Some drop‐the‐loser designs for monitoring multiple doses

A scenario not uncommon at the end of a Phase II clinical development is that although choices are narrowed down to two to three doses, the project team cannot make a recommendation of one single dose for the Phase III confirmatory study based upon the available data. Several 'drop-the-loser' designs to monitor multiple doses of an experimental treatment compared with a control in a pivotal Phase III study are considered. Ineffective and/or toxic doses compared with the control may be dropped at the interim analyses as the study continues, and when the accumulated data have demonstrated convincing efficacy and an acceptable safety profile for one dose, the corresponding dose or the study may be stopped to make the experimental treatment available to patients. A decision to drop a toxic dose is usually based upon a comprehensive review of all the available safety data and also a risk/benefit assessment. For dropping ineffective doses, a non-binding futility boundary may be used as guidance. The desired futility boundary can be derived by using an appropriate combination of risk level (i.e. error rate for accepting null hypothesis when the dose is truly efficacious) and spending strategy (dropping a dose aggressively in early analyses versus late). For establishing convincing evidence of the treatment efficacy, three methods for calculating the efficacy boundary are discussed: the Joint Monitoring (JM) approach, the Marginal Monitoring method with Bonferroni correction (MMB), and the Marginal Monitoring method with Adjustment for correlation (MMA). The JM approach requires intensive computation especially when there are several doses and multiple interim analyses. The marginal monitoring methods are computationally more attractive and also more flexible since each dose is monitored separately by its own alpha-spending function. The JM and MMB methods control the false positive rate. The MMA method tends to protect the false positive rate and is more powerful than the Bonferroni-based MMB method. The MMA method offers a practical and flexible solution when there are several doses and multiple interim looks.

[1]  S. Pocock Group sequential methods in the design and analysis of clinical trials , 1977 .

[2]  Qing Liu,et al.  Phase 2 and 3 Combination Designs to Accelerate Drug Development , 2005 .

[3]  Nigel Stallard,et al.  Sequential designs for phase III clinical trials incorporating treatment selection , 2003, Statistics in medicine.

[4]  K. K. Lan,et al.  Discrete sequential boundaries for clinical trials , 1983 .

[5]  K Kim,et al.  Sample size determination for group sequential clinical trials with immediate response. , 1992, Statistics in medicine.

[6]  L Shen,et al.  An improved method of evaluating drug effect in a multiple dose clinical trial , 2001, Statistics in medicine.

[7]  David L. DeMets,et al.  Asymmetric group sequential boundaries for monitoring clinical trials , 1982 .

[8]  M Kieser,et al.  Combining different phases in the development of medical treatments within a single trial. , 1999, Statistics in medicine.

[9]  Tim Friede,et al.  A group‐sequential design for clinical trials with treatment selection , 2008, Statistics in medicine.

[10]  M. Meade,et al.  Pro/con clinical debate: It is acceptable to stop large multicentre randomized controlled trials at interim analysis for futility , 2004, Critical care.

[11]  A “MiniPool” Approach for Combined Phase IIB/III Trial in Patients With Life-Threatening Disease: An Application of the Closed Testing Principle , 2010 .

[12]  S S Ellenberg,et al.  An efficient design for phase III studies of combination chemotherapies. , 1985, Cancer treatment reports.

[13]  P F Thall,et al.  A two-stage design for choosing among several experimental treatments and a control in clinical trials. , 1989, Biometrics.

[14]  M. Schervish Multivariate normal probabilities with error bound , 1984 .

[15]  B E Storer,et al.  A sequential phase II/III trial for binary outcomes. , 1990, Statistics in medicine.

[16]  D A Follmann,et al.  Monitoring pairwise comparisons in multi-armed clinical trials. , 1994, Biometrics.

[17]  Frank Bretz,et al.  Adaptive Dunnett tests for treatment selection , 2008, Statistics in medicine.

[18]  S. Yusuf,et al.  Rationale and design of RE-LY: randomized evaluation of long-term anticoagulant therapy, warfarin, compared with dabigatran. , 2009, American heart journal.

[19]  Terry M. Therneau,et al.  Optimal two-stage screening designs for survival comparisons , 1990 .

[20]  P. O'Brien,et al.  A multiple testing procedure for clinical trials. , 1979, Biometrics.

[21]  M. Caulfield,et al.  Effects of torcetrapib in patients at high risk for coronary events , 2008 .

[22]  M. Hellmich Monitoring Clinical Trials with Multiple Arms , 2001, Biometrics.

[23]  Anastasios A. Tsiatis,et al.  Group sequential designs for one-sided and two-sided hypothesis testing with provision for early stopping in favor of the null hypothesis , 1994 .

[24]  M D Hughes,et al.  Stopping guidelines for clinical trials with multiple treatments. , 1993, Statistics in medicine.

[25]  D L DeMets,et al.  Monitoring of clinical trials: issues and recommendations. , 1993, Controlled clinical trials.

[26]  T R Fleming,et al.  Symmetric group sequential test designs. , 1989, Biometrics.

[27]  D. DeMets,et al.  Futility approaches to interim monitoring by data monitoring committees , 2006, Clinical trials.