The need for optimal crossover in trials testing the anticipation of treatments: A methodological and ethical issue

Massimo Di Maio

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.35370

IF: 6.9209

2024-05-30

Cancer

Abstract:Quality of control arms in randomized clinical trial implies also optimal postprotocol treatment.

oncology

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Optimal allocation strategies in platform trials with continuous endpoints

Marta Bofill Roig,Ekkehard Glimm,Tobias Mielke,Martin Posch

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/09622802241239008

IF: 2.494

2024-03-22

Statistical Methods in Medical Research

Abstract:Statistical Methods in Medical Research, Ahead of Print. Platform trials are randomized clinical trials that allow simultaneous comparison of multiple interventions, usually against a common control. Arms to test experimental interventions may enter and leave the platform over time. This implies that the number of experimental intervention arms in the trial may change as the trial progresses. Determining optimal allocation rates to allocate patients to the treatment and control arms in platform trials is challenging because the optimal allocation depends on the number of arms in the platform and the latter typically varies over time. In addition, the optimal allocation depends on the analysis strategy used and the optimality criteria considered. In this article, we derive optimal treatment allocation rates for platform trials with shared controls, assuming that a stratified estimation and a testing procedure based on a regression model are used to adjust for time trends. We consider both, analysis using concurrent controls only as well as analysis methods using concurrent and non-concurrent controls and assume that the total sample size is fixed. The objective function to be minimized is the maximum of the variances of the effect estimators. We show that the optimal solution depends on the entry time of the arms in the trial and, in general, does not correspond to the square root of [math] allocation rule used in classical multi-arm trials. We illustrate the optimal allocation and evaluate the power and type 1 error rate compared to trials using one-to-one and square root of [math] allocations by means of a case study.

health care sciences & services,medical informatics,mathematical & computational biology,statistics & probability
Behavioral carry-over effect and power consideration in crossover trials

Danni Shi,Ting Ye

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/biomtc/ujae023

IF: 1.701

2024-03-27

Biometrics

Abstract:Abstract A crossover trial is an efficient trial design when there is no carry-over effect. To reduce the impact of the biological carry-over effect, a washout period is often designed. However, the carry-over effect remains an outstanding concern when a washout period is unethical or cannot sufficiently diminish the impact of the carry-over effect. The latter can occur in comparative effectiveness research, where the carry-over effect is often non-biological but behavioral. In this paper, we investigate the crossover design under a potential outcomes framework with and without the carry-over effect. We find that when the carry-over effect exists and satisfies a sign condition, the basic estimator underestimates the treatment effect, which does not inflate the type I error of one-sided tests but negatively impacts the power. This leads to a power trade-off between the crossover design and the parallel-group design, and we derive the condition under which the crossover design does not lead to type I error inflation and is still more powerful than the parallel-group design. We also develop covariate adjustment methods for crossover trials. We evaluate the performance of cross-over design and covariate adjustment using data from the MTN-034/REACH study.

statistics & probability,mathematical & computational biology,biology
An Adaptive Trial Design to Optimize Dose-Schedule Regimes with Delayed Outcomes

Ruitao Lin,Peter F. Thall,Ying Yuan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/biom.13116

IF: 1.701

2019-01-01

Biometrics

Abstract:This paper proposes a two-stage phase I-II clinical trial design to optimize dose-schedule regimes of an experimental agent within ordered disease subgroups in terms of the toxicity-efficacy trade-off. The design is motivated by settings where prior biological information indicates it is certain that efficacy will improve with ordinal subgroup level. We formulate a flexible Bayesian hierarchical model to account for associations among subgroups and regimes, and to characterize ordered subgroup effects. Sequentially adaptive decision-making is complicated by the problem, arising from the motivating application, that efficacy is scored on day 90 and toxicity is evaluated within 30 days from the start of therapy, while the patient accrual rate is fast relative to these outcome evaluation intervals. To deal with this in a practical manner, we take a likelihood-based approach that treats unobserved toxicity and efficacy outcomes as missing values, and use elicited utilities that quantify the efficacy-toxicity trade-off as a decision criterion. Adaptive randomization is used to assign patients to regimes while accounting for subgroups, with randomization probabilities depending on the posterior predictive distributions of utilities. A simulation study is presented to evaluate the design's performance under a variety of scenarios, and to assess its sensitivity to the amount of missing data, the prior, and model misspecification.
BASIC: A Bayesian Adaptive Synthetic-Control Design for Phase II Clinical Trials.

