Interim monitoring of sequential multiple assignment randomized trials using partial information

The sequential multiple assignment randomized trial (SMART) is the gold standard trial design to generate data for the evaluation of multistage treatment regimes. As with conventional (single-stage) randomized clinical trials, interim monitoring allows early stopping; however, there are few methods for principled interim analysis in SMARTs. Because SMARTs involve multiple stages of treatment, a key challenge is that not all enrolled participants will have progressed through all treatment stages at the time of an interim analysis. Wu et al. (2021) propose basing interim analyses on an estimator for the mean outcome under a given regime that uses data only from participants who have completed all treatment stages. We propose an estimator for the mean outcome under a given regime that gains efficiency by using partial information from enrolled participants regardless of their progression through treatment stages. Using the asymptotic distribution of this estimator, we derive associated Pocock and O'Brien-Fleming testing procedures for early stopping. In simulation experiments, the estimator controls type I error and achieves nominal power while reducing expected sample size relative to the method of Wu et al. (2021). We present an illustrative application of the proposed estimator based on a recent SMART evaluating behavioral pain interventions for breast cancer patients.

Information fraction estimation: Strategies for a phase 3 non-inferiority maximum duration design with time to event outcome

There is considerable debate surrounding the choice of methods to estimate information fraction for futility monitoring in a randomized non-inferiority maximum duration trial. This question was motivated by a pediatric oncology study that aimed to establish non-inferiority for two primary outcomes. While non-inferiority was determined for one outcome, the futility monitoring of the other outcome failed to stop the trial early, despite accumulating evidence of inferiority. For a one-sided trial design for which the intervention is inferior to the standard therapy, futility monitoring should provide the opportunity to terminate the trial early. Our research focuses on the Total Control Only (TCO) method, which is defined as a ratio of observed events to total events exclusively within the standard treatment regimen. We investigate its properties in stopping a trial early in favor of inferiority. Simulation results comparing the TCO method with alternative methods, one based on the assumption of an inferior treatment effect (TH0), and the other based on a specified hypothesis of a non-inferior treatment effect (THA), were provided under various pediatric oncology trial design settings. The TCO method is the only method that provides unbiased information fraction estimates regardless of the hypothesis assumptions and exhibits a good power and a comparable type I error rate at each interim analysis compared to other methods. Although none of the methods is uniformly superior on all criteria, the TCO method possesses favorable characteristics, making it a compelling choice for estimating the information fraction when the aim is to reduce cancer treatment-related adverse outcomes.

Interim monitoring in sequential multiple assignment randomized trials

A sequential multiple assignment randomized trial (SMART) facilitates the comparison of multiple adaptive treatment strategies (ATSs) simultaneously. Previous studies have established a framework to test the homogeneity of multiple ATSs by a global Wald test through inverse probability weighting. SMARTs are generally lengthier than classical clinical trials due to the sequential nature of treatment randomization in multiple stages. Thus, it would be beneficial to add interim analyses allowing for an early stop if overwhelming efficacy is observed. We introduce group sequential methods to SMARTs to facilitate interim monitoring based on the multivariate chi-square distribution. Simulation studies demonstrate that the proposed interim monitoring in SMART (IM-SMART) maintains the desired type I error and power with reduced expected sample size compared to the classical SMART. Finally, we illustrate our method by reanalyzing a SMART assessing the effects of cognitive behavioral and physical therapies in patients with knee osteoarthritis and comorbid subsyndromal depressive symptoms.

Information fraction estimation based on the number of events within the standard treatment regimen

For a Phase III randomized trial that compares survival outcomes between an experimental treatment versus a standard therapy, interim monitoring analysis is used to potentially terminate the study early based on efficacy. To preserve the nominal Type I error rate, alpha spending methods and information fractions are used to compute appropriate rejection boundaries in studies with planned interim analyses. For a one-sided trial design applied to a scenario in which the experimental therapy is superior to the standard therapy, interim monitoring should provide the opportunity to stop the trial prior to full follow-up and conclude that the experimental therapy is superior. This paper proposes a method called total control only (TCO) for estimating the information fraction based on the number of events within the standard treatment regimen. Based on theoretical derivations and simulation studies, for a maximum duration superiority design, the TCO method is not influenced by departure from the designed hazard ratio, is sensitive to detecting treatment differences, and preserves the Type I error rate compared to information fraction estimation methods that are based on total observed events. The TCO method is simple to apply, provides unbiased estimates of the information fraction, and does not rely on statistical assumptions that are impossible to verify at the design stage. For these reasons, the TCO method is a good approach when designing a maximum duration superiority trial with planned interim monitoring analyses.

A comparison of two worlds: How does Bayes hold up to the status quo for the analysis of clinical trials?

BACKGROUND

There is a paucity of literature comparing Bayesian analytic techniques with traditional approaches for analyzing clinical trials using real trial data.

METHODS

We compared Bayesian and frequentist group sequential methods using data from two published clinical trials. We chose two widely accepted frequentist rules, O'Brien-Fleming and Lan-DeMets, and conjugate Bayesian priors. Using the nonparametric bootstrap, we estimated a sampling distribution of stopping times for each method. Because current practice dictates the preservation of an experiment-wise false positive rate (Type I error), we approximated these error rates for our Bayesian and frequentist analyses with the posterior probability of detecting an effect in a simulated null sample. Thus for the data-generated distribution represented by these trials, we were able to compare the relative performance of these techniques.

RESULTS

No final outcomes differed from those of the original trials. However, the timing of trial termination differed substantially by method and varied by trial. For one trial, group sequential designs of either type dictated early stopping of the study. In the other, stopping times were dependent upon the choice of spending function and prior distribution.

CONCLUSIONS

Results indicate that trialists ought to consider Bayesian methods in addition to traditional approaches for analysis of clinical trials. Though findings from this small sample did not demonstrate either method to consistently outperform the other, they did suggest the need to replicate these comparisons using data from varied clinical trials in order to determine the conditions under which the different methods would be most efficient.