A variational approach to optimal two‐stage designs

Recalculating the sample size in adaptive two-stage designs is a well-established method to gain flexibility in a clinical trial. Jennison and Turnbull (2015) proposed an "optimal" adaptive two-stage design based on the inverse normal combination test, which minimizes a mixed criterion of expected sample size under the alternative and conditional power. We demonstrate that the use of a combination test is not necessary to control the type one error rate and use variational techniques to develop a general adaptive design that is globally optimal under predefined optimality criteria. This approach yields to more efficient designs and furthermore allows to investigate the efficiency of the inverse normal method and the relation between local (interim-based) recalculation rules and global (unconditional) optimality of adaptive two-stage designs.

[1]  Lanju Zhang,et al.  Optimal flexible sample size design with robust power , 2016, Statistics in medicine.

[2]  Lu Cui,et al.  Evaluating the adaptive performance of flexible sample size designs with treatment difference in an interval , 2008, Statistics in medicine.

[3]  Peter Bauer,et al.  Optimal Conditional Error Functions for the Control of Conditional Power , 2004, Biometrics.

[4]  J. Ware,et al.  Sample Size Re-Estimation for Adaptive Sequential Design in Clinical Trials , 2008, Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics.

[5]  G Wassmer,et al.  A comparison of two methods for adaptive interim analyses in clinical trials. , 1998, Biometrics.

[6]  Frank Bretz,et al.  Twenty‐five years of confirmatory adaptive designs: opportunities and pitfalls , 2015, Statistics in medicine.

[7]  M. Kieser,et al.  Choice of futility boundaries for group sequential designs with two endpoints , 2017, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[8]  D. Zaykin,et al.  Optimally weighted Z‐test is a powerful method for combining probabilities in meta‐analysis , 2011, Journal of evolutionary biology.

[9]  Gernot Wassmer,et al.  Group Sequential and Confirmatory Adaptive Designs in Clinical Trials , 2016 .

[10]  D. DeMets,et al.  Increasing the sample size when the unblinded interim result is promising , 2004, Statistics in medicine.

[11]  Anastasios A. Tsiatis,et al.  Optimal two-stage group-sequential designs , 2008 .

[12]  P. Bauer,et al.  Adaptive Two Stage Designs and the Conditional Error Function , 1999 .

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

[14]  B. Turnbull,et al.  Adaptive sample size modification in clinical trials: start small then ask for more? , 2015, Statistics in medicine.

[15]  P. O'Brien,et al.  A multiple testing procedure for clinical trials. , 1979, Biometrics.

[16]  Christopher Jennison,et al.  Adaptive and nonadaptive group sequential tests , 2006 .

[17]  P. Bauer,et al.  Evaluation of experiments with adaptive interim analyses. , 1994, Biometrics.

[18]  Cyrus R Mehta,et al.  Adaptive increase in sample size when interim results are promising: A practical guide with examples , 2011, Statistics in medicine.

[19]  A. Marshall,et al.  A literature review of applied adaptive design methodology within the field of oncology in randomised controlled trials and a proposed extension to the CONSORT guidelines , 2017, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[20]  Christopher Jennison,et al.  Efficient group sequential designs when there are several effect sizes under consideration , 2006, Statistics in medicine.

[21]  S. Pocock.  Group sequential methods in the design and analysis of clinical trials , 1977 .

[22]  M. Proschan,et al.  Designed extension of studies based on conditional power. , 1995 .