A review and re-interpretation of a group-sequential approach to sample size re-estimation in two-stage trials

Can Physical, Psychological, and Social Vulnerabilities Predict Ageism?

Ageism can be expressed as the discrimination, social exclusion, and even abuse of older adults. The literature suggests that certain vulnerabilities could be risk factors affecting people's ageism. Based on the Social Identity Theory, the present study aimed to examine the association of physical/psychological and social vulnerabilities with ageism. The sample consisted of 200 Israelis from the general population who completed self-report questionnaires. Hierarchical regression indicated that low well-being, high post-traumatic distress, and limited social support were associated with ageism. Furthermore, the association of post-traumatic distress with ageism increased with age. The findings expand the knowledge of vulnerabilities as risk factors for ageism, perhaps reflecting its unconscious nature, and can assist in designing interventions for people interacting with older adults.

Improving sample size recalculation in adaptive clinical trials by resampling

Sample size calculations in clinical trials need to be based on profound parameter assumptions. Wrong parameter choices may lead to too small or too high sample sizes and can have severe ethical and economical consequences. Adaptive group sequential study designs are one solution to deal with planning uncertainties. Here, the sample size can be updated during an ongoing trial based on the observed interim effect. However, the observed interim effect is a random variable and thus does not necessarily correspond to the true effect. One way of dealing with the uncertainty related to this random variable is to include resampling elements in the recalculation strategy. In this paper, we focus on clinical trials with a normally distributed endpoint. We consider resampling of the observed interim test statistic and apply this principle to several established sample size recalculation approaches. The resulting recalculation rules are smoother than the original ones and thus the variability in sample size is lower. In particular, we found that some resampling approaches mimic a group sequential design. In general, incorporating resampling of the interim test statistic in existing sample size recalculation rules results in a substantial performance improvement with respect to a recently published conditional performance score.

Smoothing Corrections for Improving Sample Size Recalculation Rules in Adaptive Group Sequential Study Designs

Background  An adequate sample size calculation is essential for designing a successful clinical trial. One way to tackle planning difficulties regarding parameter assumptions required for sample size calculation is to adapt the sample size during the ongoing trial.

This can be attained by adaptive group sequential study designs. At a predefined timepoint, the interim effect is tested for significance. Based on the interim test result, the trial is either stopped or continued with the possibility of a sample size recalculation.

Objectives  Sample size recalculation rules have different limitations in application like a high variability of the recalculated sample size. Hence, the goal is to provide a tool to counteract this performance limitation.

Methods  Sample size recalculation rules can be interpreted as functions of the observed interim effect. Often, a “jump” from the first stage's sample size to the maximal sample size at a rather arbitrarily chosen interim effect size is implemented and the curve decreases monotonically afterwards. This jump is one reason for a high variability of the sample size. In this work, we investigate how the shape of the recalculation function can be improved by implementing a smoother increase of the sample size. The design options are evaluated by means of Monte Carlo simulations. Evaluation criteria are univariate performance measures such as the conditional power and sample size as well as a conditional performance score which combines these components.

Results  We demonstrate that smoothing corrections can reduce variability in conditional power and sample size as well as they increase the performance with respect to a recently published conditional performance score for medium and large standardized effect sizes.

Conclusion  Based on the simulation study, we present a tool that is easily implemented to improve sample size recalculation rules. The approach can be combined with existing sample size recalculation rules described in the literature.

A systematic review of the "promising zone" design

Introduction

Sample size calculations require assumptions regarding treatment response and variability. Incorrect assumptions can result in under- or overpowered trials, posing ethical concerns. Sample size re-estimation (SSR) methods investigate the validity of these assumptions and increase the sample size if necessary. The “promising zone” (Mehta and Pocock, Stat Med 30:3267–3284, 2011) concept is appealing to researchers for its design simplicity. However, it is still relatively new in the application and has been a source of controversy.

Objectives

This research aims to synthesise current approaches and practical implementation of the promising zone design.

Methods

This systematic review comprehensively identifies the reporting of methodological research and of clinical trials using promising zone. Databases were searched according to a pre-specified search strategy, and pearl growing techniques implemented.

