Search

To implement a Bayesian response-adaptive trial it is necessary to evaluate a sequence of posterior probabilities. This sequence is often approximated by simulation due to the unavailability of closed-form formulae to compute it exactly. Approximating these probabilities by simulation can be computationally expensive and impact the accuracy or the range of scenarios that may be explored. An alternative approximation method based on Gaussian distributions can be faster but its accuracy is not guaranteed. The literature lacks practical recommendations for selecting approximation methods and comparing their properties, particularly considering trade-offs between computational speed and accuracy. In this paper, we focus on the case where the trial has a binary endpoint with Beta priors. We first outline an efficient way to compute the posterior probabilities exactly for any number of treatment arms. Then, using exact probability computations, we show how to benchmark calculation methods based on considerations of computational speed, patient benefit, and inferential accuracy. This is done through a range of simulations in the two-armed case, as well as an analysis of the three-armed Established Status Epilepticus Treatment Trial. Finally, we provide practical guidance for which calculation method is most appropriate in different settings, and how to choose the number of simulations if the simulation-based approximation method is used., Comment: 16 pages, 3 figures, 3 tables

In adaptive clinical trials, the conventional confidence interval (CI) for a treatment effect is prone to undesirable properties such as undercoverage and potential inconsistency with the final hypothesis testing decision. Accordingly, as is stated in recent regulatory guidance on adaptive designs, there is the need for caution in the interpretation of CIs constructed during and after an adaptive clinical trial. However, it may be unclear which of the available CIs in the literature are preferable. This paper is the second in a two-part series that explores CIs for adaptive trials. Part I provided a methodological review of approaches to construct CIs for adaptive designs. In this paper (part II), we present an extended case study based around a two-stage group sequential trial, including a comprehensive simulation study of the proposed CIs for this setting. This facilitates an expanded description of considerations around what makes for an effective CI procedure following an adaptive trial. We show that the CIs can have notably different properties. Finally, we propose a set of guidelines for researchers around the choice of CIs and the reporting of CIs following an adaptive design., Comment: 40 pages

Regulatory guidance notes the need for caution in the interpretation of confidence intervals (CIs) constructed during and after an adaptive clinical trial. Conventional CIs of the treatment effects are prone to undercoverage (as well as other undesirable properties) in many adaptive designs, because they do not take into account the potential and realised trial adaptations. This paper is the first in a two-part series that explores CIs for adaptive trials. It provides a comprehensive review of the methods to construct CIs for adaptive designs, while the second paper illustrates how to implement these in practice and proposes a set of guidelines for trial statisticians. We describe several classes of techniques for constructing CIs for adaptive clinical trials, before providing a systematic literature review of available methods, classified by the type of adaptive design. As part of this, we assess, through a proposed traffic light system, which of several desirable features of CIs (such as achieving nominal coverage and consistency with the hypothesis test decision) each of these methods holds., Comment: 29 pages

The use of the non-parametric Restricted Mean Survival Time endpoint (RMST) has grown in popularity as trialists look to analyse time-to-event outcomes without the restrictions of the proportional hazards assumption. In this paper, we evaluate the power and type I error rate of the parametric and non-parametric RMST estimators when treatment effect is explained by multiple covariates, including an interaction term. Utilising the RMST estimator in this way allows the combined treatment effect to be summarised as a one-dimensional estimator, which is evaluated using a one-sided hypothesis Z-test. The estimators are either fully specified or misspecified, both in terms of unaccounted covariates or misspecified knot points (where trials exhibit crossing survival curves). A placebo-controlled trial of Gamma interferon is used as a motivating example to simulate associated survival times. When correctly specified, the parametric RMST estimator has the greatest power, regardless of the time of analysis. The misspecified RMST estimator generally performs similarly when covariates mirror those of the fitted case study dataset. However, as the magnitude of the unaccounted covariate increases, the associated power of the estimator decreases. In all cases, the non-parametric RMST estimator has the lowest power, and power remains very reliant on the time of analysis (with a later analysis time correlated with greater power)., Comment: 26 pages, 15 figures, 9 tables

