A review of Bayesian perspectives on sample size derivation for confirmatory trials

Kevin Kunzmann,Michael J. Grayling,Kim May Lee,David S. Robertson,Kaspar Rufibach,James M. S. Wason

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2021.1901782

2020-06-29

Abstract: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.

Statistics

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The problem that this paper attempts to solve is how to more reasonably determine the sample size in confirmatory trials. Specifically, it explores how to incorporate the Bayesian perspective to deal with prior uncertainty regarding the effect size during the sample size determination process. Traditional methods are usually based on the maximum acceptable Type I error rate (i.e., the false - positive rate) and the minimum desired test power (i.e., the probability of detecting a true effect), but these methods have some limitations in practical applications: 1. **The problem of the minimum clinically important difference (MCID)**: If the minimum clinically important difference is close to the null hypothesis value, the required sample size may be extremely large, which is often not feasible in practice. 2. **The problem of the choice of point alternative hypothesis**: The traditional approach is to choose a point alternative hypothesis to calculate the test power, but this does not take into account the prior uncertainty about the possible effect size. If the point alternative hypothesis is not properly chosen, it may lead to under - powered or over - powered trial designs. To solve these problems, the paper proposes a "hybrid" method, which combines the Bayesian view with the frequentist approach. In this way, it is possible to ensure that the trial has sufficient power while considering the relative prior probabilities of different effect sizes. Specifically, the paper discusses the following key concepts and their applications in sample size determination: - **Assurance**: This refers to the probability that the trial can be successful (i.e., reject the null hypothesis and the effect is relevant) given the prior distribution. - **Expected Power**: This refers to the average probability that the trial can reject the null hypothesis when the effect size is greater than the minimum clinically important difference. - **Probability of Success**: This refers to the overall probability that the trial can be successful (i.e., reject the null hypothesis and the effect is relevant). Through these concepts, the paper provides a framework that enables researchers to more reasonably determine the sample size while considering the prior uncertainty of the effect size, thereby increasing the success rate and cost - effectiveness of the trial.

A review of Bayesian perspectives on sample size derivation for confirmatory trials

On an Approach to Bayesian Sample Sizing in Clinical Trials

Using Bayesian Statistics in Confirmatory Clinical Trials in the Regulatory Setting

Bayesian sample sizes for exploratory clinical trials comparing multiple experimental treatments with a control

Conditional Power and Friends: The Why and How of (Un)planned, Unblinded Sample Size Recalculations in Confirmatory Trials

A Bayesian approach on sample size calculation for comparing means.

Sample size re-estimation in a superiority clinical trial using a hybrid classical and Bayesian procedure

Estimating the Sampling Distribution of Posterior Decision Summaries in Bayesian Clinical Trials

Selection of the effect size for sample size determination for a continuous response in a superiority clinical trial using a hybrid classical and Bayesian procedure

Hybrid classical-Bayesian approach to sample size determination for two-arm superiority clinical trials

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

A Sample Size Planning Approach That Considers Both Statistical Significance and Clinical Significance

BaySize: Bayesian Sample Size Planning for Phase I Dose-Finding Trials

Bayesian design and analysis of two-arm cluster randomised trials using assurance

Bayesian sample size determination in a three-arm non-inferiority trial with binary endpoints

Eliciting the Discount Parameter in a Power Prior Method on the Basis of the Type I Error Consideration

A hybrid approach to sample size re‐estimation in cluster randomized trials with continuous outcomes

Hybrid sample size calculations for cluster randomised trials using assurance

Closed-Form Power and Sample Size Calculations for Bayes Factors

A Tutorial on Modern Bayesian Methods in Clinical Trials

Bayesian design using adult data to augment pediatric trials