Unbiased estimation in seamless phase II/III trials with unequal treatment effect variances and hypothesis‐driven selection rules

Seamless phase II/III clinical trials offer an efficient way to select an experimental treatment and perform confirmatory analysis within a single trial. However, combining the data from both stages in the final analysis can induce bias into the estimates of treatment effects. Methods for bias adjustment developed thus far have made restrictive assumptions about the design and selection rules followed. In order to address these shortcomings, we apply recent methodological advances to derive the uniformly minimum variance conditionally unbiased estimator for two‐stage seamless phase II/III trials. Our framework allows for the precision of the treatment arm estimates to take arbitrary values, can be utilised for all treatments that are taken forward to phase III and is applicable when the decision to select or drop treatment arms is driven by a multiplicity‐adjusted hypothesis testing procedure. © 2016 The Authors. Statistics in Medicine Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

[1]  Jack Bowden,et al.  Unbiased estimation of odds ratios: combining genomewide association scans with replication studies , 2009, Genetic epidemiology.

[2]  Werner Brannath,et al.  Shrinkage estimation in two‐stage adaptive designs with midtrial treatment selection , 2013, Statistics in medicine.

[3]  Frank Bretz,et al.  Adaptive designs for confirmatory clinical trials , 2009, Statistics in medicine.

[4]  W. Brannath,et al.  Selection and bias—Two hostile brothers , 2009, Statistics in medicine.

[5]  Jack Bowden,et al.  Conditionally unbiased and near unbiased estimation of the selected treatment mean for multistage drop-the-losers trials , 2013, Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift.

[6]  S. Pocock,et al.  Integrating indacaterol dose selection in a clinical study in COPD using an adaptive seamless design. , 2009, Pulmonary pharmacology & therapeutics.

[7]  Mohamed Alosh,et al.  Advanced multiplicity adjustment methods in clinical trials , 2014, Statistics in medicine.

[8]  Nigel Stallard,et al.  Conditionally unbiased estimation in phase II/III clinical trials with early stopping for futility , 2013, Statistics in medicine.

[9]  Jack Bowden,et al.  Accounting for selection and correlation in the analysis of two-stage genome-wide association studies , 2016, Biostatistics.

[10]  H. Keselman,et al.  Multiple Comparison Procedures , 2005 .

[11]  Frank Bretz,et al.  Confirmatory Seamless Phase II/III Clinical Trials with Hypotheses Selection at Interim: General Concepts , 2006, Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift.

[12]  H. Suryapranata,et al.  The Na(+)/H(+) exchange inhibitor eniporide as an adjunct to early reperfusion therapy for acute myocardial infarction. Results of the evaluation of the safety and cardioprotective effects of eniporide in acute myocardial infarction (ESCAMI) trial. , 2001, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[13]  Jack Bowden,et al.  Unbiased Estimation of Selected Treatment Means in Two‐Stage Trials , 2008, Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift.

[14]  Nigel Stallard,et al.  Seamless phase II/III designs , 2011, Statistical methods in medical research.

[15]  K. Gabriel,et al.  On closed testing procedures with special reference to ordered analysis of variance , 1976 .

[16]  Allan R Sampson,et al.  Drop‐the‐Losers Design: Normal Case , 2005, Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift.

[17]  Harold B. Sackrowitz,et al.  Two stage conditionally unbiased estimators of the selected mean , 1989 .

[18]  Margaret Sullivan Pepe,et al.  Conditional estimation of sensitivity and specificity from a phase 2 biomarker study allowing early termination for futility , 2009, Statistics in medicine.

[19]  W. Brannath,et al.  Empirical Bayes estimation of the selected treatment mean for two-stage drop-the-loser trials: a meta-analytic approach , 2014, Statistics in medicine.