In adaptive clinical trials, the conventional end-of-trial point estimate of a treatment effect is prone to bias, that is, a systematic tendency to deviate from its true value. As stated in recent FDA guidance on adaptive designs, it is desirable to report estimates of treatment effects that reduce or remove this bias. However, it may be unclear which of the available estimators are preferable, and their use remains rare in practice. This paper is the second in a two-part series that studies the issue of bias in point estimation for adaptive trials. Part I provided a methodological review of approaches to remove or reduce the potential bias in point estimation for adaptive designs. In part II, we discuss how bias can affect standard estimators and assess the negative impact this can have. We review current practice for reporting point estimates and illustrate the computation of different estimators using a real adaptive trial example (including code), which we use as a basis for a simulation study. We show that while on average the values of these estimators can be similar, for a particular trial realisation they can give noticeably different values for the estimated treatment effect. Finally, we propose guidelines for researchers around the choice of estimators and the reporting of estimates following an adaptive design. The issue of bias should be considered throughout the whole lifecycle of an adaptive design, with the estimation strategy pre-specified in the statistical analysis plan. When available, unbiased or bias-reduced estimates are to be preferred., Comment: Part II of a two-part series, part I can be found at arXiv:2105.08836

We present medium-resolution (R $\sim$ 4000) YJ, H \& K band spectroscopy of candidate young stellar objects (YSOs) in NGC~346, the most active star-formation region in the metal-poor (Z = 1/5 Z$_{\sun}$) Small Magellanic Cloud. The spectra were obtained with the KMOS (K-Band Multi Object Spectrograph) integral field instrument on the Very Large Telescope. From our initial sample of 18 candidate high-mass YSOs previously identified from mid-IR photometry and radiative transfer model fits to their spectral energy distributions, approximately half were resolved into multiple components by our integral-field data. In total, we detect 30 continuum sources and extract reliable spectra for 12 of these objects. The spectra show various features including hydrogen recombination lines, and lines from H$_2$, He~{\sc i} and [Fe~{\sc ii}], which are indicative of accretion, discs and outflowing material in massive YSOs. We spectroscopically confirm the youthful nature of nine YSO candidates and identify two others as OB stars. All of the confirmed YSOs have Br$\gamma$ in emission, but no emission is seen from the CO bandhead, despite other disc tracers present in the spectra. He\,{\sc i}~1.083 $\mu$m emission is also detected at appreciably higher rates than for the Galaxy., Comment: 15 pages, 6 figures. Accepted for publication MNRAS

Modern data analysis frequently involves large-scale hypothesis testing, which naturally gives rise to the problem of maintaining control of a suitable type I error rate, such as the false discovery rate (FDR). In many biomedical and technological applications, an additional complexity is that hypotheses are tested in an online manner, one-by-one over time. However, traditional procedures that control the FDR, such as the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure, assume that all p-values are available to be tested at a single time point. To address these challenges, a new field of methodology has developed over the past 15 years showing how to control error rates for online multiple hypothesis testing. In this framework, hypotheses arrive in a stream, and at each time point the analyst decides whether to reject the current hypothesis based both on the evidence against it, and on the previous rejection decisions. In this paper, we present a comprehensive exposition of the literature on online error rate control, with a review of key theory as well as a focus on applied examples. We also provide simulation results comparing different online testing algorithms and an up-to-date overview of the many methodological extensions that have been proposed., Comment: Updated in response to reviewer comments

Motivation: While the analysis of a single RNA sequencing (RNAseq) dataset has been well described in the literature, modern research workflows often have additional complexity in that related RNAseq experiments are performed sequentially over time. The simplest and most widely used analysis strategy ignores the temporal aspects and analyses each dataset separately. However, this can lead to substantial inflation of the overall false discovery rate (FDR). We propose applying recently developed methodology for online hypothesis testing to analyse sequential RNAseq experiments in a principled way, guaranteeing FDR control at all times while never changing past decisions. Results: We show that standard offline approaches have variable control of FDR of related RNAseq experiments over time and a naively composed approach may improperly change historic decisions. We demonstrate that the online FDR algorithms are a principled way to guarantee control of FDR. Furthermore, in certain simulation scenarios, we observe empirically that online approaches have comparable power to offline approaches. Availability and Implementation: The onlineFDR package is freely available at http: //www.bioconductor.org/packages/onlineFDR. Additional code used for the simulation studies can be found at https://github.com/latlio/onlinefdr_rnaseq_simulation

