Adaptive multiarm multistage clinical trials

A comparison of alternative ranking methods in two-stage clinical trials with multiple interventions: An application to the anxiolysis for laceration repair in children trial

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Multi-arm, multi-stage trials frequently include a standard care to which all interventions are compared. This may increase costs and hinders comparisons among the experimental arms. Furthermore, the standard care may not be evident, particularly when there is a large variation in standard practice. Thus, we aimed to develop an adaptive clinical trial that drops ineffective interventions following an interim analysis before selecting the best intervention at the final stage without requiring a standard care.

METHODS

We used Bayesian methods to develop a multi-arm, two-stage adaptive trial and evaluated two different methods for ranking interventions, the probability that each intervention was optimal (Pbest) and using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA), at both the interim and final analysis. The proposed trial design determines the maximum sample size for each intervention using the Average Length Criteria. The interim analysis takes place at approximately half the pre-specified maximum sample size and aims to drop interventions for futility if either Pbest or the SUCRA is below a pre-specified threshold. The final analysis compares all remaining interventions at the maximum sample size to conclude superiority based on either Pbest or the SUCRA. The two ranking methods were compared across 12 scenarios that vary the number of interventions and the assumed differences between the interventions. The thresholds for futility and superiority were chosen to control type 1 error, and then the predictive power and expected sample size were evaluated across scenarios. A trial comparing three interventions that aim to reduce anxiety for children undergoing a laceration repair in the emergency department was then designed, known as the Anxiolysis for Laceration Repair in Children Trial (ALICE) trial.

RESULTS

As the number of interventions increases, the SUCRA results in a higher predictive power compared with Pbest. Using Pbest results in a lower expected sample size when there is an effective intervention. Using the Average Length Criterion, the ALICE trial has a maximum sample size for each arm of 100 patients. This sample size results in a 86% and 85% predictive power using Pbest and the SUCRA, respectively. Thus, we chose Pbest as the ranking method for the ALICE trial.

CONCLUSION

Bayesian ranking methods can be used in multi-arm, multi-stage trials with no clear control intervention. When more interventions are included, the SUCRA results in a higher power than Pbest. Future work should consider whether other ranking methods may also be relevant for clinical trial design.

Group sequential multi-arm multi-stage trial design with treatment selection

A multi-arm trial allows simultaneous comparison of multiple experimental treatments with a common control and provides a substantial efficiency advantage compared to the traditional randomized controlled trial. Many novel multi-arm multi-stage (MAMS) clinical trial designs have been proposed. However, a major hurdle to adopting the group sequential MAMS routinely is the computational effort of obtaining total sample size and sequential stopping boundaries. In this paper, we develop a group sequential MAMS trial design based on the sequential conditional probability ratio test. The proposed method provides analytical solutions for futility and efficacy boundaries to an arbitrary number of stages and arms. Thus, it avoids complicated computational effort for the methods proposed by Magirr et al. Simulation results showed that the proposed method has several advantages compared to the methods implemented in R package MAMS by Magirr et al.

Group sequential Holm and Hochberg procedures

The problem of testing multiple hypotheses using a group sequential procedure often arises in clinical trials. We review several group sequential Holm (GSHM) type procedures proposed in the literature and clarify the relationships between them. In particular, we show which procedures are equivalent or, if different, which are more powerful and what are their pros and cons. We propose a step-up group sequential Hochberg (GSHC) procedure as a reverse application of a particular step-down GSHM procedure. We conducted an extensive simulation study to evaluate the familywise error rate (FWER) and power properties of that GSHM procedure and the GSHC procedure and found that the GSHC procedure controls FWER more closely and is more powerful. All procedures are illustrated with a common numerical example, the data for which are chosen to bring out the differences between them. A real case study is also presented to illustrate application of these procedures. R programs for applying the proposed procedures, additional simulation results, and the proof of the FWER control of the GSHC procedure in a special case are provided in Supplementary Material.

Adaptive multiarm multistage clinical trials

Two methods for designing adaptive multiarm multistage (MAMS) clinical trials, originating from conceptually different group sequential frameworks are presented, and their operating characteristics are compared. In both methods pairwise comparisons are made, stage-by-stage, between each treatment arm and a common control arm with the goal of identifying active treatments and dropping inactive ones. At any stage one may alter the future course of the trial through adaptive changes to the prespecified decision rules for treatment selection and sample size reestimation, and notwithstanding such changes, both methods guarantee strong control of the family-wise error rate. The stage-wise MAMS approach was historically the first to be developed and remains the standard method for designing inferentially seamless phase 2-3 clinical trials. In this approach, at each stage, the data from each treatment comparison are summarized by a single multiplicity adjusted P-value. These stage-wise P-values are combined by a prespecified combination function and the resultant test statistic is monitored with respect to the classical two-arm group sequential efficacy boundaries. The cumulative MAMS approach is a more recent development in which a separate test statistic is constructed for each treatment comparison from the cumulative data at each stage. These statistics are then monitored with respect to multiplicity adjusted group sequential efficacy boundaries. We compared the powers of the two methods for designs with two and three active treatment arms, under commonly utilized decision rules for treatment selection, sample size reestimation and early stopping. In our investigations, which were carried out over a reasonably exhaustive exploration of the parameter space, the cumulative MAMS designs were more powerful than the stage-wise MAMS designs, except for the homogeneous case of equal treatment effects, where a small power advantage was discernable for the stage-wise MAMS designs.