Search

Abstract Background An adaptive design allows modifying the design based on accumulated data while maintaining trial validity and integrity. The final sample size may be unknown when designing an adaptive trial. It is therefore important to consider what sample size is used in the planning of the study and how that is communicated to add transparency to the understanding of the trial design and facilitate robust planning. In this paper, we reviewed trial protocols and grant applications on the sample size reporting for randomised adaptive trials. Method We searched protocols of randomised trials with comparative objectives on ClinicalTrials.gov (01/01/2010 to 31/12/2022). Contemporary eligible grant applications accessed from UK publicly funded researchers were also included. Suitable records of adaptive designs were reviewed, and key information was extracted and descriptively analysed. Results We identified 439 records, and 265 trials were eligible. Of these, 164 (61.9%) and 101 (38.1%) were sponsored by industry and public sectors, respectively, with 169 (63.8%) of all trials using a group sequential design although trial adaptations used were diverse. The maximum and minimum sample sizes were the most reported or directly inferred (n = 199, 75.1%). The sample size assuming no adaptation would be triggered was usually set as the estimated target sample size in the protocol. However, of the 152 completed trials, 15 (9.9%) and 33 (21.7%) had their sample size increased or reduced triggered by trial adaptations, respectively. The sample size calculation process was generally well reported in most cases (n = 216, 81.5%); however, the justification for the sample size calculation parameters was missing in 116 (43.8%) trials. Less than half gave sufficient information on the study design operating characteristics (n = 119, 44.9%). Conclusion Although the reporting of sample sizes varied, the maximum and minimum sample sizes were usually reported. Most of the trials were planned for estimated enrolment assuming no adaptation would be triggered. This is despite the fact a third of reported trials changed their sample size. The sample size calculation was generally well reported, but the justification of sample size calculation parameters and the reporting of the statistical behaviour of the adaptive design could still be improved.

Abstract Background Adaptive clinical trials may use conditional power (CP) to make decisions at interim analyses, requiring assumptions about the treatment effect for remaining patients. It is critical that these assumptions are understood by those using CP in decision-making, as well as timings of these decisions. Methods Data for 21 outcomes from 14 published clinical trials were made available for re-analysis. CP curves for accruing outcome information were calculated using and compared with a pre-specified objective criteria for original and transformed versions of the trial data using four future treatment effect assumptions: (i) observed current trend, (ii) hypothesised effect, (iii) 80% optimistic confidence limit, (iv) 90% optimistic confidence limit. Results The hypothesised effect assumption met objective criteria when the true effect was close to that planned, but not when smaller than planned. The opposite was seen using the current trend assumption. Optimistic confidence limit assumptions appeared to offer a compromise between the two, performing well against objective criteria when the end observed effect was as planned or smaller. Conclusion The current trend assumption could be the preferable assumption when there is a wish to stop early for futility. Interim analyses could be undertaken as early as 30% of patients have data available. Optimistic confidence limit assumptions should be considered when using CP to make trial decisions, although later interim timings should be considered where logistically feasible.

Abstract Background Existing guidelines recommend statisticians remain blinded to treatment allocation prior to the final analysis and that any interim analyses should be conducted by a separate team from the one undertaking the final analysis. However, there remains substantial variation in practice between UK Clinical Trials Units (CTUs) when it comes to blinding statisticians. Therefore, the aim of this study was to develop guidance to advise CTUs on a risk-proportionate approach to blinding statisticians within clinical trials. Methods This study employed a mixed methods approach involving three stages: (I) a quantitative study using a cohort of 200 studies (from a major UK funder published between 2016 and 2020) to assess the impact of blinding statisticians on the proportion of trials reporting a statistically significant finding for the primary outcome(s); (II) a qualitative study using focus groups to determine the perspectives of key stakeholders on the practice of blinding trial statisticians; and (III) combining the results of stages I and II, along with a stakeholder meeting, to develop guidance for UK CTUs. Results After screening abstracts, 179 trials were included for review. The results of the primary analysis showed no evidence that involvement of an unblinded trial statistician was associated with the likelihood of statistically significant findings being reported, odds ratio (OR) 1.02 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 2.13). Six focus groups were conducted, with 37 participants. The triangulation between stages I and II resulted in developing 40 provisional statements. These were rated independently by the stakeholder group prior to the meeting. Ten statements reached agreement with no agreement on 30 statements. At the meeting, various factors were identified that could influence the decision of blinding the statistician, including timing, study design, types of intervention and practicalities. Guidance including 21 recommendations/considerations was developed alongside a Risk Assessment Tool to provide CTUs with a framework for assessing the risks associated with blinding/not blinding statisticians and for identifying appropriate mitigation strategies. Conclusions This is the first study to develop a guidance document to enhance the understanding of blinding statisticians and to provide a framework for the decision-making process. The key finding was that the decision to blind statisticians should be based on the benefits and risks associated with a particular trial.