Liyun Jiang,Peter F. Thall,Fangrong Yan,Scott Kopetz,Ying Yuan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/17407745231176445

2023-01-01

Clinical Trials

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.
Reverse Selection Designs for Accommodating Multiple Control Arms

Sarah Samorodnitsky,Megan Othus,Michael LeBlanc,Michael C. Wu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-24-1282

IF: 13.801

2024-10-20

Clinical Cancer Research

Abstract:Evaluating a novel treatment in a randomized controlled trial requires comparison against existing therapies. If several existing therapies of similar benefit exist, the identification of a single control regimen may be difficult. For this situation, we propose a reverse selection design which, in its simplest form, includes a single experimental treatment arm and two control arms. Rather than carrying both control arms through the entire trial, the control arms are compared at an early interim analysis, ideally while accrual is ongoing. At this time, the worst-performing control arm is dropped and randomization continues to the remaining arms. At the end of the study, we compare the treatment to the remaining control arm. When no head-to-head comparison of the extant therapies is available or feasible, this design requires a smaller sample size than a traditional three-arm design or two sequential trials in which the extant therapies are compared and the better treatment is used in a subsequent trial as the control arm. This is because the final comparison is only between two arms and because the early interim analysis occurs prior to the end of accrual – yet with enough information such that any substantially better control arm will be selected. We evaluate the operating characteristics of a reverse selection design via simulation and show that it reduces the required sample size needed to compare the treatment against the best control, controls type I error, and likely selects the right control arm to use in the final analysis.

oncology
Comparison of methods for control allocation in multiple arm studies using response adaptive randomization

Kert Viele,Kristine Broglio,Anna McGlothlin,Benjamin R Saville

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1740774519877836

2019-10-19

Clinical Trials

Abstract:Background/Aims: Response adaptive randomization has many polarizing properties in two-arm settings comparing control to a single treatment. The generalization of these features to the multiple arm setting has been less explored, and existing comparisons in the literature reach disparate conclusions. We investigate several generalizations of two-arm response adaptive randomization methods relating to control allocation in multiple arm trials, exploring how critiques of response adaptive randomization generalize to the multiple arm setting. Methods: We perform a simulation study to investigate multiple control allocation schemes within response adaptive randomization, comparing the designs on metrics such as power, arm selection, mean square error, and the treatment of patients within the trial. Results: The results indicate that the generalization of two-arm response adaptive randomization concerns is variable and depends on the form of control allocation employed. The concerns are amplified when control allocation may be reduced over the course of the trial but are mitigated in the methods considered when control allocation is maintained or increased during the trial. In our chosen example, we find minimal advantage to increasing, as opposed to maintaining, control allocation; however, this result reflects an extremely limited exploration of methods for increasing control allocation. Conclusion: Selection of control allocation in multiple arm response adaptive randomization has a large effect on the performance of the design. Some disparate comparisons of response adaptive randomization to alternative paradigms may be partially explained by these results. In future comparisons, control allocation for multiple arm response adaptive randomization should be chosen to keep in mind the appropriate match between control allocation in response adaptive randomization and the metric or metrics of interest.

medicine, research & experimental
Adaptive Hybrid Control Design for Comparative Clinical Trials with Historical Control Data

Beibei Guo,Glen Laird,Yang Song,Josh Chen,Ying Yuan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jrsssc/qlad103

