BASIC: A Bayesian adaptive synthetic-control design for phase II clinical trials

BACKGROUND Randomized controlled trials are considered the gold standard for evaluating experimental treatments but often require large sample sizes. Single-arm trials require smaller sample sizes but are subject to bias when using historical control data for comparative inferences. This article presents a Bayesian adaptive synthetic-control design that exploits historical control data to create a hybrid of a single-arm trial and a randomized controlled trial. METHODS The Bayesian adaptive synthetic control design has two stages. In stage 1, a prespecified number of patients are enrolled in a single arm given the experimental treatment. Based on the stage 1 data, applying propensity score matching and Bayesian posterior prediction methods, the usefulness of the historical control data for identifying a pseudo sample of matched synthetic-control patients for making comparative inferences is evaluated. If a sufficient number of synthetic controls can be identified, the single-arm trial is continued. If not, the trial is switched to a randomized controlled trial. The performance of The Bayesian adaptive synthetic control design is evaluated by computer simulation. RESULTS The Bayesian adaptive synthetic control design achieves power and unbiasedness similar to a randomized controlled trial but on average requires a much smaller sample size, provided that the historical control data patients are sufficiently comparable to the trial patients so that a good number of matched controls can be identified in the historical control data. Compared to a single-arm trial, The Bayesian adaptive synthetic control design yields much higher power and much smaller bias. CONCLUSION The Bayesian adaptive synthetic-control design provides a useful tool for exploiting historical control data to improve the efficiency of single-arm phase II clinical trials, while addressing the problem of bias when comparing trial results to historical control data. The proposed design achieves power similar to a randomized controlled trial but may require a substantially smaller sample size.

[1]  M. Kieser,et al.  An adaptive design for early clinical development including interim decision for single‐arm trial with external controls or randomized trial , 2022, Pharmaceutical statistics.

[2]  Sheryl M. Davies,et al.  Practical considerations of utilizing propensity score methods in clinical development utilizing real-world and historical data. , 2020, Contemporary clinical trials.

[3]  Frank Bretz,et al.  Beyond Randomized Clinical Trials: Use of External Controls , 2019, Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics.

[4]  L. Smeeth,et al.  Propensity Score Methods in Health Technology Assessment: Principles, Extended Applications, and Recent Advances , 2019, Front. Pharmacol..

[5]  T. Jaki,et al.  A Review of Perspectives on the Use of Randomization in Phase II Oncology Trials , 2019, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[6]  J. Locascio,et al.  Randomised controlled trials – the gold standard for effectiveness research , 2018, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[7]  J. Haukoos,et al.  The Propensity Score. , 2015, JAMA.

[8]  N. Freemantle,et al.  Making inferences on treatment effects from real world data: propensity scores, confounding by indication, and other perils for the unwary in observational research , 2013, BMJ.

[9]  Abhi Shelat,et al.  One‐to‐many propensity score matching in cohort studies , 2012, Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety.

[10]  P. Austin.  An Introduction to Propensity Score Methods for Reducing the Effects of Confounding in Observational Studies , 2011, Multivariate behavioral research.

[11]  P. Austin.  American Journal of Epidemiology Practice of Epidemiology Statistical Criteria for Selecting the Optimal Number of Untreated Subjects Matched to Each Treated Subject When Using Many-to-one Matching on the Propensity Score , 2022 .

[12]  Jasjeet S. Sekhon,et al.  Multivariate and Propensity Score Matching Software with Automated Balance Optimization: The Matching Package for R , 2008 .

[13]  Marco Caliendo,et al.  Some Practical Guidance for the Implementation of Propensity Score Matching , 2005, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[14]  P. Rosenbaum,et al.  Invited commentary: propensity scores. , 1999, American journal of epidemiology.

[15]  P. Rosenbaum,et al.  Sensitivity analysis for matched case-control studies. , 1991, Biometrics.

[16]  P. Thall,et al.  Incorporating historical control data in planning phase II clinical trials. , 1990, Statistics in medicine.

[17]  R. Simon,et al.  Optimal two-stage designs for phase II clinical trials. , 1989, Controlled clinical trials.

[18]  D. Rubin,et al.  The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects , 1983 .

[19]  P. Thall.  Statistical Remedies for Medical Researchers , 2020, Springer Series in Pharmaceutical Statistics.

[20]  Valeria Sambucini,et al.  Accounting for uncertainty in the historical response rate of the standard treatment in single‐arm two‐stage designs based on Bayesian power functions , 2016, Pharmaceutical statistics.

[21]  Fang Chen,et al.  Use of historical control data for assessing treatment effects in clinical trials , 2014, Pharmaceutical statistics.

[22]  David B. Dunson,et al.  Bayesian data analysis, third edition , 2013 .

[23]  Daniel J Sargent,et al.  Optimising the design of phase II oncology trials: the importance of randomisation. , 2009, European journal of cancer.

[24]  S. Green,et al.  Planned versus attained design in phase II clinical trials. , 1992, Statistics in medicine.

[25]  Donald B. Rubin,et al.  Bayesian Inference for Causal Effects: The Role of Randomization , 1978 .