Abstract Background There is a marked increase in unscheduled care visits in school-aged children with asthma after returning to school in September. This is potentially associated with children not taking their asthma preventer medication during the school summer holidays. A cluster randomised controlled trial (PLEASANT) was undertaken with 1279 school-age children in 141 general practices (71 on intervention and 70 on control) in England and Wales. It found that a simple letter sent from the family doctor during the school holidays to a parent with a child with asthma, informing them of the importance of taking asthma preventer medication during the summer relatively increased prescriptions by 30% in August and reduced medical contacts in the period September to December. Also, it is estimated there was a cost-saving of £36.07 per patient over the year. We aim to conduct a randomised trial to assess if informing GP practices of an evidence-based intervention improves the implementation of that intervention. Methods/design The TRAINS study—TRial to Assess Implementation of New research in a primary care Setting—is a pragmatic cluster randomised implementation trial using routine data. A total of 1389 general practitioner (GP) practices in England will be included into the trial; 694 GP practices will be randomised to the intervention group and 695 control group of usual care. The Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) will send the intervention and obtain all data for the study, including prescription and primary care contacts data. The intervention will be sent in June 2021 by postal and email to the asthma lead and/or practice manager. The intervention is a letter to GPs informing them of the PLEASANT study findings with recommendations. It will come with an information leaflet about PLEASANT and a suggested reminder letter and SMS text template. Discussion The trial will assess if informing GP practices of the PLEASANT trial results will increase prescription uptake before the start of the school year. The hope is that the intervention will increase the implementation of PLEASANT work and then increase prescription uptake during the summer holiday prior to the start of school. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT05226091

Abstract When designing a noninferiority (NI) study one of the most important steps is to set the noninferiority (NI) limit. The NI limit is an acceptable loss of efficacy for a new investigative treatment compared to an active control treatment – often standard care. The limit should be a value so small that the loss efficacy is clinically zero. An approach to the setting of a noninferiority limit such that an effect over placebo can be shown through an indirect comparison to placebo-controlled trials where the active control treatment was compared to placebo. In this context, the setting of the NI limit depends on three assumptions: assay sensitivity, bias minimisation, and the constancy assumption. The last assumption of constancy assumes the effect of the active control over placebo is constant. This paper aims to assess the constancy assumption in placebo-controlled trials. Methods: 236 Cochrane reviews of placebo-controlled trials published in 2015–2016 were collected and used to assess the relation between the placebo, active treatment, and the standardised treatment different (SMD) with the time (year of publication). Results : The analysis showed that both the size of the study and the treatment effect were associated with year of publication. The three main variables that affect the estimate of any future trial are the estimate from the meta-analysis of previous trials prior to the trial, the year difference in the meta-analysis, and the year of the trial conduction. The regression analysis showed that an increase of one unit in the point estimate of the historical meta-analysis would lead to an increase in the predicted estimate of future trial on the SMD scale by 0.88. This result suggests the final trial results are 12% smaller than that from the meta-analysis of trials until that point. Conclusion : The result of this study indicates that assuming constancy of the treatment difference between the active control and placebo can be questioned. It is therefore important to consider the effect of time in estimating the treatment response if indirect comparisons are being used as the basis of a NI limit.

Abstract Introduction Sample size calculations require assumptions regarding treatment response and variability. Incorrect assumptions can result in under- or overpowered trials, posing ethical concerns. Sample size re-estimation (SSR) methods investigate the validity of these assumptions and increase the sample size if necessary. The “promising zone” (Mehta and Pocock, Stat Med 30:3267–3284, 2011) concept is appealing to researchers for its design simplicity. However, it is still relatively new in the application and has been a source of controversy. Objectives This research aims to synthesise current approaches and practical implementation of the promising zone design. Methods This systematic review comprehensively identifies the reporting of methodological research and of clinical trials using promising zone. Databases were searched according to a pre-specified search strategy, and pearl growing techniques implemented. Results The combined search methods resulted in 270 unique records identified; 171 were included in the review, of which 30 were trials. The median time to the interim analysis was 60% of the original target sample size (IQR 41–73%). Of the 15 completed trials, 7 increased their sample size. Only 21 studies reported the maximum sample size that would be considered, for which the median increase was 50% (IQR 35–100%). Conclusions Promising zone is being implemented in a range of trials worldwide, albeit in low numbers. Identifying trials using promising zone was difficult due to the lack of reporting of SSR methodology. Even when SSR methodology was reported, some had key interim analysis details missing, and only eight papers provided promising zone ranges.

