Adaptive, Group Sequential Designs that Balance the Benefits and Risks of Wider Inclusion Criteria

We propose a new class of adaptive randomized trial designs aimed at gaining the advantages of wider generalizability and faster recruitment, while mitigating the risks of including a population for which there is greater a priori uncertainty. Our designs use adaptive enrichment, i.e., they have preplanned decision rules for modifying enrollment criteria based on data accrued at interim analyses. For example, enrollment can be restricted if the participants from predefined subpopulations are not benefiting from the new treatment. To the best of our knowledge, our designs are the first adaptive enrichment designs to have all of the following features: the multiple testing procedure fully leverages the correlation among statistics for different populations; the familywise Type I error rate is strongly controlled; for outcomes that are binary, normally distributed, or Poisson distributed, the decision rule and multiple testing procedure are functions of the data only through minimal sufficient statistics. The advantage of relying solely on minimal sufficient statistics is that not doing so can lead to losses in power. Our designs incorporate standard group sequential boundaries for each population of interest; this may be helpful in communicating our designs, since many clinical investigators are familiar with such boundaries, which can be summarized succinctly in a single table or graph. We demonstrate these adaptive designs in the context of a Phase III trial of a new treatment for stroke, and provide user-friendly, free software implementing these designs.

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

[2]  M J van der Laan,et al.  Covariate adjustment in randomized trials with binary outcomes: Targeted maximum likelihood estimation , 2009, Statistics in medicine.

[3]  Sue-Jane Wang,et al.  Approaches to evaluation of treatment effect in randomized clinical trials with genomic subset , 2007, Pharmaceutical statistics.

[4]  A. Tamhane,et al.  Multiple Comparison Procedures , 2009 .

[5]  Qing Liu,et al.  On Adaptive Extensions of Group Sequential Trials for Clinical Investigations , 2008 .

[6]  M A Proschan,et al.  Designed extension of studies based on conditional power. , 1995, Biometrics.

[7]  Michael A. Proschan,et al.  A Unified Theory of Two-Stage Adaptive Designs , 2002 .

[8]  Lisa V. Hampson,et al.  Group sequential tests for delayed responses (with discussion) , 2013 .

[9]  Scott S Emerson,et al.  Issues in the use of adaptive clinical trial designs , 2006, Statistics in medicine.

[10]  F. Götze On the Rate of Convergence in the Multivariate CLT , 1991 .

[11]  A. Genz,et al.  Computation of Multivariate Normal and t Probabilities , 2009 .

[12]  Sue-Jane Wang,et al.  Adaptive patient enrichment designs in therapeutic trials , 2009, Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift.

[13]  D. Hanley,et al.  Preliminary findings of the minimally-invasive surgery plus rtPA for intracerebral hemorrhage evacuation (MISTIE) clinical trial. , 2008, Acta neurochirurgica. Supplement.

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

[15]  A. Egberts,et al.  Optimizing trial design in pharmacogenetics research: comparing a fixed parallel group, group sequential, and adaptive selection design on sample size requirements , 2013, Pharmaceutical statistics.

[16]  Christopher Jennison,et al.  An improved method for deriving optimal one-sided group sequential tests , 1992 .

[17]  R. Simes,et al.  An improved Bonferroni procedure for multiple tests of significance , 1986 .

[18]  Tim Friede,et al.  Adaptive Designs for Confirmatory Clinical Trials with Subgroup Selection , 2014, Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics.

[19]  B. Turnbull,et al.  Group Sequential Methods with Applications to Clinical Trials , 1999 .

[20]  Frank Bretz,et al.  Confirmatory adaptive designs with Bayesian decision tools for a targeted therapy in oncology , 2009, Statistics in medicine.

[21]  M. J. van der Laan,et al.  Optimizing randomized trial designs to distinguish which subpopulations benefit from treatment. , 2011, Biometrika.

[22]  Nigel Stallard,et al.  Group-Sequential Methods for Adaptive Seamless Phase II/III Clinical Trials , 2011, Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics.

[23]  J. Rice Mathematical Statistics and Data Analysis , 1988 .

[24]  Eric V. Slud,et al.  Two-Sample Repeated Significance Tests Based on the Modified Wilcoxon Statistic , 1982 .

[25]  E. Russek-Cohen,et al.  Evaluating treatments when a gender by treatment interaction may exist. , 1997, Statistics in medicine.

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

[27]  Harris A. Jaffee,et al.  INTERADAPT -- AN INTERACTIVE TOOL FOR DESIGNING AND EVALUATING RANDOMIZED TRIALS WITH ADAPTIVE ENROLLMENT CRITERIA , 2014, 1404.0734.

[28]  Bart Spiessens,et al.  Adjusted significance levels for subgroup analyses in clinical trials. , 2010, Contemporary clinical trials.

[29]  Christopher Jennison,et al.  Adaptive Seamless Designs: Selection and Prospective Testing of Hypotheses , 2007, Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics.

[30]  T. Friede,et al.  A conditional error function approach for subgroup selection in adaptive clinical trials , 2012, Statistics in medicine.

[31]  Frederick Mosteller,et al.  Selected quantitative techniques and attitude measurement , 1954 .

[32]  C. Jennison,et al.  An adaptive seamless phase II/III design for oncology trials with subpopulation selection using correlated survival endpoints † , 2011, Pharmaceutical statistics.

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

[34]  C. Dunnett A Multiple Comparison Procedure for Comparing Several Treatments with a Control , 1955 .

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

[36]  S. Holm A Simple Sequentially Rejective Multiple Test Procedure , 1979 .

[37]  Y. Hochberg A sharper Bonferroni procedure for multiple tests of significance , 1988 .

[38]  Frank Bretz,et al.  Confirmatory Seamless Phase II/III Clinical Trials with Hypotheses Selection at Interim: Applications and Practical Considerations , 2006, Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift.