Simultaneous confidence intervals that are compatible with closed testing in adaptive designs

Point estimation for adaptive trial designs II: Practical considerations and guidance

In adaptive clinical trials, the conventional end-of-trial point estimate of a treatment effect is prone to bias, that is, a systematic tendency to deviate from its true value. As stated in recent FDA guidance on adaptive designs, it is desirable to report estimates of treatment effects that reduce or remove this bias. However, it may be unclear which of the available estimators are preferable, and their use remains rare in practice. This article is the second in a two-part series that studies the issue of bias in point estimation for adaptive trials. Part I provided a methodological review of approaches to remove or reduce the potential bias in point estimation for adaptive designs. In part II, we discuss how bias can affect standard estimators and assess the negative impact this can have. We review current practice for reporting point estimates and illustrate the computation of different estimators using a real adaptive trial example (including code), which we use as a basis for a simulation study. We show that while on average the values of these estimators can be similar, for a particular trial realization they can give noticeably different values for the estimated treatment effect. Finally, we propose guidelines for researchers around the choice of estimators and the reporting of estimates following an adaptive design. The issue of bias should be considered throughout the whole lifecycle of an adaptive design, with the estimation strategy prespecified in the statistical analysis plan. When available, unbiased or bias-reduced estimates are to be preferred.

Point estimation for adaptive trial designs I: A methodological review

Recent FDA guidance on adaptive clinical trial designs defines bias as "a systematic tendency for the estimate of treatment effect to deviate from its true value," and states that it is desirable to obtain and report estimates of treatment effects that reduce or remove this bias. The conventional end-of-trial point estimates of the treatment effects are prone to bias in many adaptive designs, because they do not take into account the potential and realized trial adaptations. While much of the methodological developments on adaptive designs have tended to focus on control of type I error rates and power considerations, in contrast the question of biased estimation has received relatively less attention. This article is the first in a two-part series that studies the issue of potential bias in point estimation for adaptive trials. Part I provides a comprehensive review of the methods to remove or reduce the potential bias in point estimation of treatment effects for adaptive designs, while part II illustrates how to implement these in practice and proposes a set of guidelines for trial statisticians. The methods reviewed in this article can be broadly classified into unbiased and bias-reduced estimation, and we also provide a classification of estimators by the type of adaptive design. We compare the proposed methods, highlight available software and code, and discuss potential methodological gaps in the literature.

Adjusting for treatment selection in phase II/III clinical trials with time to event data

Phase II/III clinical trials are efficient two-stage designs that test multiple experimental treatments. In stage 1, patients are allocated to the control and all experimental treatments, with the data collected from them used to select experimental treatments to continue to stage 2. Patients recruited in stage 2 are allocated to the selected treatments and the control. Combined data of stage 1 and stage 2 are used for a confirmatory phase III analysis. Appropriate analysis needs to adjust for selection bias of the stage 1 data. Point estimators exist for normally distributed outcome data. Extending these estimators to time to event data is not straightforward because treatment selection is based on correlated treatment effects and stage 1 patients who do not get events in stage 1 are followed-up in stage 2. We have derived an approximately uniformly minimum variance conditional unbiased estimator (UMVCUE) and compared its biases and mean squared errors to existing bias adjusted estimators. In simulations, one existing bias adjusted estimator has similar properties as the practically unbiased UMVCUE while the others can have noticeable biases but they are less variable than the UMVCUE. For confirmatory phase II/III clinical trials where unbiased estimators are desired, we recommend the UMVCUE or the existing estimator with which it has similar properties.

Estimands and Complex Innovative Designs

Since the release of the ICH E9(R1) (International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use Addendum on Estimands and Sensitivity Analysis in Clinical Trials to the Guideline on Statistical Principles for Clinical Trials) document in 2019, the estimand framework has become a fundamental part of clinical trial protocols. In parallel, complex innovative designs have gained increased popularity in drug development, in particular in early development phases or in difficult experimental situations. While the estimand framework is relevant to any study in which a treatment effect is estimated, experience is lacking as regards its application to these designs. In a basket trial for example, should a different estimand be specified for each subpopulation of interest, defined, for example, by cancer site? Or can a single estimand focusing on the general population (defined, for example, by the positivity to a certain biomarker) be used? In the case of platform trials, should a different estimand be proposed for each drug investigated? In this work we discuss possible ways of implementing the estimand framework for different types of complex innovative designs. We consider trials that allow adding or selecting experimental treatment arms, modifying the control arm or the standard of care, and selecting or pooling populations. We also address the potentially data-driven, adaptive selection of estimands in an ongoing trial and disentangle certain statistical issues that pertain to estimation rather than to estimands, such as the borrowing of nonconcurrent information. We hope this discussion will facilitate the implementation of the estimand framework and its description in the study protocol when the objectives of the trial require complex innovative designs.

The benefits of covariate adjustment for adaptive multi-arm designs

Covariate adjustment via a regression approach is known to increase the precision of statistical inference when fixed trial designs are employed in randomized controlled studies. When an adaptive multi-arm design is employed with the ability to select treatments, it is unclear how covariate adjustment affects various aspects of the study. Consider the design framework that relies on pre-specified treatment selection rule(s) and a combination test approach for hypothesis testing. It is our primary goal to evaluate the impact of covariate adjustment on adaptive multi-arm designs with treatment selection. Our secondary goal is to show how the Uniformly Minimum Variance Conditionally Unbiased Estimator can be extended to account for covariate adjustment analytically. We find that adjustment with different sets of covariates can lead to different treatment selection outcomes and hence probabilities of rejecting hypotheses. Nevertheless, we do not see any negative impact on the control of the familywise error rate when covariates are included in the analysis model. When adjusting for covariates that are moderately or highly correlated with the outcome, we see various benefits to the analysis of the design. Conversely, there is negligible impact when including covariates that are uncorrelated with the outcome. Overall, pre-specification of covariate adjustment is recommended for the analysis of adaptive multi-arm design with treatment selection. Having the statistical analysis plan in place prior to the interim and final analyses is crucial, especially when a non-collapsible measure of treatment effect is considered in the trial.

Optimizing subgroup selection in two-stage adaptive enrichment and umbrella designs

We design two‐stage confirmatory clinical trials that use adaptation to find the subgroup of patients who will benefit from a new treatment, testing for a treatment effect in each of two disjoint subgroups. Our proposal allows aspects of the trial, such as recruitment probabilities of each group, to be altered at an interim analysis. We use the conditional error rate approach to implement these adaptations with protection of overall error rates. Applying a Bayesian decision‐theoretic framework, we optimize design parameters by maximizing a utility function that takes the population prevalence of the subgroups into account. We show results for traditional trials with familywise error rate control (using a closed testing procedure) as well as for umbrella trials in which only the per‐comparison type 1 error rate is controlled. We present numerical examples to illustrate the optimization process and the effectiveness of the proposed designs.

Efficient Adaptive Designs for Clinical Trials of Interventions for COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an unprecedented response in terms of clinical research activity. An important part of this research has been focused on randomized controlled clinical trials to evaluate potential therapies for COVID-19. The results from this research need to be obtained as rapidly as possible. This presents a number of challenges associated with considerable uncertainty over the natural history of the disease and the number and characteristics of patients affected, and the emergence of new potential therapies. These challenges make adaptive designs for clinical trials a particularly attractive option. Such designs allow a trial to be modified on the basis of interim analysis data or stopped as soon as sufficiently strong evidence has been observed to answer the research question, without compromising the trial's scientific validity or integrity. In this article, we describe some of the adaptive design approaches that are available and discuss particular issues and challenges associated with their use in the pandemic setting. Our discussion is illustrated by details of four ongoing COVID-19 trials that have used adaptive designs.

Point and interval estimation in two-stage adaptive designs with time to event data and biomarker-driven subpopulation selection

In personalized medicine, it is often desired to determine if all patients or only a subset of them benefit from a treatment. We consider estimation in two-stage adaptive designs that in stage 1 recruit patients from the full population. In stage 2, patient recruitment is restricted to the part of the population, which, based on stage 1 data, benefits from the experimental treatment. Existing estimators, which adjust for using stage 1 data for selecting the part of the population from which stage 2 patients are recruited, as well as for the confirmatory analysis after stage 2, do not consider time to event patient outcomes. In this work, for time to event data, we have derived a new asymptotically unbiased estimator for the log hazard ratio and a new interval estimator with good coverage probabilities and probabilities that the upper bounds are below the true values. The estimators are appropriate for several selection rules that are based on a single or multiple biomarkers, which can be categorical or continuous.