Results

The combined search methods resulted in 270 unique records identified; 171 were included in the review, of which 30 were trials. The median time to the interim analysis was 60% of the original target sample size (IQR 41–73%). Of the 15 completed trials, 7 increased their sample size. Only 21 studies reported the maximum sample size that would be considered, for which the median increase was 50% (IQR 35–100%).

Conclusions

Promising zone is being implemented in a range of trials worldwide, albeit in low numbers. Identifying trials using promising zone was difficult due to the lack of reporting of SSR methodology. Even when SSR methodology was reported, some had key interim analysis details missing, and only eight papers provided promising zone ranges.

Do single-arm trials have a role in drug development plans incorporating randomised trials?

Often, single-arm trials are used in phase II to gather the first evidence of an oncological drug's efficacy, with drug activity determined through tumour response using the RECIST criterion. Provided the null hypothesis of 'insufficient drug activity' is rejected, the next step could be a randomised two-arm trial. However, single-arm trials may provide a biased treatment effect because of patient selection, and thus, this development plan may not be an efficient use of resources. Therefore, we compare the performance of development plans consisting of single-arm trials followed by randomised two-arm trials with stand-alone single-stage or group sequential randomised two-arm trials. Through this, we are able to investigate the utility of single-arm trials and determine the most efficient drug development plans, setting our work in the context of a published single-arm non-small-cell lung cancer trial. Reference priors, reflecting the opinions of 'sceptical' and 'enthusiastic' investigators, are used to quantify and guide the suitability of single-arm trials in this setting. We observe that the explored development plans incorporating single-arm trials are often non-optimal. Moreover, even the most pessimistic reference priors have a considerable probability in favour of alternative plans. Analysis suggests expected sample size savings of up to 25% could have been made, and the issues associated with single-arm trials avoided, for the non-small-cell lung cancer treatment through direct progression to a group sequential randomised two-arm trial. Careful consideration should thus be given to the use of single-arm trials in oncological drug development when a randomised trial will follow.

Unbiased estimation for response adaptive clinical trials

Bayesian adaptive trials have the defining feature that the probability of randomization to a particular treatment arm can change as information becomes available as to its true worth. However, there is still a general reluctance to implement such designs in many clinical settings. One area of concern is that their frequentist operating characteristics are poor or, at least, poorly understood. We investigate the bias induced in the maximum likelihood estimate of a response probability parameter, p, for binary outcome by the process of adaptive randomization. We discover that it is small in magnitude and, under mild assumptions, can only be negative - causing one's estimate to be closer to zero on average than the truth. A simple unbiased estimator for p is obtained, but it is shown to have a large mean squared error. Two approaches are therefore explored to improve its precision based on inverse probability weighting and Rao-Blackwellization. We illustrate these estimation strategies using two well-known designs from the literature.

Adaptive graph-based multiple testing procedures

Multiple testing procedures defined by directed, weighted graphs have recently been proposed as an intuitive visual tool for constructing multiple testing strategies that reflect the often complex contextual relations between hypotheses in clinical trials. Many well-known sequentially rejective tests, such as (parallel) gatekeeping tests or hierarchical testing procedures are special cases of the graph based tests. We generalize these graph-based multiple testing procedures to adaptive trial designs with an interim analysis. These designs permit mid-trial design modifications based on unblinded interim data as well as external information, while providing strong family wise error rate control. To maintain the familywise error rate, it is not required to prespecify the adaption rule in detail. Because the adaptive test does not require knowledge of the multivariate distribution of test statistics, it is applicable in a wide range of scenarios including trials with multiple treatment comparisons, endpoints or subgroups, or combinations thereof. Examples of adaptations are dropping of treatment arms, selection of subpopulations, and sample size reassessment. If, in the interim analysis, it is decided to continue the trial as planned, the adaptive test reduces to the originally planned multiple testing procedure. Only if adaptations are actually implemented, an adjusted test needs to be applied. The procedure is illustrated with a case study and its operating characteristics are investigated by simulations.