Quantifying Efficiency Gains of Innovative Designs of Two-Arm Vaccine Trials for COVID-19 Using an Epidemic Simulation Model.

Clinical trials of a vaccine during an epidemic face particular challenges, such as the pressure to identify an effective vaccine quickly to control the epidemic, and the effect that time-space-varying infection incidence has on the power of a trial. We illustrate how the operating characteristics of different trial design elements maybe evaluated using a network epidemic and trial simulation model, based on COVID-19 and individually randomized two-arm trials with a binary outcome. We show that "ring" recruitment strategies, prioritizing participants at an imminent risk of infection, can result in substantial improvement in terms of power in the model we present. In addition, we introduce a novel method to make more efficient use of the data from the earliest cases of infection observed in the trial, whose infection may have been too early to be vaccine-preventable. Finally, we compare several methods of response-adaptive randomization (RAR), discussing their advantages and disadvantages in the context of our model and identifying particular adaptation strategies that preserve power and estimation properties, while slightly reducing the number of infections, given an effective vaccine

Algorithms for Adaptive Experiments that Trade-off Statistical Analysis with Reward: Combining Uniform Random Assignment and Reward Maximization

Multi-armed bandit algorithms like Thompson Sampling (TS) can be used to conduct adaptive experiments, in which maximizing reward means that data is used to progressively assign participants to more effective arms. Such assignment strategies increase the risk of statistical hypothesis tests identifying a difference between arms when there is not one, and failing to conclude there is a difference in arms when there truly is one. We tackle this by introducing a novel heuristic algorithm, called TS-PostDiff (Posterior Probability of Difference). TS-PostDiff takes a Bayesian approach to mixing TS and Uniform Random (UR): the probability a participant is assigned using UR allocation is the posterior probability that the difference between two arms is 'small' (below a certain threshold), allowing for more UR exploration when there is little or no reward to be gained. We evaluate TS-PostDiff against state-of-the-art strategies. The empirical and simulation results help characterize the trade-offs of these approaches between reward, False Positive Rate (FPR), and statistical power, as well as under which circumstances each is effective. We quantify the advantage of TS-PostDiff in performing well across multiple differences in arm means (effect sizes), showing the benefits of adaptively changing randomization/exploration in TS in a "Statistically Considerate" manner: reducing FPR and increasing statistical power when differences are small or zero and there is less reward to be gained, while exploiting more when differences may be large. This highlights important considerations for future algorithm development and analysis to better balance reward and statistical analysis

Optimal protamine dosing after cardiopulmonary bypass: The PRODOSE adaptive randomised controlled trial.

BackgroundThe dose of protamine required following cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) is often determined by the dose of heparin required pre-CPB, expressed as a fixed ratio. Dosing based on mathematical models of heparin clearance is postulated to improve protamine dosing precision and coagulation. We hypothesised that protamine dosing based on a 2-compartment model would improve thromboelastography (TEG) parameters and reduce the dose of protamine administered, relative to a fixed ratio.Methods and findingsWe undertook a 2-stage, adaptive randomised controlled trial, allocating 228 participants to receive protamine dosed according to a mathematical model of heparin clearance or a fixed ratio of 1 mg of protamine for every 100 IU of heparin required to establish anticoagulation pre-CPB. A planned, blinded interim analysis was undertaken after the recruitment of 50% of the study cohort. Following this, the randomisation ratio was adapted from 1:1 to 1:1.33 to increase recruitment to the superior arm while maintaining study power. At the conclusion of trial recruitment, we had randomised 121 patients to the intervention arm and 107 patients to the control arm. The primary endpoint was kaolin TEG r-time measured 3 minutes after protamine administration at the end of CPB. Secondary endpoints included ratio of kaolin TEG r-time pre-CPB to the same metric following protamine administration, requirement for allogeneic red cell transfusion, intercostal catheter drainage at 4 hours postoperatively, and the requirement for reoperation due to bleeding. The trial was listed on a clinical trial registry (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03532594). Participants were recruited between April 2018 and August 2019. Those in the intervention/model group had a shorter mean kaolin r-time (6.58 [SD 2.50] vs. 8.08 [SD 3.98] minutes; p = 0.0016) post-CPB. The post-protamine thromboelastogram of the model group was closer to pre-CPB parameters (median pre-CPB to post-protamine kaolin r-time ratio 0.96 [IQR 0.78-1.14] vs. 0.75 [IQR 0.57-0.99]; p 120 kg, and patients requiring therapeutic hypothermia to ConclusionsUsing a mathematical model to guide protamine dosing in patients following CPB improved TEG r-time and reduced the dose administered relative to a fixed ratio. No differences were detected in postoperative mediastinal/pleural drainage or red blood cell transfusion requirement in our cohort of low-risk patients.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Unique identifier NCT03532594

Adding flexibility to clinical trial designs: an example-based guide to the practical use of adaptive designs.