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.

Adaptive trial designs in diagnostic accuracy research

The aim of diagnostic accuracy studies is to evaluate how accurately a diagnostic test can distinguish diseased from nondiseased individuals. Depending on the research question, different study designs and accuracy measures are appropriate. As the prior knowledge in the planning phase is often very limited, modifications of design aspects such as the sample size during the ongoing trial could increase the efficiency of diagnostic trials. In intervention studies, group sequential and adaptive designs are well established. Such designs are characterized by preplanned interim analyses, giving the opportunity to stop early for efficacy or futility or to modify elements of the study design. In contrast, in diagnostic accuracy studies, such flexible designs are less common, even if they are as important as for intervention studies. However, diagnostic accuracy studies have specific features, which may require adaptations of the statistical methods or may lead to specific advantages or limitations of sequential and adaptive designs. In this article, we summarize the current status of methodological research and applications of flexible designs in diagnostic accuracy research. Furthermore, we indicate and advocate future development of adaptive design methodology and their use in diagnostic accuracy trials from an interdisciplinary viewpoint. The term "interdisciplinary viewpoint" describes the collaboration of experts of the academic and nonacademic research.

Exercise or manual physiotherapy compared with a single session of physiotherapy for osteoporotic vertebral fracture: three-arm PROVE RCT

BACKGROUND

A total of 25,000 people in the UK have osteoporotic vertebral fracture (OVF). Evidence suggests that physiotherapy may have an important treatment role.

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two different physiotherapy programmes for people with OVF compared with a single physiotherapy session.

DESIGN

This was a prospective, adaptive, multicentre, assessor-blinded randomised controlled trial (RCT) with nested qualitative and health economic studies.

SETTING

This trial was based in 21 NHS physiotherapy departments.

PARTICIPANTS

The participants were people with symptomatic OVF.

INTERVENTIONS

Seven sessions of either manual outpatient physiotherapy or exercise outpatient physiotherapy compared with the best practice of a 1-hour single session of physiotherapy (SSPT).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Outcomes were measured at 4 and 12 months. The primary outcomes were quality of life and muscle endurance, which were measured by the disease-specific QUALEFFO-41 (Quality of Life Questionnaire of the European Foundation for Osteoporosis - 41 items) and timed loaded standing (TLS) test, respectively. Secondary outcomes were (1) thoracic kyphosis angle, (2) balance, evaluated via the functional reach test (FRT), and (3) physical function, assessed via the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB), 6-minute walk test (6MWT), Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly, a health resource use and falls diary, and the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version.

RESULTS

A total of 615 participants were enrolled, with 216, 203 and 196 randomised by a computer-generated program to exercise therapy, manual therapy and a SSPT, respectively. Baseline data were available for 613 participants, 531 (86.6%) of whom were women; the mean age of these participants was 72.14 years (standard deviation 9.09 years). Primary outcome data were obtained for 69% of participants (429/615) at 12 months: 175 in the exercise therapy arm, 181 in the manual therapy arm and 173 in the SSPT arm. Interim analysis met the criteria for all arms to remain in the study. For the primary outcomes at 12 months, there were no significant benefits over SSPT of exercise [QUALEFFO-41, difference -0.23 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.20 to 1.59 points; p = 1.000; and TLS test, difference 5.77 seconds, 95% CI -4.85 to 20.46 seconds; p = 0.437] or of manual therapy (QUALEFFO-41, difference 1.35 points, 95% CI -1.76 to 2.93 points; p = 0.744; TLS test, difference 9.69 seconds (95% CI 0.09 to 24.86 seconds; p = 0.335). At 4 months, there were significant gains for both manual therapy and exercise therapy over SSPT in the TLS test in participants aged < 70 years. Exercise therapy was superior to a SSPT at 4 months in the SPPB, FRT and 6MWT and manual therapy was superior to a SSPT at 4 months in the TLS test and FRT. Neither manual therapy nor exercise therapy was cost-effective relative to a SSPT using the threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. There were no treatment-related serious adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the largest RCT to date assessing physiotherapy in participants with OVFs. At 1 year, neither treatment intervention conferred more benefit than a single 1-hour physiotherapy advice session. The focus of future work should be on the intensity and duration of interventions to determine if changes to these would demonstrate more sustained effects.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN49117867.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 44. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Design and estimation in clinical trials with subpopulation selection