Abstract Adaptive designs (ADs) allow pre-planned changes to an ongoing trial without compromising the validity of conclusions and it is essential to distinguish pre-planned from unplanned changes that may also occur. The reporting of ADs in randomised trials is inconsistent and needs improving. Incompletely reported AD randomised trials are difficult to reproduce and are hard to interpret and synthesise. This consequently hampers their ability to inform practice as well as future research and contributes to research waste. Better transparency and adequate reporting will enable the potential benefits of ADs to be realised. This extension to the Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statement was developed to enhance the reporting of randomised AD clinical trials. We developed an Adaptive designs CONSORT Extension (ACE) guideline through a two-stage Delphi process with input from multidisciplinary key stakeholders in clinical trials research in the public and private sectors from 21 countries, followed by a consensus meeting. Members of the CONSORT Group were involved during the development process. The paper presents the ACE checklists for AD randomised trial reports and abstracts, as well as an explanation with examples to aid the application of the guideline. The ACE checklist comprises seven new items, nine modified items, six unchanged items for which additional explanatory text clarifies further considerations for ADs, and 20 unchanged items not requiring further explanatory text. The ACE abstract checklist has one new item, one modified item, one unchanged item with additional explanatory text for ADs, and 15 unchanged items not requiring further explanatory text. The intention is to enhance transparency and improve reporting of AD randomised trials to improve the interpretability of their results and reproducibility of their methods, results and inference. We also hope indirectly to facilitate the much-needed knowledge transfer of innovative trial designs to maximise their potential benefits. In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on the BMJ and Trials journal websites. “To maximise the benefit to society, you need to not just do research but do it well” Douglas G Altman

Abstract Background With millions of pounds spent annually on medical research in the UK, it is important that studies are spending funds wisely. Internal pilots offer the chance to stop a trial early if it becomes apparent that the study will not be able to recruit enough patients to show whether an intervention is clinically effective. This study aims to assess the use of internal pilots in individually randomised controlled trials funded by the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme and to summarise the progression criteria chosen in these trials. Methods Studies were identified from reports of the HTA committees’ funding decisions from 2012 to 2016. In total, 242 trials were identified of which 134 were eligible to be included in the audit. Protocols for the eligible studies were located on the NIHR Journals website, and if protocols were not available online then study managers were contacted to provide information. Results Over two-thirds (72.4%) of studies said in their protocol that they would include an internal pilot phase for their study and 37.8% of studies without an internal pilot had done an external pilot study to assess the feasibility of the full study. A typical study with an internal pilot has a target sample size of 510 over 24 months and aims to recruit one-fifth of their total target sample size within the first one-third of their recruitment time. There has been an increase in studies adopting a three-tiered structure for their progression rules in recent years, with 61.5% (16/26) of studies using the system in 2016 compared to just 11.8% (2/17) in 2015. There was also a rise in the number of studies giving a target recruitment rate in their progression criteria: 42.3% (11/26) in 2016 compared to 35.3% (6/17) in 2015. Conclusions Progression criteria for an internal pilot are usually well specified but targets vary widely. For the actual criteria, red/amber/green systems have increased in popularity in recent years. Trials should justify the targets they have set, especially where targets are low.

