Assessment of futility in clinical trials

The term ‘futility’ is used to refer to the inability of a clinical trial to achieve its objectives. In particular, stopping a clinical trial when the interim results suggest that it is unlikely to achieve statistical significance can save resources that could be used on more promising research. There are various approaches that have been proposed to assess futility, including stochastic curtailment, predictive power, predictive probability, and group sequential methods. In this paper, we describe and contrast these approaches, and discuss several issues associated with futility analyses, such as ethical considerations, whether or not type I error can or should be reclaimed, one‐sided vs two‐sided futility rules, and the impact of futility analyses on power. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

[1]  J. Herson,et al.  Predictive probability early termination plans for phase II clinical trials. , 1979, Biometrics.

[2]  David L. DeMets,et al.  Group sequential methods for clinical trials with a one-sided hypothesis , 1980 .

[3]  K. K. Lan,et al.  Stochastically curtailed tests in long–term clinical trials , 1982 .

[4]  A. Lawrence Gould,et al.  Group sequential methods for clinical trials allowing early acceptance of Ho and incorporating costs , 1982 .

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

[6]  J. Ware,et al.  The futility index. An approach to the cost-effective termination of randomized clinical trials. , 1985, The American journal of medicine.

[7]  D. Spiegelhalter,et al.  Monitoring clinical trials: conditional or predictive power? , 1986, Controlled clinical trials.

[8]  K K Lan,et al.  The B-value: a tool for monitoring data. , 1988, Biometrics.

[9]  Joel B. Greenhouse,et al.  [Investigating Therapies of Potentially Great Benefit: ECMO]: Comment: A Bayesian Perspective , 1989 .

[10]  Seymour Geisser,et al.  On the curtailment of sampling , 1992 .

[11]  S. Snapinn,et al.  Monitoring clinical trials with a conditional probability stopping rule. , 1992, Statistics in medicine.

[12]  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 .

[13]  I. K. Hwang,et al.  Group sequential designs using both type I and type II error probability spending functions , 1998 .

[14]  A Pallay,et al.  ON THE TIMING OF A FUTILITY ANALYSIS IN CLINICAL TRIALS , 2000, Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics.

[15]  John Whitehead,et al.  Stopping clinical trials because of treatment ineffectiveness: a comparison of a futility design with a method of stochastic curtailment , 2003, Statistics in medicine.

[16]  K K Gordon Lan,et al.  Over‐ruling a group sequential boundary—a stopping rule versus a guideline , 2003, Statistics in medicine.

[17]  Christy Chuang-Stein,et al.  Type I error and power in trials with one interim futility analysis , 2004 .

[18]  D. Spiegelhalter.  Incorporating Bayesian Ideas into Health-Care Evaluation , 2004 .

[19]  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.

[20]  J. Lachin.  A review of methods for futility stopping based on conditional power , 2005, Statistics in medicine.

[21]  Ming-Dauh Wang,et al.  Bayesian predictive approach to interim monitoring in clinical trials , 2006, Statistics in medicine.