Dataset Information

Adaptive seamless clinical trials using early outcomes for treatment or subgroup selection: Methods, simulation model and their implementation in R.

ABSTRACT: Adaptive seamless designs combine confirmatory testing, a domain of phase III trials, with features such as treatment or subgroup selection, typically associated with phase II trials. They promise to increase the efficiency of development programmes of new drugs, for example, in terms of sample size and/or development time. It is well acknowledged that adaptive designs are more involved from a logistical perspective and require more upfront planning, often in the form of extensive simulation studies, than conventional approaches. Here, we present a framework for adaptive treatment and subgroup selection using the same notation, which links the somewhat disparate literature on treatment selection on one side and on subgroup selection on the other. Furthermore, we introduce a flexible and efficient simulation model that serves both designs. As primary endpoints often take a long time to observe, interim analyses are frequently informed by early outcomes. Therefore, all methods presented accommodate interim analyses informed by either the primary outcome or an early outcome. The R package asd, previously developed to simulate designs with treatment selection, was extended to include subgroup selection (so-called adaptive enrichment designs). Here, we describe the functionality of the R package asd and use it to present some worked-up examples motivated by clinical trials in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and oncology. The examples both illustrate various features of the R package and provide insights into the operating characteristics of adaptive seamless studies.

SUBMITTER: Friede T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8614126 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:In individually randomised trials we might expect interventions delivered in groups or by care providers to result in clustering of outcomes for participants treated in the same group or by the same care provider. In partially nested randomised controlled trials (pnRCTs) this clustering only occurs in one trial arm, commonly the intervention arm. It is important to measure and account for between-cluster variability in trial design and analysis. We compare analysis approaches for pnRCTs with continuous outcomes, investigating the impact on statistical inference of cluster sizes, coding of the non-clustered arm, intracluster correlation coefficient (ICCs), and differential variance between intervention and control arm, and provide recommendations for analysis. METHODS:We performed a simulation study assessing the performance of six analysis approaches for a two-arm pnRCT with a continuous outcome. These include: linear regression model; fully clustered mixed-effects model with singleton clusters in control arm; fully clustered mixed-effects model with one large cluster in control arm; fully clustered mixed-effects model with pseudo clusters in control arm; partially nested homoscedastic mixed effects model, and partially nested heteroscedastic mixed effects model. We varied the cluster size, number of clusters, ICC, and individual variance between the two trial arms. RESULTS:All models provided unbiased intervention effect estimates. In the partially nested mixed-effects models, methods for classifying the non-clustered control arm had negligible impact. Failure to account for even small ICCs resulted in inflated Type I error rates and over-coverage of confidence intervals. Fully clustered mixed effects models provided poor control of the Type I error rates and biased ICC estimates. The heteroscedastic partially nested mixed-effects model maintained relatively good control of Type I error rates, unbiased ICC estimation, and did not noticeably reduce power even with homoscedastic individual variances across arms. CONCLUSIONS:In general, we recommend the use of a heteroscedastic partially nested mixed-effects model, which models the clustering in only one arm, for continuous outcomes similar to those generated under the scenarios of our simulations study. However, with few clusters (3-6), small cluster sizes (5-10), and small ICC (?0.05) this model underestimates Type I error rates and there is no optimal model.

Project description:BackgroundAdaptive clinical trials are growing in popularity as they are more flexible, efficient and ethical than traditional fixed designs. However, notwithstanding their increased use in assessing treatments for COVID-19, their use in critical care trials remains limited. A better understanding of the relative benefits of various adaptive designs may increase their use and interpretation.MethodsUsing two large critical care trials (ADRENAL.Clinicaltrialsgov number, NCT01448109. Updated 12-12-2017; NICE-SUGAR.Clinicaltrialsgov number, NCT00220987. Updated 01-29-2009), we assessed the performance of three frequentist and two bayesian adaptive approaches. We retrospectively re-analysed the trials with one, two, four, and nine equally spaced interims. Using the original hypotheses, we conducted 10,000 simulations to derive error rates, probabilities of making an early correct and incorrect decision, expected sample size and treatment effect estimates under the null scenario (no treatment effect) and alternative scenario (a positive treatment effect). We used a logistic regression model with 90-day mortality as the outcome and the treatment arm as the covariate. The null hypothesis was tested using a two-sided significance level (α) at 0.05.ResultsAcross all approaches, increasing the number of interims led to a decreased expected sample size. Under the null scenario, group sequential approaches provided good control of the type-I error rate; however, the type I error rate inflation was an issue for the Bayesian approaches. The Bayesian Predictive Probability and O'Brien-Fleming approaches showed the highest probability of correctly stopping the trials (around 95%). Under the alternative scenario, the Bayesian approaches showed the highest overall probability of correctly stopping the ADRENAL trial for efficacy (around 91%), whereas the Haybittle-Peto approach achieved the greatest power for the NICE-SUGAR trial. Treatment effect estimates became increasingly underestimated as the number of interims increased.ConclusionsThis study confirms the right adaptive design can reach the same conclusion as a fixed design with a much-reduced sample size. The efficiency gain associated with an increased number of interims is highly relevant to late-phase critical care trials with large sample sizes and short follow-up times. Systematically exploring adaptive methods at the trial design stage will aid the choice of the most appropriate method.

Dataset Information

Adaptive seamless clinical trials using early outcomes for treatment or subgroup selection: Methods, simulation model and their implementation in R.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets