Designing a Bayesian adaptive clinical trial to evaluate novel mechanical ventilation strategies in acute respiratory failure using integrated nested Laplace approximations.

BACKGROUND: Adaptive trials usually require simulations to determine values for design parameters, demonstrate error rates, and establish the sample size. We designed a Bayesian adaptive trial comparing ventilation strategies for patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure using simulations. The complexity of the analysis would usually require computationally expensive Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods but this barrier to simulation was overcome using the Integrated Nested Laplace Approximations (INLA) algorithm to provide fast, approximate Bayesian inference. METHODS: We simulated two-arm Bayesian adaptive trials with equal randomization that stratified participants into two disease severity states. The analysis used a proportional odds model, fit using INLA. Trials were stopped based on pre-specified posterior probability thresholds for superiority or futility, separately for each state. We calculated the type I error and power across 64 scenarios that varied the probability thresholds and the initial minimum sample size before commencing adaptive analyses. Two designs that maintained a type I error below 5%, a power above 80%, and a feasible mean sample size were evaluated further to determine the optimal design. RESULTS: Power generally increased as the initial sample size and the futility threshold increased. The chosen design had an initial recruitment of 500 and a superiority threshold of 0.9925, and futility threshold of 0.95. It maintained high power and was likely to reach a conclusion before exceeding a feasible sample size. CONCLUSIONS: We designed a Bayesian adaptive trial to evaluate novel strategies for ventilation using the INLA algorithm to efficiently evaluate a wide range of designs through simulation.

Adaptive clinical trials in surgery: A scoping review of methodological and reporting quality.

IMPORTANCE: Adaptive surgical trials are scarce, but adopting these methods may help elevate the quality of surgical research when large-scale RCTs are impractical. OBJECTIVE: Randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for evidence-based healthcare. Despite an increase in the number of RCTs, the number of surgical trials remains unchanged. Adaptive clinical trials can streamline trial design and time to trial reporting. The advantages identified for ACTs may help to improve the quality of future surgical trials. We present a scoping review of the methodological and reporting quality of adaptive surgical trials. EVIDENCE REVIEW: We performed a search of Ovid, Web of Science, and Cochrane Collaboration for all adaptive surgical RCTs performed from database inception to October 12, 2023. We included any published trials that had at least one surgical arm. All review and abstraction were performed in duplicate. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the RoB 2.0 instrument and reporting quality was evaluated using CONSORT ACE 2020. All results were analyzed using descriptive methods. FINDINGS: Of the 1338 studies identified, six trials met inclusion criteria. Trials were performed in cardiothoracic, oral, orthopedic, and urological surgery. The most common type of adaptive trial was group sequential design with pre-specified interim analyses planned for efficacy, futility, and/or sample size re-estimation. Two trials did use statistical simulations. Our risk of bias evaluation identified a high risk of bias in 50% of included trials. Reporting quality was heterogeneous regarding trial design and outcome assessment and details in relation to randomization and blinding concealment. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Surgical trialists should consider implementing adaptive components to help improve patient recruitment and reduce trial duration. Reporting of future adaptive trials must adhere to existing CONSORT ACE 2020 guidelines. Future research is needed to optimize standardization of adaptive methods across medicine and surgery.

Sample size adaptation designs and efficiency comparison with group sequential designs.

This study is to give a systematic account of sample size adaptation designs (SSADs) and to provide direct proof of the efficiency advantage of general SSADs over group sequential designs (GSDs) from a different perspective. For this purpose, a class of sample size mapping functions to define SSADs is introduced. Under the two-stage adaptive clinical trial setting, theorems are developed to describe the properties of SSADs. Sufficient conditions are derived and used to prove analytically that SSADs based on the weighted combination test can be uniformly more efficient than GSDs in a range of likely values of the true treatment difference δ $$ \delta $$ . As shown in various scenarios, given a GSD, a fully adaptive SSAD can be obtained that has sufficient statistical power similar to that of the GSD but has a smaller average sample size for all δ $$ \delta $$ in the range. The associated sample size savings can be substantial. A practical design example and suggestions on the steps to find efficient SSADs are also provided.

Adaptive phase I-II clinical trial designs identifying optimal biological doses for targeted agents and immunotherapies.