Abstract Background Adequate reporting of adaptive designs (ADs) maximises their potential benefits in the conduct of clinical trials. Transparent reporting can help address some obstacles and concerns relating to the use of ADs. Currently, there are deficiencies in the reporting of AD trials. To overcome this, we have developed a consensus-driven extension to the CONSORT statement for randomised trials using an AD. This paper describes the processes and methods used to develop this extension rather than detailed explanation of the guideline. Methods We developed the guideline in seven overlapping stages:1)Building on prior research to inform the need for a guideline;2)A scoping literature review to inform future stages;3)Drafting the first checklist version involving an External Expert Panel;4)A two-round Delphi process involving international, multidisciplinary, and cross-sector key stakeholders;5)A consensus meeting to advise which reporting items to retain through voting, and to discuss the structure of what to include in the supporting explanation and elaboration (E&E) document;6)Refining and finalising the checklist; and7)Writing-up and dissemination of the E&E document. The CONSORT Executive Group oversaw the entire development process. Results Delphi survey response rates were 94/143 (66%), 114/156 (73%), and 79/143 (55%) in rounds 1, 2, and across both rounds, respectively. Twenty-seven delegates from Europe, the USA, and Asia attended the consensus meeting. The main checklist has seven new and nine modified items and six unchanged items with expanded E&E text to clarify further considerations for ADs. The abstract checklist has one new and one modified item together with an unchanged item with expanded E&E text. The E&E document will describe the scope of the guideline, the definition of an AD, and some types of ADs and trial adaptations and explain each reporting item in detail including case studies. Conclusions We hope that making the development processes, methods, and all supporting information that aided decision-making transparent will enhance the acceptability and quick uptake of the guideline. This will also help other groups when developing similar CONSORT extensions. The guideline is applicable to all randomised trials with an AD and contains minimum reporting requirements.

Abstract Background A key step in the design of a RCT is the estimation of the number of participants needed in the study. The most common approach is to specify a target difference between the treatments for the primary outcome and then calculate the required sample size. The sample size is chosen to ensure that the trial will have a high probability (adequate statistical power) of detecting a target difference between the treatments should one exist. The sample size has many implications for the conduct and interpretation of the study. Despite the critical role that the target difference has in the design of a RCT, the way in which it is determined has received little attention. In this article, we summarise the key considerations and messages from new guidance for researchers and funders on specifying the target difference, and undertaking and reporting a RCT sample size calculation. This article on choosing the target difference for a randomised controlled trial (RCT) and undertaking and reporting the sample size calculation has been dual published in the BMJ and BMC Trials journals Methods The DELTA2 (Difference ELicitation in TriAls) project comprised five major components: systematic literature reviews of recent methodological developments (stage 1) and existing funder guidance (stage 2); a Delphi study (stage 3); a two-day consensus meeting bringing together researchers, funders and patient representatives (stage 4); and the preparation and dissemination of a guidance document (stage 5). Results and Discussion The key messages from the DELTA2 guidance on determining the target difference and sample size calculation for a randomised caontrolled trial are presented. Recommendations for the subsequent reporting of the sample size calculation are also provided.

Abstract Background A key step in the design of a randomised controlled trial is the estimation of the number of participants needed. The most common approach is to specify a target difference in the primary outcome between the randomised groups and then estimate the corresponding sample size. The sample size is chosen to provide reassurance that the trial will have high statistical power to detect the target difference at the planned statistical significance level. Alternative approaches are also available, though most still require specification of a target difference. The sample size has many implications for the conduct of the study, as well as incurring scientific and ethical aspects. Despite the critical role of the target difference for the primary outcome in the design of a randomised controlled trial (RCT), the manner in which it is determined has received little attention. This article reports the development of the DELTA2 guidance on the specification and reporting of the target difference for the primary outcome in a sample size calculation for a RCT. Methods The DELTA2 (Difference ELicitation in TriAls) project has five components comprising systematic literature reviews of recent methodological developments (stage 1) and existing funder guidance (stage 2), a Delphi study (stage 3), a 2-day consensus meeting bringing together researchers, funders and patient representatives (stage 4), and the preparation and dissemination of a guidance document (stage 5). Results The project started in April 2016. The literature search identified 28 articles of methodological developments relevant to a method for specifying a target difference. A Delphi study involving 69 participants, along with a 2-day consensus meeting were conducted. In addition, further engagement sessions were held at two international conferences. The main guidance text was finalised on April 18, 2018, after revision informed by feedback gathered from stages 2 and 3 and from funder representatives. Discussion The DELTA2 Delphi study identified a number of areas (such as practical recommendations and examples, greater coverage of different trial designs and statistical approaches) of particular interest amongst stakeholders which new guidance was desired to meet. New relevant references were identified by the review. Such findings influenced the scope, drafting and revision of the guidance. While not all suggestions could be accommodated, it is hoped that the process has led to a more useful and practical document.