2024-01-01

Abstract:We propose an adaptive hybrid control causal (AHCC) design to leverage historical control data to reduce the sample size demanded by standard randomised controlled trials (RCT). Under the causal inference framework, we define the causal estimand of the average treatment effect and derive the corresponding estimator based on the trial data and historical control data. The AHCC design takes a multistage or group sequential approach. The number of patients randomised to the concurrent control is adaptively adjusted based on the amount of information borrowed from the historical control data. At each stage, based on the interim data, the contribution of the historical control data, quantified by the effective sample size, is updated and used to determine the randomisation ratio between the treatment and control arms for the next stage, with the goal to resemble a standard RCT upon the completion of the trial. Simulation studies show that the AHCC design has desirable operating characteristics. For example, it saves on sample size when substantial information can be borrowed from the historical control, and it maintains power when little information can be borrowed from the historical control.
The optimal pre-post allocation for randomized clinical trials

Shiyang Ma,Tianying Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-023-01893-w

2023-03-28

Abstract:Background: In pre-post designs, analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) is a standard technique to detect the treatment effect with a continuous variable measured at baseline and follow-up. For measurements subject to a high degree of variability, it may be advisable to repeat the pre-treatment and/or follow-up assessments. In general, repeating the follow-up measurements is more advantageous than repeating the pre-treatment measurements, while the latter can still be valuable and improve efficiency in clinical trials. Methods: In this article, we report investigations of using multiple pre-treatment and post-treatment measurements in randomized clinical trials. We consider the sample size formula for ANCOVA under general correlation structures with the pre-treatment mean included as the covariate and the mean follow-up value included as the response. We propose an optimal experimental design of multiple pre-post allocations under a specified constraint, that is, given the total number of pre-post treatment visits. The optimal number of the pre-treatment measurements is derived. For non-linear models, closed-form formulas for sample size/power calculations are generally unavailable, but we conduct Monte Carlo simulation studies instead. Results: Theoretical formulas and simulation studies show the benefits of repeating the pre-treatment measurements in pre-post randomized studies. The optimal pre-post allocation derived from the ANCOVA extends well to binary measurements in simulation studies, using logistic regression and generalized estimating equations (GEE). Conclusions: Repeating baselines and follow-up assessments is a valuable and efficient technique in pre-post design. The proposed optimal pre-post allocation designs can minimize the sample size, i.e., achieve maximum power.
Statistical design considerations for trials that study multiple indications

Alexander M Kaizer,Joseph S Koopmeiners,Nan Chen,Brian P Hobbs

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0962280220975187

IF: 2.494

2020-12-02

Statistical Methods in Medical Research

Abstract:Breakthroughs in cancer biology have defined new research programs emphasizing the development of therapies that target specific pathways in tumor cells. Innovations in clinical trial design have followed with master protocols defined by inclusive eligibility criteria and evaluations of multiple therapies and/or histologies. Consequently, characterization of subpopulation heterogeneity has become central to the formulation and selection of a study design. However, this transition to master protocols has led to challenges in identifying the optimal trial design and proper calibration of hyperparameters. We often evaluate a range of null and alternative scenarios; however, there has been little guidance on how to synthesize the potentially disparate recommendations for what may be optimal. This may lead to the selection of suboptimal designs and statistical methods that do not fully accommodate the subpopulation heterogeneity. This article proposes novel optimization criteria for calibrating and evaluating candidate statistical designs of master protocols in the presence of the potential for treatment effect heterogeneity among enrolled patient subpopulations. The framework is applied to demonstrate the statistical properties of conventional study designs when treatments offer heterogeneous benefit as well as identify optimal designs devised to monitor the potential for heterogeneity among patients with differing clinical indications using Bayesian modeling.

health care sciences & services,medical informatics,mathematical & computational biology,statistics & probability
Estimating Individualized Treatment Regimes from Crossover Designs