Population heterogeneity is frequently observed among patients' treatment responses in clinical trials because of various factors such as clinical background, environmental, and genetic factors. Different subpopulations defined by those baseline factors can lead to differences in the benefit or safety profile of a therapeutic intervention. Ignoring heterogeneity between subpopulations can substantially impact on medical practice. One approach to address heterogeneity necessitates designs and analysis of clinical trials with subpopulation selection. Several types of designs have been proposed for different circumstances. In this work, we discuss a class of designs that allow selection of a predefined subgroup. Using the selection based on the maximum test statistics as the worst‐case scenario, we then investigate the precision and accuracy of the maximum likelihood estimator at the end of the study via simulations. We find that the required sample size is chiefly determined by the subgroup prevalence and show in simulations that the maximum likelihood estimator for these designs can be substantially biased.

Adaptive designs in clinical trials: why use them, and how to run and report them

Adaptive designs can make clinical trials more flexible by utilising results accumulating in the trial to modify the trial's course in accordance with pre-specified rules. Trials with an adaptive design are often more efficient, informative and ethical than trials with a traditional fixed design since they often make better use of resources such as time and money, and might require fewer participants. Adaptive designs can be applied across all phases of clinical research, from early-phase dose escalation to confirmatory trials. The pace of the uptake of adaptive designs in clinical research, however, has remained well behind that of the statistical literature introducing new methods and highlighting their potential advantages. We speculate that one factor contributing to this is that the full range of adaptations available to trial designs, as well as their goals, advantages and limitations, remains unfamiliar to many parts of the clinical community. Additionally, the term adaptive design has been misleadingly used as an all-encompassing label to refer to certain methods that could be deemed controversial or that have been inadequately implemented.We believe that even if the planning and analysis of a trial is undertaken by an expert statistician, it is essential that the investigators understand the implications of using an adaptive design, for example, what the practical challenges are, what can (and cannot) be inferred from the results of such a trial, and how to report and communicate the results. This tutorial paper provides guidance on key aspects of adaptive designs that are relevant to clinical triallists. We explain the basic rationale behind adaptive designs, clarify ambiguous terminology and summarise the utility and pitfalls of adaptive designs. We discuss practical aspects around funding, ethical approval, treatment supply and communication with stakeholders and trial participants. Our focus, however, is on the interpretation and reporting of results from adaptive design trials, which we consider vital for anyone involved in medical research. We emphasise the general principles of transparency and reproducibility and suggest how best to put them into practice.

Twenty-five years of confirmatory adaptive designs: opportunities and pitfalls

'Multistage testing with adaptive designs' was the title of an article by Peter Bauer that appeared 1989 in the German journal Biometrie und Informatik in Medizin und Biologie. The journal does not exist anymore but the methodology found widespread interest in the scientific community over the past 25 years. The use of such multistage adaptive designs raised many controversial discussions from the beginning on, especially after the publication by Bauer and Köhne 1994 in Biometrics: Broad enthusiasm about potential applications of such designs faced critical positions regarding their statistical efficiency. Despite, or possibly because of, this controversy, the methodology and its areas of applications grew steadily over the years, with significant contributions from statisticians working in academia, industry and agencies around the world. In the meantime, such type of adaptive designs have become the subject of two major regulatory guidance documents in the US and Europe and the field is still evolving. Developments are particularly noteworthy in the most important applications of adaptive designs, including sample size reassessment, treatment selection procedures, and population enrichment designs. In this article, we summarize the developments over the past 25 years from different perspectives. We provide a historical overview of the early days, review the key methodological concepts and summarize regulatory and industry perspectives on such designs. Then, we illustrate the application of adaptive designs with three case studies, including unblinded sample size reassessment, adaptive treatment selection, and adaptive endpoint selection. We also discuss the availability of software for evaluating and performing such designs. We conclude with a critical review of how expectations from the beginning were fulfilled, and - if not - discuss potential reasons why this did not happen.

