A simple test for the treatment effect in clinical trials with a sequential parallel comparison design and negative binomial outcomes

A generalized weighted combination test of treatment effect for clinical trials with a sequential parallel comparison design and binary endpoint

To address the issue of a large placebo effect in certain therapeutic areas, rather than the application of the traditional gold standard parallel group placebo-controlled design, different versions of the sequential parallel comparison design have been advocated. In general, the design consists of two consecutive stages and three treatment groups. Stage 1 placebo nonresponders potentially form a prespecified patient subgroup for formal between-treatment comparison at the final analysis. In this research, a version of the design is considered for a binary endpoint. To fully utilize all available data, a generalized weighted combination test is proposed in case placebo has a relatively small effect for some of the study endpoints. The weighted combination of the test based on stage 1 data and the test based on stage 2 data of stage 1 placebo nonresponders suggested in the literature uses only a part of the study data and is a special case of this generalized weighted combination test. A multiple imputation approach is outlined for handling missing not at random data. Simulation is conducted to evaluate the performances of the methods and a data example is employed to illustrate the applications of the methods.

Sequential parallel comparison design with two coprimary endpoints

A placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial is required to demonstrate that an experimental treatment is superior to its corresponding placebo on multiple coprimary endpoints. This is particularly true in the field of neurology. In fact, clinical trials for neurological disorders need to show the superiority of an experimental treatment over a placebo in two coprimary endpoints. Unfortunately, these trials often fail to detect a true treatment effect for the experimental treatment versus the placebo owing to an unexpectedly high placebo response rate. Sequential parallel comparison design (SPCD) can be used to address this problem. However, the SPCD has not yet been discussed in relation to clinical trials with coprimary endpoints. In this article, our aim was to develop a hypothesis-testing method and a method for calculating the corresponding sample size for the SPCD with two coprimary endpoints. In a simulation, we show that the proposed hypothesis-testing method achieves the nominal type I error rate and power and that the proposed sample size calculation method has adequate power accuracy. In addition, the usefulness of our methods is confirmed by returning to an SPCD trial with a single primary endpoint of Alzheimer disease-related agitation.

Sequential parallel comparison design for "gold standard" noninferiority trials with a prespecified margin

Three-arm noninferiority trials (involving an experimental treatment, a reference treatment, and a placebo)-called the "gold standard" noninferiority trials-are conducted in patients with mental disorders whenever feasible, but often fail to show superiority of the experimental treatment and/or the reference treatment over the placebo. One possible reason is that some of the patients receiving the placebo show apparent improvement in the clinical condition. An approach to addressing this problem is the use of the sequential parallel comparison design (SPCD). Nonetheless, the SPCD has not yet been discussed in relation to gold standard noninferiority trials. In this article, our aim was to develop a hypothesis-testing method and its corresponding sample size calculation method for gold standard noninferiority trials with the SPCD. In a simulation, we show that the proposed hypothesis-testing method achieves the nominal type I error rate and power and that the proposed sample size calculation method has adequate power accuracy.