Crystal T. Nguyen,Daniel J. Luckett,Anna R. Kahkoska,Grace E. Shearrer,Donna Spruijt-Metz,Jaimie N. Davis,Michael R. Kosorok

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1902.05499

2019-02-05

Abstract:The field of precision medicine aims to tailor treatment based on patient-specific factors in a reproducible way. To this end, estimating an optimal individualized treatment regime (ITR) that recommends treatment decisions based on patient characteristics to maximize the mean of a pre-specified outcome is of particular interest. Several methods have been proposed for estimating an optimal ITR from clinical trial data in the parallel group setting where each subject is randomized to a single intervention. However, little work has been done in the area of estimating the optimal ITR from crossover study designs. Such designs naturally lend themselves to precision medicine, because they allow for observing the response to multiple treatments for each patient. In this paper, we introduce a method for estimating the optimal ITR using data from a 2x2 crossover study with or without carryover effects. The proposed method is similar to policy search methods such as outcome weighted learning; however, we take advantage of the crossover design by using the difference in responses under each treatment as the observed reward. We establish Fisher and global consistency, present numerical experiments, and analyze data from a feeding trial to demonstrate the improved performance of the proposed method compared to standard methods for a parallel study design.

Applications,Machine Learning,Methodology
Model-based optimal randomization procedure for treatment–covariate interaction tests

Zhongqiang Liu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/09622802241298703

IF: 2.494

2024-12-06

Statistical Methods in Medical Research

Abstract:Statistical Methods in Medical Research, Ahead of Print. Linear models are extensively used in the analysis of clinical trials. However, required model assumptions (e.g. homoscedasticity) may not be satisfied in practice, resulting in low power of treatment–covariate interaction tests. Various interaction tests have been proposed to improve the efficiency of detecting differences in treatment–covariate interactions. Aiming to fundamentally improve the power of treatment–covariate interaction tests, for heteroscedasticity of treatment responses, we develop a model-based optimal randomization procedure, referred to as model-based Neyman allocation (MNA) in this article. The derived limiting allocation proportion indicates that the procedure MNA is a generalization of response-adaptive randomization targeting Neyman allocation (RAR-NA). In theory, we demonstrate that the procedure MNA can maximize the power of treatment–covariate interaction tests. The issue of sample size estimation is also addressed. Simulation studies show, in the framework of the heteroscedastic linear model, compared with Pocock and Simon's minimization method and RAR-NA, the procedure MNA has the greatest power of tests for both systematic effects and treatment–covariate interactions, even under model misspecification. Finally, the efficiency of the procedure MNA is illustrated by a hypothetical case study based on a real schizophrenia clinical trial.

health care sciences & services,medical informatics,mathematical & computational biology,statistics & probability
Comparison of response adaptive randomization features in multiarm clinical trials with control

Kert Viele,Benjamin R. Saville,Anna McGlothlin,Kristine Broglio

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/pst.2015

2020-03-21

Pharmaceutical Statistics

Abstract:We investigate multiple features of response adaptive randomization (RAR) in the context of a multiple arm randomized trial with control, where the primary goal is the identification of the best arm for use in a broader patient population. We maintain constant control allocation and vary the length of time until RAR is started, interim frequency, the underlying quantity used to calculate the randomization probabilities, and a threshold resulting in temporary arm dropping. We evaluate the designs on five metrics measuring benefit to the internal trial population, the future external population, and statistical estimation. Our results indicate these features have minimal interaction within the space explored, with preference for earlier activation of RAR, more frequent interim analyses, randomizing in proportion to the probability each arm is the best, and aggressive thresholding for temporarily dropping arms. The results illustrate useful principles for maximizing the benefit of RAR in practice.

pharmacology & pharmacy,statistics & probability
Effects of Allocation Method and Time Trends on Identification of the Best Arm in Multi-Arm Trials

Lindsay R. Berry,Elizabeth Lorenzi,Nicholas S. Berry,Amy M. Crawford,Peter Jacko,Kert Viele

