI 2-5%) for every 10% increase in ?, whereas the risk of all-cause dropout increased by 4% (95% CI 1-7%). Tolerability was unaffected by ?. Response rate was inversely correlated with dropouts due to any cause (correlation coefficient -0.48; 95% CI -0.58, -0.36) and due to adverse events (-0.34; 95% CI -0.44, -0.23). Conclusions:For the same antidepressant, response rate was on average smaller and dropouts higher when placebo was included; however, no association was found with dropouts due to adverse events. Decreased patient expectations, larger dropout rates and use of inappropriate statistical methods to impute missing data may explain this phenomenon. The findings call for caution in the integration of randomized evidence involving placebo arms.

Dataset Information

Power behind the throne: A clinical trial simulation study evaluating the impact of controllable design factors on the power of antidepressant trials.

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Power behind the throne: A clinical trial simulation study evaluating the impact of controllable design factors on the power of antidepressant trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets