Designs for adding a treatment arm to an ongoing clinical trial.

BACKGROUND:For many disease areas, there are often treatments in different stages of the development process. We consider the design of a two-arm parallel group trial where it is planned to add a new experimental treatment arm during the trial. This could potentially save money, patients, time and resources; however, the addition of a treatment arm creates a multiple comparison problem. Current practice in trials when a new treatment arm has been added is to compare the new treatment only to controls randomised concurrently, and this is the setting we consider here. Furthermore, for standard multi-arm trials, optimal allocation randomises a larger number of patients to the control arm than to each experimental treatment arm. METHODS:In this paper we propose an adaptive design, the aim of which is to adapt the sample size of the trial when the new treatment arm is added to control the family-wise error rate (FWER) in the strong sense, whilst maintaining the marginal power of each treatment-to-control comparison at the level of the original study. We explore optimal allocation for designs where a treatment arm is added with the aim of increasing the overall power of the study, where we define the overall power to be the probability of detecting all treatments that are better than the control. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS:An increase in sample size is required to maintain the marginal power for each pairwise comparison when adding a treatment arm if control of the FWER is required at the level of the type I error in the original study. When control of the FWER is required in a single trial which adds an additional experimental treatment arm, but control of the FWER is not required in separate trials, depending on the design characteristics, it may be better to run a separate trial for each experimental treatment, in terms of the number of patients required. An increase in overall power can be achieved when optimal allocation is used once a treatment arm has been added to the trial, rather than continuing with equal allocation to all treatment arms

A product of independent beta probabilities dose escalation design for dual-agent phase I trials.

Dual-agent trials are now increasingly common in oncology research, and many proposed dose-escalation designs are available in the statistical literature. Despite this, the translation from statistical design to practical application is slow, as has been highlighted in single-agent phase I trials, where a 3 + 3 rule-based design is often still used. To expedite this process, new dose-escalation designs need to be not only scientifically beneficial but also easy to understand and implement by clinicians. In this paper, we propose a curve-free (nonparametric) design for a dual-agent trial in which the model parameters are the probabilities of toxicity at each of the dose combinations. We show that it is relatively trivial for a clinician's prior beliefs or historical information to be incorporated in the model and updating is fast and computationally simple through the use of conjugate Bayesian inference. Monotonicity is ensured by considering only a set of monotonic contours for the distribution of the maximum tolerated contour, which defines the dose-escalation decision process. Varied experimentation around the contour is achievable, and multiple dose combinations can be recommended to take forward to phase II. Code for R, Stata and Excel are available for implementation.We would like to acknowledge funding from the UK Medical Research Council (grant code U1052.00.014) for this work. We would also like to thank the reviewers for providing some excellent suggestions to help improve the manuscript.This is the final published version. It first appeared at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sim.6434/abstract

Do single-arm trials have a role in drug development plans incorporating randomised trials?

Often, single-arm trials are used in phase II to gather the first evidence of an oncological drug's efficacy, with drug activity determined through tumour response using the RECIST criterion. Provided the null hypothesis of 'insufficient drug activity' is rejected, the next step could be a randomised two-arm trial. However, single-arm trials may provide a biased treatment effect because of patient selection, and thus, this development plan may not be an efficient use of resources. Therefore, we compare the performance of development plans consisting of single-arm trials followed by randomised two-arm trials with stand-alone single-stage or group sequential randomised two-arm trials. Through this, we are able to investigate the utility of single-arm trials and determine the most efficient drug development plans, setting our work in the context of a published single-arm non-small-cell lung cancer trial. Reference priors, reflecting the opinions of 'sceptical' and 'enthusiastic' investigators, are used to quantify and guide the suitability of single-arm trials in this setting. We observe that the explored development plans incorporating single-arm trials are often non-optimal. Moreover, even the most pessimistic reference priors have a considerable probability in favour of alternative plans. Analysis suggests expected sample size savings of up to 25% could have been made, and the issues associated with single-arm trials avoided, for the non-small-cell lung cancer treatment through direct progression to a group sequential randomised two-arm trial. Careful consideration should thus be given to the use of single-arm trials in oncological drug development when a randomised trial will follow.Michael J. Grayling is supported by the Wellcome Trust [grant number 099770/Z/12/Z]. Adrian P. Mander is supported by the Medical Research Council [grant number G0800860].This is the final version of the article. It first appeared from Wiley via http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pst.172