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/19466315.2023.2298961

2024-01-25

Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research

Abstract:Many trial designs, such as dose-finding trials, shared-control designs, or adaptive platform trials, investigate multiple therapies simultaneously. Often these trials seek to identify the best arm and compare it to a control. Adaptive trials are commonly considered in this space, focusing on methods that drop arms or adjust allocation in response to accumulating information. These methods continue to be compared in the literature, most recently with an emphasis on the effect of time trends during the experiment. Here we compare several methods, considering their performance with and without time trends present. The four procedures are: (a) fixed allocation, (b) arm dropping based on p -values (two variants), (c) arm dropping based on the posterior probability each arm is best (two variants), and (d) response-adaptive randomization. These procedures are compared in terms of their ability to identify the best arm, statistical power, accuracy of estimation, and potential benefit to participants inside the trial. We find arm dropping based on the probability each arm is best and RAR among the best options from the methods considered. Arm dropping based on p -values performs moderately worse, and fixed allocation is much worse on all metrics within this context.

mathematical & computational biology,statistics & probability
Adaptive Clinical Trials: Exploiting Sequential Patient Recruitment and Allocation

Onur Atan,William R. Zame,Mihaela van der Schaar

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1810.02876

2018-10-19

Abstract:Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for comparing the effectiveness of a new treatment to the current one (the control). Most RCTs allocate the patients to the treatment group and the control group by uniform randomization. We show that this procedure can be highly sub-optimal (in terms of learning) if -- as is often the case -- patients can be recruited in cohorts (rather than all at once), the effects on each cohort can be observed before recruiting the next cohort, and the effects are heterogeneous across identifiable subgroups of patients. We formulate the patient allocation problem as a finite stage Markov Decision Process in which the objective is to minimize a given weighted combination of type-I and type-II errors. Because finding the exact solution to this Markov Decision Process is computationally intractable, we propose an algorithm -- \textit{Knowledge Gradient for Randomized Controlled Trials} (RCT-KG) -- that yields an approximate solution. We illustrate our algorithm on a synthetic dataset with Bernoulli outcomes and compare it with uniform randomization. For a given size of trial our method achieves significant reduction in error, and to achieve a prescribed level of confidence (in identifying whether the treatment is superior to the control), our method requires many fewer patients. Our approach uses what has been learned from the effects on previous cohorts to recruit patients to subgroups and allocate patients (to treatment/control) within subgroups in a way that promotes more efficient learning.

Machine Learning
The tyranny of non-inferiority trials

Ian F Tannock,Marc Buyse,Mickael De Backer,Helena Earl,Daniel A Goldstein,Mark J Ratain,Leonard B Saltz,Gabe S Sonke,Garth W Strohbehn

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(24)00218-3

Abstract:Opportunities to decrease the toxicity and cost of approved treatment regimens with lower dose, less frequent, or shorter duration alternative regimens have been limited by the perception that alternatives must be non-inferior to approved regimens. Non-inferiority trials are large and expensive to do, because they must show statistically that the alternative and approved therapies differ in a single outcome, by a margin far smaller than that required to demonstrate superiority. Non-inferiority's flaws are manifest: it ignores variability expected to occur with repeated evaluation of the approved therapy, fails to recognise that a trial of similar design will be labelled as superiority or non-inferiority depending on whether it is done prior to or after initial registration of the approved treatment, and relegates endpoints such as toxicity and cost. For example, while a less toxic and less costly regimen of 3 months duration would typically be required to demonstrate efficacy that is non-inferior to that of a standard regimen of 6 months to displace it, the longer duration therapy has no such obligation to prove its superiority. This situation is the tyranny of the non-inferiority trial: its statistics perpetuate less cost-effective regimens, which are not patient-centred, even when less intensive therapies confer survival benefits nearly identical to those of the standard, by placing a disproportionately large burden of proof on the alternative. This approach is illogical. We propose that the designation of trials as superiority or non-inferiority be abandoned, and that randomised, controlled trials should henceforth be described simply as "comparative".
Handling an uncertain control group event risk in non-inferiority trials: non-inferiority frontiers and the power-stabilising transformation