Targeted agents and immunotherapies have revolutionized cancer treatment, offering promising options for various cancer types. Unlike traditional therapies the principle of "more is better" is not always applicable to these new therapies due to their unique biomedical mechanisms. As a result, various phase I-II clinical trial designs have been proposed to identify the optimal biological dose that maximizes the therapeutic effect of targeted therapies and immunotherapies by jointly monitoring both efficacy and toxicity outcomes. This review article examines several innovative phase I-II clinical trial designs that utilize accumulated efficacy and toxicity outcomes to adaptively determine doses for subsequent patients and identify the optimal biological dose, maximizing the overall therapeutic effect. Specifically, we highlight three categories of phase I-II designs: efficacy-driven, utility-based, and designs incorporating multiple efficacy endpoints. For each design, we review the dose-outcome model, the definition of the optimal biological dose, the dose-finding algorithm, and the software for trial implementation. To illustrate the concepts, we also present two real phase I-II trial examples utilizing the EffTox and ISO designs. Finally, we provide a classification tree to summarize the designs discussed in this article.

Advantages of multi-arm non-randomised sequentially allocated cohort designs for Phase II oncology trials.

BACKGROUND: Efficient trial designs are required to prioritise promising drugs within Phase II trials. Adaptive designs are examples of such designs, but their efficiency is reduced if there is a delay in assessing patient responses to treatment. METHODS: Motivated by the WIRE trial in renal cell carcinoma (NCT03741426), we compare three trial approaches to testing multiple treatment arms: (1) single-arm trials in sequence with interim analyses; (2) a parallel multi-arm multi-stage trial and (3) the design used in WIRE, which we call the Multi-Arm Sequential Trial with Efficient Recruitment (MASTER) design. The MASTER design recruits patients to one arm at a time, pausing recruitment to an arm when it has recruited the required number for an interim analysis. We conduct a simulation study to compare how long the three different trial designs take to evaluate a number of new treatment arms. RESULTS: The parallel multi-arm multi-stage and the MASTER design are much more efficient than separate trials. The MASTER design provides extra efficiency when there is endpoint delay, or recruitment is very quick. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend the MASTER design as an efficient way of testing multiple promising cancer treatments in non-comparative Phase II trials.

Contribución del farmacéutico cubano a la calidad de un ensayo clínico / Contribution of the Cuban pharmaceutical to the quality of a clinical trial

Una de las etapas culminantes del desarrollo de un producto en investigación es el ensayo clínico. Esta investigación se lleva a cabo en sujetos humanos y se dirige a verificar o descubrir los efectos clínicos, farmacológicos y/o farmacodinámicos del producto o equipo que se estudia.Para garantizar la calidad de estas investigaciones se utiliza como estándar las Buenas Prácticas Clínicas, donde se establecen requisitos a cumplir por los participantes, para asegurar calidad de los datos y protección de los derechos, integridad y confidencialidad de los sujetos.Un copartícipe importante es el farmacéutico, por el rol que desempeña. Este trabajo se centró en mostrar los elementos a tener en cuenta por el farmacéutico cubano para contribuir a elevar la calidad de un ensayo clínico.Dentro de los elementos a cumplir se encontraron; la cualificación, el cumplimiento y dominio del protocolo en lo referido al manejo del producto, el completamiento adecuado y en tiempo de la documentación que se genera según las funciones en el ensayo, velar por las condiciones de almacenamiento, vencimiento y devolución del producto, además de estar preparado para recibir actividades de monitoreo, auditoría y/o inspecciones, trabajar con enfoque de riesgo y por la mejora continua.El farmacéutico que participa en un ensayo clínico deberá dominar y aplicar los elementos identificados para tributar a la protección de los sujetos y confiablidad de los datos, elevando la calidad de los ensayos clínicos. (AU)

One of the culminating stages of the development of a product under investigation is the clinical trial. This research is carried out in human subjects and is aimed at verifying or discovering the clinical, pharmacological and/or pharmacodynamic effects of the product or equipment being studied.To guarantee the quality of these investigations, the Good Clinical Practices are used as standard, where requirements are established to be met by the participants, to ensure data quality and protection of the rights, integrity and confidentiality of the subjects.An important partner is the pharmacist. This work focused on showing the elements to be taken into account by the Cuban pharmacist to help raise the quality of a clinical trial.Among the elements to meet were found; the qualification, compliance and mastery of the protocol in relation to the handling of the product, the adequate and timely completion of the documentation that is generated according to the functions in the test, ensure the storage conditions, expiration and return of the product, in addition to be prepared to receive monitoring, audit and/or inspection activities, work with a risk approach and for continuous improvement.The pharmacist participating in a clinical trial must master and apply the elements identified to contribute to the protection of the subjects and the reliability of the data, raising the quality of the clinical trials. (AU)