Designing multi-arm multi-stage clinical trials using a risk-benefit criterion for treatment selection

Multi‐arm clinical trials that compare several active treatments to a common control have been proposed as an efficient means of making an informed decision about which of several treatments should be evaluated further in a confirmatory study. Additional efficiency is gained by incorporating interim analyses and, in particular, seamless Phase II/III designs have been the focus of recent research. Common to much of this work is the constraint that selection and formal testing should be based on a single efficacy endpoint, despite the fact that in practice, safety considerations will often play a central role in determining selection decisions. Here, we develop a multi‐arm multi‐stage design for a trial with an efficacy and safety endpoint. The safety endpoint is explicitly considered in the formulation of the problem, selection of experimental arm and hypothesis testing. The design extends group‐sequential ideas and considers the scenario where a minimal safety requirement is to be fulfilled and the treatment yielding the best combined safety and efficacy trade‐off satisfying this constraint is selected for further testing. The treatment with the best trade‐off is selected at the first interim analysis, while the whole trial is allowed to compose of J analyses. We show that the design controls the familywise error rate in the strong sense and illustrate the method through an example and simulation. We find that the design is robust to misspecification of the correlation between the endpoints and requires similar numbers of subjects to a trial based on efficacy alone for moderately correlated endpoints. © 2015 The Authors. Statistics in Medicine Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Estimation after subpopulation selection in adaptive seamless trials

During the development of new therapies, it is not uncommon to test whether a new treatment works better than the existing treatment for all patients who suffer from a condition (full population) or for a subset of the full population (subpopulation). One approach that may be used for this objective is to have two separate trials, where in the first trial, data are collected to determine if the new treatment benefits the full population or the subpopulation. The second trial is a confirmatory trial to test the new treatment in the population selected in the first trial. In this paper, we consider the more efficient two-stage adaptive seamless designs (ASDs), where in stage 1, data are collected to select the population to test in stage 2. In stage 2, additional data are collected to perform confirmatory analysis for the selected population. Unlike the approach that uses two separate trials, for ASDs, stage 1 data are also used in the confirmatory analysis. Although ASDs are efficient, using stage 1 data both for selection and confirmatory analysis introduces selection bias and consequently statistical challenges in making inference. We will focus on point estimation for such trials. In this paper, we describe the extent of bias for estimators that ignore multiple hypotheses and selecting the population that is most likely to give positive trial results based on observed stage 1 data. We then derive conditionally unbiased estimators and examine their mean squared errors for different scenarios.

A simple and flexible graphical approach for adaptive group-sequential clinical trials

In this article, we introduce a graphical approach to testing multiple hypotheses in group-sequential clinical trials allowing for midterm design modifications. It is intended for structured study objectives in adaptive clinical trials and extends the graphical group-sequential designs from Maurer and Bretz (Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research 2013; 5: 311-320) to adaptive trial designs. The resulting test strategies can be visualized graphically and performed iteratively. We illustrate the methodology with two examples from our clinical trial practice. First, we consider a three-armed gold-standard trial with the option to reallocate patients to either the test drug or the active control group, while stopping the recruitment of patients to placebo, after having demonstrated superiority of the test drug over placebo at an interim analysis. Second, we consider a confirmatory two-stage adaptive design with treatment selection at interim.

A comparison of methods for constructing confidence intervals after phase II/III clinical trials

Recently, in order to accelerate drug development, trials that use adaptive seamless designs such as phase II/III clinical trials have been proposed. Phase II/III clinical trials combine traditional phases II and III into a single trial that is conducted in two stages. Using stage 1 data, an interim analysis is performed to answer phase II objectives and after collection of stage 2 data, a final confirmatory analysis is performed to answer phase III objectives. In this paper we consider phase II/III clinical trials in which, at stage 1, several experimental treatments are compared to a control and the apparently most effective experimental treatment is selected to continue to stage 2. Although these trials are attractive because the confirmatory analysis includes phase II data from stage 1, the inference methods used for trials that compare a single experimental treatment to a control and do not have an interim analysis are no longer appropriate. Several methods for analysing phase II/III clinical trials have been developed. These methods are recent and so there is little literature on extensive comparisons of their characteristics. In this paper we review and compare the various methods available for constructing confidence intervals after phase II/III clinical trials.