When comparing the performance of multi-armed bandit algorithms, the potential impact of missing data is often overlooked. In practice, it also affects their implementation where the simplest approach to overcome this is to continue to sample according to the original bandit algorithm, ignoring missing outcomes. We investigate the impact on performance of this approach to deal with missing data for several bandit algorithms through an extensive simulation study assuming the rewards are missing at random. We focus on two-armed bandit algorithms with binary outcomes in the context of patient allocation for clinical trials with relatively small sample sizes. However, our results apply to other applications of bandit algorithms where missing data is expected to occur. We assess the resulting operating characteristics, including the expected reward. Different probabilities of missingness in both arms are considered. The key finding of our work is that when using the simplest strategy of ignoring missing data, the impact on the expected performance of multi-armed bandit strategies varies according to the way these strategies balance the exploration-exploitation trade-off. Algorithms that are geared towards exploration continue to assign samples to the arm with more missing responses (which being perceived as the arm with less observed information is deemed more appealing by the algorithm than it would otherwise be). In contrast, algorithms that are geared towards exploitation would rapidly assign a high value to samples from the arms with a current high mean irrespective of the level observations per arm. Furthermore, for algorithms focusing more on exploration, we illustrate that the problem of missing responses can be alleviated using a simple mean imputation approach., Comment: 30 pages, 6 figures

Platform trials evaluate multiple experimental treatments under a single master protocol, where new treatment arms are added to the trial over time. Given the multiple treatment comparisons, there is the potential for inflation of the overall type I error rate, which is complicated by the fact that the hypotheses are tested at different times and are not all necessarily pre-specified. Online error control methodology provides a possible solution to the problem of multiplicity for platform trials where a relatively large number of hypotheses are expected to be tested over time. In the online testing framework, hypotheses are tested in a sequential manner, where at each time-step an analyst decides whether to reject the current null hypothesis without knowledge of future tests but based solely on past decisions. Methodology has recently been developed for online control of the false discovery rate as well as the familywise error rate (FWER). In this paper, we describe how to apply online error control to the platform trial setting, present extensive simulation results, and give some recommendations for the use of this new methodology in practice. We show that the algorithms for online error rate control can have a substantially lower FWER than uncorrected testing, while still achieving noticeable gains in power when compared with the use of a Bonferroni procedure. We also illustrate how online error control would have impacted a currently ongoing platform trial., Comment: 26 pages, 13 figures

Recent FDA guidance on adaptive clinical trial designs defines bias as "a systematic tendency for the estimate of treatment effect to deviate from its true value", and states that it is desirable to obtain and report estimates of treatment effects that reduce or remove this bias. The conventional end-of-trial point estimates of the treatment effects are prone to bias in many adaptive designs, because they do not take into account the potential and realised trial adaptations. While much of the methodological developments on adaptive designs have tended to focus on control of type I error rates and power considerations, in contrast the question of biased estimation has received relatively less attention. This paper is the first in a two-part series that studies the issue of potential bias in point estimation for adaptive trials. Part I provides a comprehensive review of the methods to remove or reduce the potential bias in point estimation of treatment effects for adaptive designs, while part II illustrates how to implement these in practice and proposes a set of guidelines for trial statisticians. The methods reviewed in this paper can be broadly classified into unbiased and bias-reduced estimation, and we also provide a classification of estimators by the type of adaptive design. We compare the proposed methods, highlight available software and code, and discuss potential methodological gaps in the literature., Comment: Part I of a two-part series; accepted in Statistics in Medicine

