Search

Background: Phase-3 clinical trials provide the highest level of evidence on drug safety and effectiveness needed for market approval by implementing large randomized controlled trials (RCTs). However, 30–40% of these trials fail mainly because such studies have inadequate sample sizes, stemming from the inability to obtain accurate initial estimates of average treatment effect parameters. Methods: To remove this obstacle from the drug development cycle, we present a new algorithm called Trend-Adaptive Design with a Synthetic-Intervention-Based Estimator (TAD-SIE) that powers a parallel-group trial, a standard RCT design, by leveraging a state-of-the-art hypothesis testing strategy and a novel trend-adaptive design (TAD). Specifically, TAD-SIE uses synthetic intervention (SI) to estimate individual treatment effects and thereby simulate a cross-over design, which makes it easier for a trial to reach target power within trial constraints (e.g., sample size limits). To estimate sample sizes, TAD-SIE implements a new TAD tailored to SI given that using it violates assumptions under standard TADs. In addition, our TAD overcomes the ineffectiveness of standard TADs by allowing sample sizes to be increased across iterations without any condition while controlling significance level with futility stopping. Our TAD also introduces a hyperparameter that enables trial designers to trade off between accuracy and efficiency (sample size and number of iterations) of the solution. Results: On a real-world Phase-3 clinical RCT (i.e., a two-arm parallel-group superiority trial with an equal number of subjects per arm), TAD-SIE obtains operating points ranging between 63% to 84% power and 3% to 6% significance level in contrast to baseline algorithms that get at best 49% power and 6% significance level. Conclusion: TAD-SIE is a superior TAD that can be used to reach typical target operating points but only for trials with rapidly measurable primary outcomes due to its sequential nature. The framework is useful to practitioners interested in leveraging the SI algorithm for their study design. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are now frequently used in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) as primary endpoints. RCTs are longitudinal, and many have a baseline (PRE) assessment of the outcome and one or more post-randomisation assessments of outcome (POST). With such pre-test post-test RCT designs there are several ways of estimating the sample size and analysing the outcome data: analysis of post-randomisation treatment means (POST); analysis of mean changes from pre- to post-randomisation (CHANGE); analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Sample size estimation using the CHANGE and ANCOVA methods requires specification of the correlation between the baseline and follow-up measurements. Other parameters in the sample size estimation method being unchanged, an assumed correlation of 0.70 (between baseline and follow-up outcomes) means that we can halve the required sample size at the study design stage if we used an ANCOVA method compared to a comparison of POST treatment means method. So what correlation (between baseline and follow-up outcomes) should be assumed and used in the sample size calculation? The aim of this paper is to estimate the correlations between baseline and follow-up PROMs in RCTs. Methods The Pearson correlation coefficients between the baseline and repeated PROM assessments from 20 RCTs (with 7173 participants at baseline) were calculated and summarised. Results The 20 reviewed RCTs had sample sizes, at baseline, ranging from 49 to 2659 participants. The time points for the post-randomisation follow-up assessments ranged from 7 days to 24 months; 464 correlations, between baseline and follow-up, were estimated; the mean correlation was 0.50 (median 0.51; standard deviation 0.15; range − 0.13 to 0.91). Conclusions There is a general consistency in the correlations between the repeated PROMs, with the majority being in the range of 0.4 to 0.6. The implications are that we can reduce the sample size in an RCT by 25% if we use an ANCOVA model, with a correlation of 0.50, for the design and analysis. There is a decline in correlation amongst more distant pairs of time points.

Background: The 'Adaptive Designs Accelerating Promising Trials into Treatments (ADAPT-IT)' project is a collaborative effort supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and United States Food & Drug Administration (FDA) to explore how adaptive clinical trial design might improve the evaluation of drugs and medical devices. ADAPT-IT uses the National Institute of Neurologic Disorders & Stroke-supported Neurological Emergencies Treatment Trials (NETT) network as a 'laboratory' in which to study the development of adaptive clinical trial designs in the confirmatory setting. The Stroke Hyperglycemia Insulin Network Effort (SHINE) trial was selected for funding by the NIH-NINDS at the start of ADAPT-IT and is currently an ongoing phase III trial of tight glucose control in hyperglycemic acute ischemic stroke patients. Within ADAPT-IT, a Bayesian adaptive Goldilocks trial design alternative was developed. Methods: The SHINE design includes response adaptive randomization, a sample size re-estimation, and monitoring for early efficacy and futility according to a group sequential design. The Goldilocks design includes more frequent monitoring for predicted success or futility and a longitudinal model of the primary endpoint. Both trial designs were simulated and compared in terms of their mean sample size and power across a range of treatment effects and success rates for the control group. Results: As simulated, the SHINE design tends to have slightly higher power and the Goldilocks design has a lower mean sample size. Both designs were tuned to have approximately 80% power to detect a difference of 25% versus 32% between control and treatment, respectively. In this scenario, mean sample sizes are 1,114 and 979 for the SHINE and Goldilocks designs, respectively. Conclusions: Two designs were brought forward, and both were evaluated, revised, and improved based on the input of all parties involved in the ADAPT-IT process. However, the SHINE investigators were tasked with choosing only a single design to implement and ultimately elected not to implement the Goldilocks design. The Goldilocks design will be retrospectively executed upon completion of SHINE to later compare the designs based on their use of patient resources, time, and conclusions in a real world setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are now frequently used in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) as primary endpoints. RCTs are longitudinal, and many have a baseline (PRE) assessment of the outcome and one or more post-randomisation assessments of outcome (POST). With such pre-test post-test RCT designs there are several ways of estimating the sample size and analysing the outcome data: analysis of post-randomisation treatment means (POST); analysis of mean changes from pre- to post-randomisation (CHANGE); analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Sample size estimation using the CHANGE and ANCOVA methods requires specification of the correlation between the baseline and follow-up measurements. Other parameters in the sample size estimation method being unchanged, an assumed correlation of 0.70 (between baseline and follow-up outcomes) means that we can halve the required sample size at the study design stage if we used an ANCOVA method compared to a comparison of POST treatment means method. So what correlation (between baseline and follow-up outcomes) should be assumed and used in the sample size calculation? The aim of this paper is to estimate the correlations between baseline and follow-up PROMs in RCTs.Methods: The Pearson correlation coefficients between the baseline and repeated PROM assessments from 20 RCTs (with 7173 participants at baseline) were calculated and summarised.Results: The 20 reviewed RCTs had sample sizes, at baseline, ranging from 49 to 2659 participants. The time points for the post-randomisation follow-up assessments ranged from 7 days to 24 months; 464 correlations, between baseline and follow-up, were estimated; the mean correlation was 0.50 (median 0.51; standard deviation 0.15; range - 0.13 to 0.91).Conclusions: There is a general consistency in the correlations between the repeated PROMs, with the majority being in the range of 0.4 to -0.6. The implications are that we can reduce the sample size in an RCT by 25% if we use an ANCOVA model, with a correlation of 0.50, for the design and analysis. There is a decline in correlation amongst more distant pairs of time points. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]