Matteo Quartagno,A. Sarah Walker,Abdel G. Babiker,Rebecca M. Turner,Mahesh K.B. Parmar,Andrew Copas,Ian R. White

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1905.00241

2019-05-01

Abstract:Background. Non-inferiority (NI) trials are increasingly used to evaluate new treatments expected to have secondary advantages over standard of care, but similar efficacy on the primary outcome. When designing a NI trial with a binary primary outcome, the choice of effect measure for the NI margin has an important effect on sample size calculations; furthermore, if the control event risk observed is markedly different from that assumed, the trial can quickly lose power or the results become difficult to interpret. Methods. We propose a new way of designing NI trials to overcome the issues raised by unexpected control event risks by specifying a NI frontier, i.e. a curve defining the most appropriate non-inferiority margin for each possible value of control event risk. We propose a fixed arcsine difference frontier, the power-stabilising transformation for binary outcomes. We propose and compare three ways of designing a trial using this frontier. Results. Testing and reporting on the arcsine scale leads to results which are challenging to interpret clinically. Working on the arcsine scale generally requires a larger sample size compared to the risk difference scale. Therefore, working on the risk difference scale, modifying the margin after observing the control event risk, might be preferable, as it requires a smaller sample size. However, this approach tends to slightly inflate type I error rate; a solution is to use a lower significance level for testing. When working on the risk ratio scale, the same approach leads to power levels above the nominal one, maintaining type I error under control. Conclusions. Our proposed methods of designing NI trials using power-stabilising frontiers make trial design more resilient to unexpected values of the control event risk, at the only cost of requiring larger sample sizes when the goal is to report results on the risk difference scale.

Methodology
Design of platform trials with a change in the control treatment arm

Peter Greenstreet,Thomas Jaki,Alun Bedding,Pavel Mozgunov

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2311.17467

2023-11-29

Abstract:Platform trials are a more efficient way of testing multiple treatments compared to running separate trials. In this paper we consider platform trials where, if a treatment is found to be superior to the control, it will become the new standard of care (and the control in the platform). The remaining treatments are then tested against this new control. In such a setting, one can either keep the information on both the new standard of care and the other active treatments before the control is changed or one could discard this information when testing for benefit of the remaining treatments. We will show analytically and numerically that retaining the information collected before the change in control can be detrimental to the power of the study. Specifically, we consider the overall power, the probability that the active treatment with the greatest treatment effect is found during the trial. We also consider the conditional power of the active treatments, the probability a given treatment can be found superior against the current control. We prove when, in a multi-arm multi-stage trial where no arms are added, retaining the information is detrimental to both overall and conditional power of the remaining treatments. This loss of power is studied for a motivating example. We then discuss the effect on platform trials in which arms are added later. On the basis of these observations we discuss different aspects to consider when deciding whether to run a continuous platform trial or whether one may be better running a new trial.

Methodology,Applications
A framework for testing non-inferiority in a three-arm, sequential, multiple assignment randomized trial

