A three‐stage clinical trial design for rare disorders

Many clinical trials of uncommon diseases are underpowered because of the difficulty of recruiting adequate numbers of subjects. We propose a clinical trial design with improved statistical power compared to the traditional randomized trial for use in clinical trials of rare diseases. The three-stage clinical trial design consists of an initial randomized placebo-controlled stage, a randomized withdrawal stage for subjects who responded, and a third randomized stage for placebo non-responders who subsequently respond to treatment. Test level and power were assessed by computer-intensive exact calculations. The three-stage clinical trial design was found to be consistently superior to the traditional randomized trial design in all cases examined, with sample sizes typically reduced by 20 per cent to 30 per cent while maintaining comparable power. When a treatment clearly superior to placebo was considered, our design reached a power of 75 per cent with a sample of 21 patients compared with the 52 needed to attain this power when only a randomized controlled trial was used. In situations where patient numbers are limited, a three-stage clinical trial design may be a more powerful design than the traditional randomized trial for detecting clinical benefits.

[1]  M. Packer Drug therapy. Combined beta-adrenergic and calcium-entry blockade in angina pectoris. , 1989, The New England journal of medicine.

[2]  J J Anderson,et al.  American College of Rheumatology. Preliminary definition of improvement in rheumatoid arthritis. , 1995, Arthritis and rheumatism.

[3]  C. Gotay,et al.  Accrual to cancer clinical trials: directions from the research literature. , 1991, Social science & medicine.

[4]  L J Mahoney,et al.  Reasons for non‐entry in randomized clinical trials for breast cancer: A single institutional study , 1992, Journal of surgical oncology.

[5]  A. Reiff,et al.  Etanercept in children with polyarticular juvenile rheumatoid arthritis. Pediatric Rheumatology Collaborative Study Group. , 2000, The New England journal of medicine.

[6]  Andre Peeters,et al.  Etanercept in children with polyarticular juvenile rheumatoid arthritis , 2000 .

[7]  J G Thornton,et al.  Clinical trials and rare diseases: a way out of a conundrum , 1995, BMJ.

[8]  Arthur Schafer,et al.  Ethics of the randomized clinical trial. , 1982, The New England journal of medicine.

[9]  D. Furst,et al.  Flare during drug withdrawal as a method to support efficacy in rheumatoid arthritis: amiprilose hydrochloride as an example in a double blind, randomized study. , 1998, The Journal of rheumatology.

[10]  B. Feldman,et al.  Where's the evidence? Putting clinical science into pediatric rheumatology. , 1996, The Journal of rheumatology.

[11]  Robert J. Temple,et al.  Special study designs: early escape, enrichment, studies in non-responders , 1994 .

[12]  M. Hills,et al.  The Two‐Period Crossover Trial , 1982 .

[13]  O. Dulac,et al.  Vigabatrin withdrawal randomized study in children , 1996, Epilepsy Research.

[14]  A. Masi,et al.  Polymyositis and dermatomyositis in children: an epidemiologic and clinical comparative analysis. , 1982, The Journal of rheumatology.

[15]  John Ludbrook,et al.  Why Permutation Tests are Superior to t and F Tests in Biomedical Research , 1998 .

[16]  M. Hills,et al.  The two-period cross-over clinical trial. , 1979, British journal of clinical pharmacology.

[17]  K. Schulz,et al.  Unbiased research and the human spirit: the challenges of randomized controlled trials. , 1995, CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne.

[18]  F. Miller,et al.  Classification and treatment of the juvenile idiopathic inflammatory myopathies. , 1997, Rheumatic diseases clinics of North America.