Confidence intervals for the selected population in randomized trials that adapt the population enrolled.

It is a challenge to design randomized trials when it is suspected that a treatment may benefit only certain subsets of the target population. In such situations, trial designs have been proposed that modify the population enrolled based on an interim analysis, in a preplanned manner. For example, if there is early evidence during the trial that the treatment only benefits a certain subset of the population, enrollment may then be restricted to this subset. At the end of such a trial, it is desirable to draw inferences about the selected population. We focus on constructing confidence intervals for the average treatment effect in the selected population. Confidence interval methods that fail to account for the adaptive nature of the design may fail to have the desired coverage probability. We provide a new procedure for constructing confidence intervals having at least 95% coverage probability, uniformly over a large class Q of possible data generating distributions. Our method involves computing the minimum factor c by which a standard confidence interval must be expanded in order to have, asymptotically, at least 95% coverage probability, uniformly over Q. Computing the expansion factor c is not trivial, since it is not a priori clear, for a given decision rule, for which data generating distribution leads to the worst-case coverage probability. We give an algorithm that computes c, and then prove an optimality property for the resulting confidence interval procedure.

[1]  J. Hájek A characterization of limiting distributions of regular estimates , 1970 .

[2]  Ennis,et al.  Use of chemotherapy plus a monoclonal antibody against HER2 for metastatic breast cancer that overexpresses HER2. , 2001, The New England journal of medicine.

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

[4]  B. Turnbull,et al.  Repeated confidence intervals for group sequential clinical trials. , 1984, Controlled clinical trials.

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

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

[7]  Jon A. Wellner,et al.  Weak Convergence and Empirical Processes: With Applications to Statistics , 1996 .

[8]  T. Fleming,et al.  Use of chemotherapy plus a monoclonal antibody against HER2 for metastatic breast cancer that overexpresses HER2. , 2001, The New England journal of medicine.

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

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

[11]  Blair T. Johnson,et al.  Initial Severity and Antidepressant Benefits: A Meta-Analysis of Data Submitted to the Food and Drug Administration , 2008, PLoS medicine.

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

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

[14]  Dean Follmann,et al.  ADAPTIVELY CHANGING SUBGROUP PROPORTIONS IN CLINICAL TRIALS , 1997 .

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

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

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

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