Group sequential designs for stepped-wedge cluster randomised trials.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial design has received substantial attention in recent years. Although various extensions to the original design have been proposed, no guidance is available on the design of stepped-wedge cluster randomised trials with interim analyses. In an individually randomised trial setting, group sequential methods can provide notable efficiency gains and ethical benefits. We address this by discussing how established group sequential methodology can be adapted for stepped-wedge designs. METHODS: Utilising the error spending approach to group sequential trial design, we detail the assumptions required for the determination of stepped-wedge cluster randomised trials with interim analyses. We consider early stopping for efficacy, futility, or efficacy and futility. We describe first how this can be done for any specified linear mixed model for data analysis. We then focus on one particular commonly utilised model and, using a recently completed stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial, compare the performance of several designs with interim analyses to the classical stepped-wedge design. Finally, the performance of a quantile substitution procedure for dealing with the case of unknown variance is explored. RESULTS: We demonstrate that the incorporation of early stopping in stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial designs could reduce the expected sample size under the null and alternative hypotheses by up to 31% and 22%, respectively, with no cost to the trial's type-I and type-II error rates. The use of restricted error maximum likelihood estimation was found to be more important than quantile substitution for controlling the type-I error rate. CONCLUSION: The addition of interim analyses into stepped-wedge cluster randomised trials could help guard against time-consuming trials conducted on poor performing treatments and also help expedite the implementation of efficacious treatments. In future, trialists should consider incorporating early stopping of some kind into stepped-wedge cluster randomised trials according to the needs of the particular trial

AplusB: A Web Application for Investigating A + B Designs for Phase I Cancer Clinical Trials.

In phase I cancer clinical trials, the maximum tolerated dose of a new drug is often found by a dose-escalation method known as the A + B design. We have developed an interactive web application, AplusB, which computes and returns exact operating characteristics of A + B trial designs. The application has a graphical user interface (GUI), requires no programming knowledge and is free to access and use on any device that can open an internet browser. A customised report is available for download for each design that contains tabulated operating characteristics and informative plots, which can then be compared with other dose-escalation methods. We present a step-by-step guide on how to use this application and provide several illustrative examples of its capabilities.GMW and APM are supported by the UK Medical Research Council (www.mrc.ac.uk; grant number G0800860). MJS is supported by a European Research Council Advanced Investigator Award: EPIC-Heart (https://erc.europa.eu; grant number 268834), the UK Medical Research Council (grant number MR/L003120/1), the British Heart Foundation (www.bhf.org.uk), and the Cambridge National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre (http://www.cambridge-brc.org.uk). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.This is the final version of the article. It first appeared from PLOS at http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0159026

Group sequential crossover trial designs with strong control of the familywise error rate.

Crossover designs are an extremely useful tool to investigators, and group sequential methods have proven highly proficient at improving the efficiency of parallel group trials. Yet, group sequential methods and crossover designs have rarely been paired together. One possible explanation for this could be the absence of a formal proof of how to strongly control the familywise error rate in the case when multiple comparisons will be made. Here, we provide this proof, valid for any number of initial experimental treatments and any number of stages, when results are analyzed using a linear mixed model. We then establish formulae for the expected sample size and expected number of observations of such a trial, given any choice of stopping boundaries. Finally, utilizing the four-treatment, four-period TOMADO trial as an example, we demonstrate that group sequential methods in this setting could have reduced the trials expected number of observations under the global null hypothesis by over 33%

An optimised multi-arm multi-stage clinical trial design for unknown variance.

Multi-arm multi-stage trial designs can bring notable gains in efficiency to the drug development process. However, for normally distributed endpoints, the determination of a design typically depends on the assumption that the patient variance in response is known. In practice, this will not usually be the case. To allow for unknown variance, previous research explored the performance of t-test statistics, coupled with a quantile substitution procedure for modifying the stopping boundaries, at controlling the familywise error-rate to the nominal level. Here, we discuss an alternative method based on Monte Carlo simulation that allows the group size and stopping boundaries of a multi-arm multi-stage t-test to be optimised, according to some nominated optimality criteria. We consider several examples, provide R code for general implementation, and show that our designs confer a familywise error-rate and power close to the desired level. Consequently, this methodology will provide utility in future multi-arm multi-stage trials

Stepped wedge cluster randomized controlled trial designs: a review of reporting quality and design features

Abstract Background The stepped wedge (SW) cluster randomized controlled trial (CRCT) design is being used with increasing frequency. However, there is limited published research on the quality of reporting of SW-CRCTs. We address this issue by conducting a literature review. Methods Medline, Ovid, Web of Knowledge, the Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, the ISRCTN registry, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched to identify investigations employing the SW-CRCT design up to February 2015. For each included completed study, information was extracted on a selection of criteria, based on the CONSORT extension to CRCTs, to assess the quality of reporting. Results A total of 123 studies were included in our review, of which 39 were completed trial reports. The standard of reporting of SW-CRCTs varied in quality. The percentage of trials reporting each criterion varied to as low as 15.4%, with a median of 66.7%. Conclusions There is much room for improvement in the quality of reporting of SW-CRCTs. This is consistent with recent findings for CRCTs. A CONSORT extension for SW-CRCTs is warranted to standardize the reporting of SW-CRCTs