35 research outputs found
Recommended from our members
Conditionally unbiased estimation in the normal setting with unknown variances.
To efficiently and completely correct for selection bias in adaptive two-stage trials, uniformly minimum variance conditionally unbiased estimators (UMVCUEs) have been derived for trial designs with normally distributed data. However, a common assumption is that the variances are known exactly, which is unlikely to be the case in practice. We extend the work of Cohen and Sackrowitz (Statistics & Probability Letters, 8(3):273-278, 1989), who proposed an UMVCUE for the best performing candidate in the normal setting with a common unknown variance. Our extension allows for multiple selected candidates, as well as unequal stage one and two sample sizes
Point and interval estimation in two-stage adaptive designs with time to event data and biomarker-driven subpopulation selection
In personalized medicine, it is often desired to determine if all patients or only a subset of them benefit from a treatment. We consider estimation in twoâstage adaptive designs that in stage 1 recruit patients from the full population. In stage 2, patient recruitment is restricted to the part of the population, which, based on stage 1 data, benefits from the experimental treatment. Existing estimators, which adjust for using stage 1 data for selecting the part of the population from which stage 2 patients are recruited, as well as for the confirmatory analysis after stage 2, do not consider time to event patient outcomes. In this work, for time to event data, we have derived a new asymptotically unbiased estimator for the log hazard ratio and a new interval estimator with good coverage probabilities and probabilities that the upper bounds are below the true values. The estimators are appropriate for several selection rules that are based on a single or multiple biomarkers, which can be categorical or continuous
Adjusting for treatment selection in phase II/III clinical trials with time to event data
Phase II/III clinical trials are efficient twoâstage designs that test multiple experimental treatments. In stage 1, patients are allocated to the control and all experimental treatments, with the data collected from them used to select experimental treatments to continue to stage 2. Patients recruited in stage 2 are allocated to the selected treatments and the control. Combined data of stage 1 and stage 2 are used for a confirmatory phase III analysis. Appropriate analysis needs to adjust for selection bias of the stage 1 data. Point estimators exist for normally distributed outcome data. Extending these estimators to time to event data is not straightforward because treatment selection is based on correlated treatment effects and stage 1 patients who do not get events in stage 1 are followedâup in stage 2. We have derived an approximately uniformly minimum variance conditional unbiased estimator (UMVCUE) and compared its biases and mean squared errors to existing bias adjusted estimators. In simulations, one existing bias adjusted estimator has similar properties as the practically unbiased UMVCUE while the others can have noticeable biases but they are less variable than the UMVCUE. For confirmatory phase II/III clinical trials where unbiased estimators are desired, we recommend the UMVCUE or the existing estimator with which it has similar properties
On model-based time trend adjustments in platform trials with non-concurrent controls
Platform trials can evaluate the efficacy of several treatments compared to a
control. The number of treatments is not fixed, as arms may be added or removed
as the trial progresses. Platform trials are more efficient than independent
parallel-group trials because of using shared control groups. For arms entering
the trial later, not all patients in the control group are randomised
concurrently. The control group is then divided into concurrent and
non-concurrent controls. Using non-concurrent controls (NCC) can improve the
trial's efficiency, but can introduce bias due to time trends.
We focus on a platform trial with two treatment arms and a common control
arm. Assuming that the second treatment arm is added later, we assess the
robustness of model-based approaches to adjust for time trends when using NCC.
We consider approaches where time trends are modeled as linear or as a step
function, with steps at times where arms enter or leave the trial. For trials
with continuous or binary outcomes, we investigate the type 1 error (t1e) rate
and power of testing the efficacy of the newly added arm under a range of
scenarios. In addition to scenarios where time trends are equal across arms, we
investigate settings with trends that are different or not additive in the
model scale.
A step function model fitted on data from all arms gives increased power
while controlling the t1e, as long as the time trends are equal for the
different arms and additive on the model scale. This holds even if the trend's
shape deviates from a step function if block randomisation is used. But if
trends differ between arms or are not additive on the model scale, t1e control
may be lost.
The efficiency gained by using step function models to incorporate NCC can
outweigh potential biases. However, the specifics of the trial, plausibility of
different time trends, and robustness of results should be considere