Abstract:BACKGROUND:Randomized controlled trials are considered the gold standard for evaluating experimental treatments but often require large sample sizes. Single-arm trials require smaller sample sizes but are subject to bias when using historical control data for comparative inferences. This article presents a Bayesian adaptive synthetic-control design that exploits historical control data to create a hybrid of a single-arm trial and a randomized controlled trial.METHODS:The Bayesian adaptive synthetic control design has two stages. In stage 1, a prespecified number of patients are enrolled in a single arm given the experimental treatment. Based on the stage 1 data, applying propensity score matching and Bayesian posterior prediction methods, the usefulness of the historical control data for identifying a pseudo sample of matched synthetic-control patients for making comparative inferences is evaluated. If a sufficient number of synthetic controls can be identified, the single-arm trial is continued. If not, the trial is switched to a randomized controlled trial. The performance of The Bayesian adaptive synthetic control design is evaluated by computer simulation.RESULTS:The Bayesian adaptive synthetic control design achieves power and unbiasedness similar to a randomized controlled trial but on average requires a much smaller sample size, provided that the historical control data patients are sufficiently comparable to the trial patients so that a good number of matched controls can be identified in the historical control data. Compared to a single-arm trial, The Bayesian adaptive synthetic control design yields much higher power and much smaller bias.CONCLUSION:The Bayesian adaptive synthetic-control design provides a useful tool for exploiting historical control data to improve the efficiency of single-arm phase II clinical trials, while addressing the problem of bias when comparing trial results to historical control data. The proposed design achieves power similar to a randomized controlled trial but may require a substantially smaller sample size.

Applying the estimand and target trial frameworks to external control analyses using observational data: a case study in the solid tumor setting

Combining the target trial and estimand frameworks to define the causal estimand: an application using real-world data to contextualize a single-arm trial

Estimating treatment effect in randomized trial after control to treatment crossover using external controls

A Causal Inference Framework for Leveraging External Controls in Hybrid Trials

A meta-analytic framework to adjust for bias in external control studies

Quantitative bias analysis for external control arms using real-world data in clinical trials: a primer for clinical researchers

Adaptive Hybrid Control Design for Comparative Clinical Trials with Historical Control Data

Leveraging external control data in the design and analysis of neuro-oncology trials: Pearls and perils

How to improve the quality of comparisons using external control cohorts in single-arm clinical trials?

Framework for the Use of External Controls to Evaluate Treatment Outcomes in Precision Oncology Trials

Improving efficiency of inference in clinical trials with external control data

Statistical approaches for the integration of external controls in a cystic fibrosis clinical trial: a simulation and an application

BASIC: A Bayesian Adaptive Synthetic-Control Design for Phase II Clinical Trials.

A Two-Step Framework for Validating Causal Effect Estimates

Estimation of Causal Effect in Integrating Randomized Clinical Trial and Observational Data – an Example Application to Cardiovascular Outcome Trial

Matching within a hybrid RCT/RWD: framework on associated causal estimands

Conditional and Unconditional Treatment Effects in Randomized Clinical Trials: Estimands, Estimation, and Interpretation

Considerations on Design and Analysis of External Control in Pediatric Oncology

Augmenting control arms with real-world data for cancer trials: Hybrid control arm methods and considerations

Use of quantitative bias analysis to evaluate single‐arm trials with real‐world data external controls

Considerations for master protocols using external controls