Abstract Background When designing a randomised controlled trial (RCT), an important consideration is the sample size required. This is calculated from several components; one of which is the target difference. This study aims to review the currently reported methods of elicitation of the target difference as well as to quantify the target differences used in Health Technology Assessment (HTA)-funded trials. Methods Trials were identified from the National Institute of Health Research Health Technology Assessment journal. A total of 177 RCTs published between 2006 and 2016 were assessed for eligibility. Eligibility was established by the design of the trial and the quality of data available. The trial designs were parallel-group, superiority RCTs with a continuous primary endpoint. Data were extracted and the standardised anticipated and observed effect size estimates were calculated. Exclusion criteria was based on trials not providing enough detail in the sample size calculation and results, and trials not being of parallel-group, superiority design. Results A total of 107 RCTs were included in the study from 102 reports. The most commonly reported method for effect size derivation was a review of evidence and use of previous research (52.3%). This was common across all clinical areas. The median standardised target effect size was 0.30 (interquartile range: 0.20–0.38), with the median standardised observed effect size 0.11 (IQR 0.05–0.29). The maximum anticipated and observed effect sizes were 0.76 and 1.18, respectively. Only two trials had anticipated target values above 0.60. Conclusion The most commonly reported method of elicitation of the target effect size is previous published research. The average target effect size was 0.3. A clear distinction between the target difference and the minimum clinically important difference is recommended when designing a trial. Transparent explanation of target difference elicitation is advised, with multiple methods including a review of evidence and opinion-seeking advised as the more optimal methods for effect size quantification.

Abstract Background It is important to quantify the dose response for a drug in phase 2a clinical trials so the optimal doses can then be selected for subsequent late phase trials. In a phase 2a clinical trial of new lead drug being developed for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), a U-shaped dose response curve was observed. In the light of this result further research was undertaken to design an efficient phase 2a proof of concept (PoC) trial for a follow-on compound using the lessons learnt from the lead compound. Methods The planned analysis for the Phase 2a trial for GSK123456 was a Bayesian Emax model which assumes the dose-response relationship follows a monotonic sigmoid “S” shaped curve. This model was found to be suboptimal to model the U-shaped dose response observed in the data from this trial and alternatives approaches were needed to be considered for the next compound for which a Normal dynamic linear model (NDLM) is proposed. This paper compares the statistical properties of the Bayesian Emax model and NDLM model and both models are evaluated using simulation in the context of adaptive Phase 2a PoC design under a variety of assumed dose response curves: linear, Emax model, U-shaped model, and flat response. Results It is shown that the NDLM method is flexible and can handle a wide variety of dose-responses, including monotonic and non-monotonic relationships. In comparison to the NDLM model the Emax model excelled with higher probability of selecting ED90 and smaller average sample size, when the true dose response followed Emax like curve. In addition, the type I error, probability of incorrectly concluding a drug may work when it does not, is inflated with the Bayesian NDLM model in all scenarios which would represent a development risk to pharmaceutical company. The bias, which is the difference between the estimated effect from the Emax and NDLM models and the simulated value, is comparable if the true dose response follows a placebo like curve, an Emax like curve, or log linear shape curve under fixed dose allocation, no adaptive allocation, half adaptive and adaptive scenarios. The bias though is significantly increased for the Emax model if the true dose response follows a U-shaped curve. Conclusions In most cases the Bayesian Emax model works effectively and efficiently, with low bias and good probability of success in case of monotonic dose response. However, if there is a belief that the dose response could be non-monotonic then the NDLM is the superior model to assess the dose response.

Abstract Background A key step in the design of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) is the estimation of the number of participants needed. By far the most common approach is to specify a target difference and then estimate the corresponding sample size; this sample size is chosen to provide reassurance that the trial will have high statistical power to detect such a difference between the randomised groups (at the planned statistical significance level). The sample size has many implications for the conduct of the study, as well as carrying scientific and ethical aspects to its choice. Despite the critical role of the target difference for the primary outcome in the design of an RCT, the manner in which it is determined has received little attention. This article reports the protocol of the Difference ELicitation in TriAls (DELTA2) project, which will produce guidance on the specification and reporting of the target difference for the primary outcome in a sample size calculation for RCTs. Methods/design The DELTA2 project has five components: systematic literature reviews of recent methodological developments (stage 1) and existing funder guidance (stage 2); a Delphi study (stage 3); a 2-day consensus meeting bringing together researchers, funders and patient representatives, as well as one-off engagement sessions at relevant stakeholder meetings (stage 4); and the preparation and dissemination of a guidance document (stage 5). Discussion Specification of the target difference for the primary outcome is a key component of the design of an RCT. There is a need for better guidance for researchers and funders regarding specification and reporting of this aspect of trial design. The aim of this project is to produce consensus based guidance for researchers and funders.

Following publication of the original article [1], we have been notified of a few mistakes: