Interval estimation in two‐stage, drop‐the‐losers clinical trials with flexible treatment selection

In a two-stage, drop-the-losers clinical trial, researchers choose the 'best' among a number of treatments at an interim analysis after the first stage. The selected treatment continues to the second stage for confirmation of efficacy, and the remaining treatments (the 'losers') are dropped from the study. Wu et al. (Biometrika 2010; 97:405-418) showed how to construct confidence limits for the mean difference between the selected treatment and the control when the treatment is chosen after the first stage based on the highest efficacy in the primary clinical endpoint. In this article, we show how to construct a lower confidence limit for the mean difference when the treatment is chosen based on first-stage safety data, early endpoint efficacy data, a combination of safety and efficacy data or any other prespecified selection rule. The result extends the applicability of drop-the-losers designs, for in practice, the 'best' treatment often is not chosen for efficacy alone.

[1]  P. Bauer,et al.  Evaluation of experiments with adaptive interim analyses. , 1994, Biometrics.

[2]  A. Tsiatis,et al.  On the inefficiency of the adaptive design for monitoring clinical trials , 2003 .

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

[4]  Nigel Stallard,et al.  Point estimates and confidence regions for sequential trials involving selection , 2005 .

[5]  Wolfgang Bischoff,et al.  Adaptive two-stage test procedures to find the best treatment in clinical trials , 2005 .

[6]  W. Brannath,et al.  Estimation in flexible two stage designs , 2006, Statistics in medicine.

[7]  Mark Chang,et al.  Adaptive design method based on sum of p‐values , 2007, Statistics in medicine.

[8]  W. Lehmacher,et al.  Adaptive Sample Size Calculations in Group Sequential Trials , 1999, Biometrics.

[9]  M R Conaway,et al.  Designs for phase II trials allowing for a trade-off between response and toxicity. , 1996, Biometrics.

[10]  Brian J Smith,et al.  Adaptive group sequential design for phase II clinical trials: A Bayesian decision theoretic approach , 2009, Statistics in medicine.

[11]  Martin Posch,et al.  Testing and estimation in flexible group sequential designs with adaptive treatment selection , 2005, Statistics in medicine.

[12]  Christopher Jennison,et al.  Adaptive and nonadaptive group sequential tests , 2006 .

[13]  Nigel Stallard,et al.  An Adaptive Group Sequential Design for Phase II/III Clinical Trials that Select a Single Treatment From Several , 2005, Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics.

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

[15]  Gang Li,et al.  Adaptive Designs for Interim Dose Selection , 2009 .

[16]  Mark C. K. Yang,et al.  Interval estimation for drop-the-losers designs , 2010 .

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

[18]  Richard Simon,et al.  Two-stage selection and testing designs for comparative clinical trials , 1988 .

[19]  Peter F Thall,et al.  Some Geometric Methods for Constructing Decision Criteria Based On Two-Dimensional Parameters. , 2008, Journal of statistical planning and inference.

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

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

[22]  Jixian Wang.  An Adaptive Two‐stage Design with Treatment Selection Using the Conditional Error Function Approach , 2006, Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift.

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