Erina Paul,Bibhas Chakraborty,Alla Sikorskii,Samiran Ghosh

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/09622802241232124

IF: 2.494

2024-02-25

Statistical Methods in Medical Research

Abstract:Statistical Methods in Medical Research, Ahead of Print. Sequential multiple assignment randomized trial design is becoming increasingly used in the field of precision medicine. This design allows comparisons of sequences of adaptive interventions tailored to the individual patient. Superiority testing is usually the initial goal in order to determine which embedded adaptive intervention yields the best primary outcome on average. When direct superiority is not evident, yet an adaptive intervention poses other benefits, then non-inferiority testing is warranted. Non-inferiority testing in the sequential multiple assignment randomized trial setup is rather new and involves the specification of non-inferiority margin and other important assumptions that are often unverifiable internally. These challenges are not specific to sequential multiple assignment randomized trial and apply to two-arm non-inferiority trials that do not include a standard-of-care (or placebo) arm. To address some of these challenges, three-arm non-inferiority trials that include the standard-of-care arm are proposed. However, methods developed so far for three-arm non-inferiority trials are not sequential multiple assignment randomized trial-specific. This is because apart from embedded adaptive interventions, sequential multiple assignment randomized trial typically does not include a third standard-of-care arm. In this article, we consider a three-arm sequential multiple assignment randomized trial from an National Institutes of Health-funded study of symptom management strategies among people undergoing cancer treatment. Motivated by that example, we propose a novel data analytic method for non-inferiority testing in the framework of three-arm sequential multiple assignment randomized trial for the first time. Sample size and power considerations are discussed through extensive simulation studies to elucidate our method.

health care sciences & services,medical informatics,mathematical & computational biology,statistics & probability
Testing Equality of Treatments under an Incomplete Block Crossover Design with Ordinal Responses

Kung-Jong Lui

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ijb-2016-0069

2017-02-03

Abstract:The generalized odds ratio (GOR) for paired sample is considered to measure the relative treatment effect on patient responses in ordinal data. Under a three-treatment two-period incomplete block crossover design, both asymptotic and exact procedures are developed for testing equality between treatments with ordinal responses. Monte Carlo simulation is employed to evaluate and compare the finite-sample performance of these test procedures. A discussion on advantages and disadvantages of the proposed test procedures based on the GOR versus those based on Wald's tests under the normal random effects proportional odds model is provided. The data taken as a part of a crossover trial studying the effects of low and high doses of an analgesic versus a placebo for the relief of pain in primary dysmenorrhea over the first two periods are applied to illustrate the use of these test procedures.
A two armed optimal response adaptive randomization for ordinal categorical responses with possible misclassification

Soumyadeep Das

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07474946.2023.2295264

2024-02-08

Sequential Analysis

Abstract:A two-treatment optimal target proportion is developed extending the idea of Hu et al. (2006) for phase III clinical trials, where the treatment outcomes are ordinal categorical in nature. Some response-adaptive procedures targeting this proportion are studied assuming the presence of some possible misclassification in the patient responses. The concept of asymptotically best design is also proposed in this setup. Two data studies, one from a clinical trial of patients with sports-related knee injury and another with postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), are also included for the assessment of the proposed procedures in real situations.

statistics & probability

The need for optimal crossover in trials testing the anticipation of treatments: A methodological and ethical issue

Optimal allocation strategies in platform trials with continuous endpoints

Behavioral carry-over effect and power consideration in crossover trials

An Adaptive Trial Design to Optimize Dose-Schedule Regimes with Delayed Outcomes

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

Reverse Selection Designs for Accommodating Multiple Control Arms

Comparison of methods for control allocation in multiple arm studies using response adaptive randomization

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

The optimal pre-post allocation for randomized clinical trials

Statistical design considerations for trials that study multiple indications

Estimating Individualized Treatment Regimes from Crossover Designs

Model-based optimal randomization procedure for treatment–covariate interaction tests

Comparison of response adaptive randomization features in multiarm clinical trials with control

Effects of Allocation Method and Time Trends on Identification of the Best Arm in Multi-Arm Trials

Adaptive Clinical Trials: Exploiting Sequential Patient Recruitment and Allocation

The tyranny of non-inferiority trials

Handling an uncertain control group event risk in non-inferiority trials: non-inferiority frontiers and the power-stabilising transformation

Design of platform trials with a change in the control treatment arm

A framework for testing non-inferiority in a three-arm, sequential, multiple assignment randomized trial

Testing Equality of Treatments under an Incomplete Block Crossover Design with Ordinal Responses

A two armed optimal response adaptive randomization for ordinal categorical responses with possible misclassification