Adapting the final sample size of a trial to the evidence accruing during the trial is a natural way to address planning uncertainty. Designs with adaptive sample size need to account for their optional stopping to guarantee strict type-I error-rate control. A variety of different methods to maintain type-I error-rate control after unplanned changes of the initial sample size have been proposed in the literature. This makes interim analyses for the purpose of sample size recalculation feasible in a regulatory context. Since the sample size is usually determined via an argument based on the power of the trial, an interim analysis raises the question of how the final sample size should be determined conditional on the accrued information. Conditional power is a concept often put forward in this context. Since it depends on the unknown effect size, we take a strict estimation perspective and compare assumed conditional power, observed conditional power, and predictive power with respect to their properties as estimators of the unknown conditional power. We then demonstrate that pre-planning an interim analysis using methodology for unplanned interim analyses is ineffective and naturally leads to the concept of optimal two-stage designs. We conclude that unplanned design adaptations should only be conducted as reaction to trial-external new evidence, operational needs to violate the originally chosen design, or post hoc changes in the objective criterion. Finally, we show that commonly discussed sample size recalculation rules can lead to paradoxical outcomes and propose two alternative ways of reacting to newly emerging trial-external evidence.

Sample size derivation is a crucial element of the planning phase of any confirmatory trial. A sample size is typically derived based on constraints on the maximal acceptable type I error rate and a minimal desired power. Here, power depends on the unknown true effect size. In practice, power is typically calculated either for the smallest relevant effect size or a likely point alternative. The former might be problematic if the minimal relevant effect is close to the null, thus requiring an excessively large sample size. The latter is dubious since it does not account for the a priori uncertainty about the likely alternative effect size. A Bayesian perspective on the sample size derivation for a frequentist trial naturally emerges as a way of reconciling arguments about the relative a priori plausibility of alternative effect sizes with ideas based on the relevance of effect sizes. Many suggestions as to how such `hybrid' approaches could be implemented in practice have been put forward in the literature. However, key quantities such as assurance, probability of success, or expected power are often defined in subtly different ways in the literature. Starting from the traditional and entirely frequentist approach to sample size derivation, we derive consistent definitions for the most commonly used `hybrid' quantities and highlight connections, before discussing and demonstrating their use in the context of sample size derivation for clinical trials.

Response-Adaptive Randomization (RAR) is part of a wider class of data-dependent sampling algorithms, for which clinical trials are typically used as a motivating application. In that context, patient allocation to treatments is determined by randomization probabilities that change based on the accrued response data in order to achieve experimental goals. RAR has received abundant theoretical attention from the biostatistical literature since the 1930's and has been the subject of numerous debates. In the last decade, it has received renewed consideration from the applied and methodological communities, driven by well-known practical examples and its widespread use in machine learning. Papers on the subject present different views on its usefulness, and these are not easy to reconcile. This work aims to address this gap by providing a unified, broad and fresh review of methodological and practical issues to consider when debating the use of RAR in clinical trials., Comment: Update in response to editor comments

When simultaneously testing multiple hypotheses, the usual approach in the context of confirmatory clinical trials is to control the familywise error rate (FWER), which bounds the probability of making at least one false rejection. In many trial settings, these hypotheses will additionally have a hierarchical structure that reflects the relative importance and links between different clinical objectives. The graphical approach of Bretz et al. (2009) is a flexible and easily communicable way of controlling the FWER while respecting complex trial objectives and multiple structured hypotheses. However, the FWER can be a very stringent criterion that leads to procedures with low power, and may not be appropriate in exploratory trial settings. This motivates controlling generalised error rates, particularly when the number of hypotheses tested is no longer small. We consider the generalised familywise error rate (k-FWER), which is the probability of making k or more false rejections, as well as the tail probability of the false discovery proportion (FDP), which is the probability that the proportion of false rejections is greater than some threshold. We also consider asymptotic control of the false discovery rate (FDR), which is the expectation of the FDP. In this paper, we show how to control these generalised error rates when using the graphical approach and its extensions. We demonstrate the utility of the resulting graphical procedures on three clinical trial case studies., Comment: Accepted for publication in Statistics in Medicine