Funder: Cancer Research UK; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000289Adaptive designs for clinical trials permit alterations to a study in response to accumulating data in order to make trials more flexible, ethical, and efficient. These benefits are achieved while preserving the integrity and validity of the trial, through the pre-specification and proper adjustment for the possible alterations during the course of the trial. Despite much research in the statistical literature highlighting the potential advantages of adaptive designs over traditional fixed designs, the uptake of such methods in clinical research has been slow. One major reason for this is that different adaptations to trial designs, as well as their advantages and limitations, remain unfamiliar to large parts of the clinical community. The aim of this paper is to clarify where adaptive designs can be used to address specific questions of scientific interest; we introduce the main features of adaptive designs and commonly used terminology, highlighting their utility and pitfalls, and illustrate their use through case studies of adaptive trials ranging from early-phase dose escalation to confirmatory phase III studies

Adding flexibility to clinical trial designs: an example-based guide to the practical use of adaptive designs

Adaptive designs for clinical trials permit alterations to a study in response to accumulating data in order to make trials more flexible, ethical and efficient. These benefits are achieved while preserving the integrity and validity of the trial, through the pre-specification and proper adjustment for the possible alterations during the course of the trial. Despite much research in the statistical literature highlighting the potential advantages of adaptive designs over traditional fixed designs, the uptake of such methods in clinical research has been slow. One major reason for this is that different adaptations to trial designs, as well as their advantages and limitations, remain unfamiliar to large parts of the clinical community. The aim of this paper is to clarify where adaptive designs can be used to address specific questions of scientific interest; we introduce the main features of adaptive designs and commonly used terminology, highlighting their utility and pitfalls, and illustrate their use through case studies of adaptive trials ranging from early-phase dose escalation to confirmatory Phase III studies

Adaptive designs in clinical trials: why use them, and how to run and report them

Adaptive designs can make clinical trials more flexible by utilising results accumulating in the trial to modify the trial’s course in accordance with pre-specified rules. Trials with an adaptive design are often more efficient, informative and ethical than trials with a traditional fixed design since they often make better use of resources such as time and money, and might require fewer participants. Adaptive designs can be applied across all phases of clinical research, from early-phase dose escalation to confirmatory trials. The pace of the uptake of adaptive designs in clinical research, however, has remained well behind that of the statistical literature introducing new methods and highlighting their potential advantages. We speculate that one factor contributing to this is that the full range of adaptations available to trial designs, as well as their goals, advantages and limitations, remains unfamiliar to many parts of the clinical community. Additionally, the term adaptive design has been misleadingly used as an all-encompassing label to refer to certain methods that could be deemed controversial or that have been inadequately implemented. We believe that even if the planning and analysis of a trial is undertaken by an expert statistician, it is essential that the investigators understand the implications of using an adaptive design, for example, what the practical challenges are, what can (and cannot) be inferred from the results of such a trial, and how to report and communicate the results. This tutorial paper provides guidance on key aspects of adaptive designs that are relevant to clinical triallists. We explain the basic rationale behind adaptive designs, clarify ambiguous terminology and summarise the utility and pitfalls of adaptive designs. We discuss practical aspects around funding, ethical approval, treatment supply and communication with stakeholders and trial participants. Our focus, however, is on the interpretation and reporting of results from adaptive design trials, which we consider vital for anyone involved in medical research. We emphasise the general principles of transparency and reproducibility and suggest how best to put them into practice

The ADAMTS13-VWF axis is dysregulated in chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension

Chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) is an important consequence of pulmonary embolism that is associated with abnormalities in haemostasis. We investigated the ADAMTS13-von Willebrand factor (VWF) axis in CTEPH, including its relationship with disease severity, inflammation, ABO groups and ADAMTS13 genetic variants.ADAMTS13 and VWF plasma antigen levels were measured in patients with CTEPH (n=208), chronic thromboembolic disease without pulmonary hypertension (CTED) (n=35), resolved pulmonary embolism (n=28), idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension (n=30) and healthy controls (n=68). CTEPH genetic ABO associations and protein quantitative trait loci were investigated. ADAMTS13-VWF axis abnormalities were assessed in CTEPH and healthy control subsets by measuring ADAMTS13 activity, D-dimers and VWF multimeric size.Patients with CTEPH had decreased ADAMTS13 (adjusted β -23.4%, 95% CI -30.9- -15.1%, p<0.001) and increased VWF levels (β +75.5%, 95% CI 44.8-113%, p<0.001) compared to healthy controls. ADAMTS13 levels remained low after reversal of pulmonary hypertension by pulmonary endarterectomy surgery and were equally reduced in CTED. We identified a genetic variant near the ADAMTS13 gene associated with ADAMTS13 protein that accounted for ∼8% of the variation in levels.The ADAMTS13-VWF axis is dysregulated in CTEPH. This is unrelated to pulmonary hypertension, disease severity or markers of systemic inflammation and implicates the ADAMTS13-VWF axis in CTEPH pathobiology