Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency's "Consultation on proposals for legislative changes for clinical trials": a response from the Trials Methodology Research Partnership Adaptive Designs Working Group, with a focus on data sharing.

In the UK, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency consulted on proposals "to improve and strengthen the UK clinical trials legislation to help us make the UK the best place to research and develop safe and innovative medicines". The purpose of the consultation was to help finalise the proposals and contribute to the drafting of secondary legislation. We discussed these proposals as members of the Trials Methodology Research Partnership Adaptive Designs Working Group, which is jointly funded by the Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health and Care Research. Two topics arose frequently in the discussion: the emphasis on legislation, and the absence of questions on data sharing. It is our opinion that the proposals rely heavily on legislation to change practice. However, clinical trials are heterogeneous, and as a result some trials will struggle to comply with all of the proposed legislation. Furthermore, adaptive design clinical trials are even more heterogeneous than their non-adaptive counterparts, and face more challenges. Consequently, it is possible that increased legislation could have a greater negative impact on adaptive designs than non-adaptive designs. Overall, we are sceptical that the introduction of legislation will achieve the desired outcomes, with some exceptions. Meanwhile the topic of data sharing - making anonymised individual-level clinical trial data available to other investigators for further use - is entirely absent from the proposals and the consultation in general. However, as an aspect of the wider concept of open science and reproducible research, data sharing is an increasingly important aspect of clinical trials. The benefits of data sharing include faster innovation, improved surveillance of drug safety and effectiveness and decreasing participant exposure to unnecessary risk. There are already a number of UK-focused documents that discuss and encourage data sharing, for example, the Concordat on Open Research Data and the Medical Research Council's Data Sharing Policy. We strongly suggest that data sharing should be the norm rather than the exception, and hope that the forthcoming proposals on clinical trials invite discussion on this important topic.

Sample size determination for point-of-care COVID-19 diagnostic tests: a Bayesian approach.

BACKGROUND: In a pandemic setting, it is critical to evaluate and deploy accurate diagnostic tests rapidly. This relies heavily on the sample size chosen to assess the test accuracy (e.g. sensitivity and specificity) during the diagnostic accuracy study. Too small a sample size will lead to imprecise estimates of the accuracy measures, whereas too large a sample size may delay the development process unnecessarily. This study considers use of a Bayesian method to guide sample size determination for diagnostic accuracy studies, with application to COVID-19 rapid viral detection tests. Specifically, we investigate whether utilising existing information (e.g. from preceding laboratory studies) within a Bayesian framework can reduce the required sample size, whilst maintaining test accuracy to the desired precision. METHODS: The method presented is based on the Bayesian concept of assurance which, in this context, represents the unconditional probability that a diagnostic accuracy study yields sensitivity and/or specificity intervals with the desired precision. We conduct a simulation study to evaluate the performance of this approach in a variety of COVID-19 settings, and compare it to commonly used power-based methods. An accompanying interactive web application is available, which can be used by researchers to perform the sample size calculations. RESULTS: Results show that the Bayesian assurance method can reduce the required sample size for COVID-19 diagnostic accuracy studies, compared to standard methods, by making better use of laboratory data, without loss of performance. Increasing the size of the laboratory study can further reduce the required sample size in the diagnostic accuracy study. CONCLUSIONS: The method considered in this paper is an important advancement for increasing the efficiency of the evidence development pathway. It has highlighted that the trade-off between lab study sample size and diagnostic accuracy study sample size should be carefully considered, since establishing an adequate lab sample size can bring longer-term gains. Although emphasis is on its use in the COVID-19 pandemic setting, where we envisage it will have the most impact, it can be usefully applied in other clinical areas.

Subgroup analyses in randomized controlled trials frequently categorized continuous subgroup information.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To investigate how subgroup analyses of published Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) are performed when subgroups are created from continuous variables. METHODS: We carried out a review of RCTs published in 2016-2021 that included subgroup analyses. Information was extracted on whether any of the subgroups were based on continuous variables and, if so, how they were analyzed. RESULTS: Out of 428 reviewed papers, 258 (60.4%) reported RCTs with a subgroup analysis. Of these, 178/258 (69%) had at least one subgroup formed from a continuous variable and 14/258 (5.4%) were unclear. The vast majority (169/178, 94.9%) dichotomized the continuous variable and treated the subgroup as categorical. The most common way of dichotomizing was using a pre-specified cutpoint (129/169, 76.3%), followed by a data-driven cutpoint (26/169, 15.4%), such as the median. CONCLUSION: It is common for subgroup analyses to use continuous variables to define subgroups. The vast majority dichotomize the continuous variable and, consequently, may lose substantial amounts of statistical information (equivalent to reducing the sample size by at least a third). More advanced methods that can improve efficiency, through optimally choosing cutpoints or directly using the continuous information, are rarely used.

