Optimal futility stopping boundaries for binary endpoints.

BACKGROUND: Group sequential designs incorporating the option to stop for futility at the time point of an interim analysis can save time and resources. Thereby, the choice of the futility boundary importantly impacts the design's resulting performance characteristics, including the power and probability to correctly or wrongly stop for futility. Several authors contributed to the topic of selecting good futility boundaries. For binary endpoints, Simon's designs (Control Clin Trials 10:1-10, 1989) are commonly used two-stage designs for single-arm phase II studies incorporating futility stopping. However, Simon's optimal design frequently yields an undesirably high probability of falsely declaring futility after the first stage, and in Simon's minimax design often a high proportion of the planned sample size is already evaluated at the interim analysis leaving only limited benefit in case of an early stop. METHODS: This work focuses on the optimality criteria introduced by Schüler et al. (BMC Med Res Methodol 17:119, 2017) and extends their approach to binary endpoints in single-arm phase II studies. An algorithm for deriving optimized futility boundaries is introduced, and the performance of study designs implementing this concept of optimal futility boundaries is compared to the common Simon's minimax and optimal designs, as well as modified versions of these designs by Kim et al. (Oncotarget 10:4255-61, 2019). RESULTS: The introduced optimized futility boundaries aim to maximize the probability of correctly stopping for futility in case of small or opposite effects while also setting constraints on the time point of the interim analysis, the power loss, and the probability of stopping the study wrongly, i.e. stopping the study even though the treatment effect shows promise. Overall, the operating characteristics, such as maximum sample size and expected sample size, are comparable to those of the classical and modified Simon's designs and sometimes better. Unlike Simon's designs, which have binding stopping rules, the optimized futility boundaries proposed here are not adjusted to exhaust the full targeted nominal significance level and are thus still valid for non-binding applications. CONCLUSIONS: The choice of the futility boundary and the time point of the interim analysis have a major impact on the properties of the study design. Therefore, they should be thoroughly investigated at the planning stage. The introduced method of selecting optimal futility boundaries provides a more flexible alternative to Simon's designs with non-binding stopping rules. The probability of wrongly stopping for futility is minimized and the optimized futility boundaries don't exhibit the unfavorable properties of an undesirably high probability of falsely declaring futility or a high proportion of the planned sample evaluated at the interim time point.

Regulatory Issues of Platform Trials: Learnings from EU-PEARL.

Although platform trials have many benefits, the complexity of these designs may result not only in increased methodological but also regulatory and ethical challenges. These aspects were addressed as part of the IMI project EU Patient-Centric Clinical Trial Platforms (EU-PEARL). We reviewed the available guidelines on platform trials in the European Union and the United States. This is supported and complemented by feedback received from regulatory interactions with the European Medicines Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration. Throughout the project we collected the needs of all relevant stakeholders including ethics committees, regulators, and health technology assessment bodies through active dialog and dedicated stakeholder workshops. Furthermore, we focused on methodological aspects and where applicable identified the corresponding guidance. Learnings from the guideline review, regulatory interactions, and workshops are provided. Based on these, a master protocol template was developed. Issues that still need harmonization or clarification in guidelines or where further methodological research is needed are also presented. These include questions around clinical trial submissions in Europe, the need for multiplicity control across the whole master protocol, the use of non-concurrent controls, and the impact of different randomization schemes. Master protocols are an efficient and patient-centered clinical trial design that can expedite drug development. However, they can also introduce additional operational and regulatory complexities. It is important to understand the different requirements of stakeholders upfront and address them in the trial. While relevant guidance is increasing, early dialog with relevant stakeholders can help to further support such designs.