One‐ and two‐stage design proposals for a phase II trial comparing three active treatments with control using an ordered categorical endpoint

Phase II clinical trials are performed to investigate whether a novel treatment shows sufficient promise of efficacy to justify its evaluation in a subsequent definitive phase III trial, and they are often also used to select the dose to take forward. In this paper we discuss different design proposals for a phase II trial in which three active treatment doses and a placebo control are to be compared in terms of a single-ordered categorical endpoint. The sample size requirements for one-stage and two-stage designs are derived, based on an approach similar to that of Dunnett. Detailed computations are prepared for an illustrative example concerning a study in stroke. Allowance for early stopping for futility is made. Simulations are used to verify that the specified type I error and power requirements are valid, despite certain approximations used in the derivation of sample size. The advantages and disadvantages of the different designs are discussed, and the scope for extending the approach to different forms of endpoint is considered.

[1]  John Whitehead,et al.  Glycine antagonist (gavestinel) in neuroprotection (GAIN International) in patients with acute stroke: a randomised controlled trial , 2000, The Lancet.

[2]  Thomas J. Santner,et al.  Design of Experiments: Ranking and Selection , 1984 .

[3]  James M. Robins,et al.  Semiparametric Efficiency and its Implication on the Design and Analysis of Group-Sequential Studies , 1997 .

[4]  John Whitehead,et al.  Application of Sequential Methods to a Phase III Clinical Trial in Stroke , 1993 .

[5]  Frank Bretz,et al.  Adaptive Dunnett tests for treatment selection , 2008, Statistics in medicine.

[6]  John Whitehead,et al.  Sequential forms of the log rank and modified Wilcoxon tests for censored data , 1979 .

[7]  Mahoney Fi,et al.  FUNCTIONAL EVALUATION: THE BARTHEL INDEX. , 1965 .

[8]  E. Lesaffre,et al.  Calculation of power and sample size with bounded outcome scores. , 1993, Statistics in medicine.

[9]  J. Whitehead,et al.  Statistical Methods for Ordered Categorical Data Based on a Constrained Odds Model , 2003 .

[10]  Richard Simon,et al.  Two-stage selection and testing designs for comparative clinical trials , 1988 .

[11]  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.

[12]  Nigel Stallard,et al.  A New Clinical Trial Design Combining Phases 2 and 3: Sequential Designs with Treatment Selection and a Change of Endpoint , 2005 .

[13]  Nigel Stallard,et al.  Sequential designs for phase III clinical trials incorporating treatment selection , 2003, Statistics in medicine.

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

[15]  Nigel Stallard,et al.  An Adaptive Group Sequential Design for Phase II/III Clinical Trials that Select a Single Treatment From Several , 2005, Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics.

[16]  P. McCullagh Regression Models for Ordinal Data , 1980 .

[17]  Bruce W Turnbull,et al.  Confirmatory Seamless Phase II/III Clinical Trials with Hypotheses Selection at Interim: Opportunities and Limitations , 2006, Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift.

[18]  M. Palmer Clinical Trials: A Practical Approach , 1985 .