Generalisations of a Bayesian decision-theoretic randomisation procedure and the impact of delayed responses.

The design of sequential experiments and, in particular, randomised controlled trials involves a trade-off between operational characteristics such as statistical power, estimation bias and patient benefit. The family of randomisation procedures referred to as Constrained Randomised Dynamic Programming (CRDP), which is set in the Bayesian decision-theoretic framework, can be used to balance these competing objectives. A generalisation and novel interpretation of CRDP is proposed to highlight its inherent flexibility to adapt to a variety of practicalities and align with individual trial objectives. CRDP, as with most response-adaptive randomisation procedures, hinges on the limiting assumption of patient responses being available before allocation of the next patient. This forms one of the greatest barriers to their implementation in practice which, despite being an important research question, has not received a thorough treatment. Therefore, motivated by the existing gap between the theory of response-adaptive randomisation (which is abundant with proposed methods in the immediate response setting) and clinical practice (in which responses are typically delayed), the performance of CRDP in the presence of fixed and random delays is evaluated. Simulation results show that CRDP continues to offer patient benefit gains over alternative procedures and is relatively robust to delayed responses. To compensate for a fixed delay, a method which adjusts the time horizon used in the optimisation objective is proposed and its performance illustrated.

Bayesian sample size determination for diagnostic accuracy studies.

The development of a new diagnostic test ideally follows a sequence of stages which, among other aims, evaluate technical performance. This includes an analytical validity study, a diagnostic accuracy study, and an interventional clinical utility study. In this article, we propose a novel Bayesian approach to sample size determination for the diagnostic accuracy study, which takes advantage of information available from the analytical validity stage. We utilize assurance to calculate the required sample size based on the target width of a posterior probability interval and can choose to use or disregard the data from the analytical validity study when subsequently inferring measures of test accuracy. Sensitivity analyses are performed to assess the robustness of the proposed sample size to the choice of prior, and prior-data conflict is evaluated by comparing the data to the prior predictive distributions. We illustrate the proposed approach using a motivating real-life application involving a diagnostic test for ventilator associated pneumonia. Finally, we compare the properties of the approach against commonly used alternatives. The results show that, when suitable prior information is available, the assurance-based approach can reduce the required sample size when compared to alternative approaches.

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.

A response-adaptive randomization procedure for multi-armed clinical trials with normally distributed outcomes.

We propose a novel response-adaptive randomization procedure for multi-armed trials with continuous outcomes that are assumed to be normally distributed. Our proposed rule is non-myopic, and oriented toward a patient benefit objective, yet maintains computational feasibility. We derive our response-adaptive algorithm based on the Gittins index for the multi-armed bandit problem, as a modification of the method first introduced in Villar et al. (Biometrics, 71, pp. 969-978). The resulting procedure can be implemented under the assumption of both known or unknown variance. We illustrate the proposed procedure by simulations in the context of phase II cancer trials. Our results show that, in a multi-armed setting, there are efficiency and patient benefit gains of using a response-adaptive allocation procedure with a continuous endpoint instead of a binary one. These gains persist even if an anticipated low rate of missing data due to deaths, dropouts, or complete responses is imputed online through a procedure first introduced in this paper. Additionally, we discuss how there are response-adaptive designs that outperform the traditional equal randomized design both in terms of efficiency and patient benefit measures in the multi-armed trial context.

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 paper 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 design

A Bayesian adaptive design for clinical trials in rare diseases.

Development of treatments for rare diseases is challenging due to the limited number of patients available for participation. Learning about treatment effectiveness with a view to treat patients in the larger outside population, as in the traditional fixed randomised design, may not be a plausible goal. An alternative goal is to treat the patients within the trial as effectively as possible. Using the framework of finite-horizon Markov decision processes and dynamic programming (DP), a novel randomised response-adaptive design is proposed which maximises the total number of patient successes in the trial and penalises if a minimum number of patients are not recruited to each treatment arm. Several performance measures of the proposed design are evaluated and compared to alternative designs through extensive simulation studies using a recently published trial as motivation. For simplicity, a two-armed trial with binary endpoints and immediate responses is considered. Simulation results for the proposed design show that: (i) the percentage of patients allocated to the superior arm is much higher than in the traditional fixed randomised design; (ii) relative to the optimal DP design, the power is largely improved upon and (iii) it exhibits only a very small bias and mean squared error of the treatment effect estimator. Furthermore, this design is fully randomised which is an advantage from a practical point of view because it protects the trial against various sources of bias. As such, the proposed design addresses some of the key issues that have been suggested as preventing so-called bandit models from being implemented in clinical practice.