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.

Sample Size Estimation in the Sequential Parallel Comparison Design and the Two-way Enriched Design

Statistical performance comparison of different design methods of targeted clinical trials

Confidence intervals for overall response rate difference in the sequential parallel comparison design

Sample size adaptation designs and efficiency comparison with group sequential designs

Seamless Phase II/III Design: a Useful Strategy to Reduce the Sample Size for Dose Optimization

Optimization the Design of Fixed and Group Sequential Three-Arm Non-Inferiority Trials with Dichotomous Endpoints of Risk Difference and Odds Ratio

Sample Size Estimation and Hypothesis Testing of Assessing Equivalence/noninferiority for Paired Binary Data

Adaptive two-stage seamless sequential design for clinical trials

Optimal Sequential Enrichment Designs for Phase II Clinical Trials.

A Practical Simulation Method to Calculate Sample Size of Group Sequential Trials for Time-to-Event Data under Exponential and Weibull Distribution

Estimating sample sizes for continuous, binary, and ordinal outcomes in paired comparisons: practical hints

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

Sequential Continual Reassessment Method for Two-Dimensional Dose Finding.

[Sample Size Calculation Using SAS for PhaseⅡin Two-stage Clinical Trials of Anti-tumor Drugs].

An Adaptive Three‐Arm Comparative Clinical Endpoint Bioequivalence Study Design With Unblinded Sample Size Re‐Estimation and Optimized Allocation Ratio

Statistical performance comparison of different simultaneous global development designs for targeted drugs

Optimal, minimax and admissible two-stage design for phase II oncology clinical trials

On Sample Size Calculation in Bioequivalence Trials

A Comparative Study of Matched Pair Designs with Two Binary Endpoints

Optimal sample size division in two‐stage seamless designs

On sample size calculation based on odds ratio in clinical trials.