How can health economics be used in the design and analysis of adaptive clinical trials? A qualitative analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Adaptive designs offer a flexible approach, allowing changes to a trial based on examinations of the data as it progresses. Adaptive clinical trials are becoming a popular choice, as the prudent use of finite research budgets and accurate decision-making are priorities for healthcare providers around the world. The methods of health economics, which aim to maximise the health gained for money spent, could be incorporated into the design and analysis of adaptive clinical trials to make them more efficient. We aimed to understand the perspectives of stakeholders in health technology assessments to inform recommendations for the use of health economics in adaptive clinical trials. METHODS: A qualitative study explored the attitudes of key stakeholders-including researchers, decision-makers and members of the public-towards the use of health economics in the design and analysis of adaptive clinical trials. Data were collected using interviews and focus groups (29 participants). A framework analysis was used to identify themes in the transcripts. RESULTS: It was considered that answering the clinical research question should be the priority in a clinical trial, notwithstanding the importance of cost-effectiveness for decision-making. Concerns raised by participants included handling the volatile nature of cost data at interim analyses; implementing this approach in global trials; resourcing adaptive trials which are designed and adapted based on health economic outcomes; and training stakeholders in these methods so that they can be implemented and appropriately interpreted. CONCLUSION: The use of health economics in the design and analysis of adaptive clinical trials has the potential to increase the efficiency of health technology assessments worldwide. Recommendations are made concerning the development of methods allowing the use of health economics in adaptive clinical trials, and suggestions are given to facilitate their implementation in practice.

A review of available software for adaptive clinical trial design.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The increasing cost of the drug development process has seen interest in the use of adaptive trial designs grow substantially. Accordingly, much research has been conducted to identify barriers to increasing the use of adaptive designs in practice. Several articles have argued that the availability of user-friendly software will be an important step in making adaptive designs easier to implement. Therefore, we present a review of the current state of software availability for adaptive trial design. METHODS: We review articles from 31 journals published in 2013-2017 that relate to methodology for adaptive trials to assess how often code and software for implementing novel adaptive designs is made available at the time of publication. We contrast our findings against these journals' policies on code distribution. We also search popular code repositories, such as Comprehensive R Archive Network and GitHub, to identify further existing user-contributed software for adaptive designs. From this, we are able to direct interested parties toward solutions for their problem of interest. RESULTS: Only 30% of included articles made their code available in some form. In many instances, articles published in journals that had mandatory requirements on code provision still did not make code available. There are several areas in which available software is currently limited or saturated. In particular, many packages are available to address group sequential design, but comparatively little code is present in the public domain to determine biomarker-guided adaptive designs. CONCLUSIONS: There is much room for improvement in the provision of software alongside adaptive design publications. In addition, while progress has been made, well-established software for various types of trial adaptation remains sparsely available.

Quantification of prior impact in terms of effective current sample size.

Bayesian methods allow borrowing of historical information through prior distributions. The concept of prior effective sample size (prior ESS) facilitates quantification and communication of such prior information by equating it to a sample size. Prior information can arise from historical observations; thus, the traditional approach identifies the ESS with such a historical sample size. However, this measure is independent of newly observed data, and thus would not capture an actual "loss of information" induced by the prior in case of prior-data conflict. We build on a recent work to relate prior impact to the number of (virtual) samples from the current data model and introduce the effective current sample size (ECSS) of a prior, tailored to the application in Bayesian clinical trial designs. Special emphasis is put on robust mixture, power, and commensurate priors. We apply the approach to an adaptive design in which the number of recruited patients is adjusted depending on the effective sample size at an interim analysis. We argue that the ECSS is the appropriate measure in this case, as the aim is to save current (as opposed to historical) patients from recruitment. Furthermore, the ECSS can help overcome lack of consensus in the ESS assessment of mixture priors and can, more broadly, provide further insights into the impact of priors. An R package accompanies the paper.

An adaptive trial design to optimize dose-schedule regimes with delayed outcomes.

This paper proposes a two-stage phase I-II clinical trial design to optimize dose-schedule regimes of an experimental agent within ordered disease subgroups in terms of the toxicity-efficacy trade-off. The design is motivated by settings where prior biological information indicates it is certain that efficacy will improve with ordinal subgroup level. We formulate a flexible Bayesian hierarchical model to account for associations among subgroups and regimes, and to characterize ordered subgroup effects. Sequentially adaptive decision-making is complicated by the problem, arising from the motivating application, that efficacy is scored on day 90 and toxicity is evaluated within 30 days from the start of therapy, while the patient accrual rate is fast relative to these outcome evaluation intervals. To deal with this in a practical manner, we take a likelihood-based approach that treats unobserved toxicity and efficacy outcomes as missing values, and use elicited utilities that quantify the efficacy-toxicity trade-off as a decision criterion. Adaptive randomization is used to assign patients to regimes while accounting for subgroups, with randomization probabilities depending on the posterior predictive distributions of utilities. A simulation study is presented to evaluate the design's performance under a variety of scenarios, and to assess its sensitivity to the amount of missing data, the prior, and model misspecification.

Two-stage enrichment clinical trial design with adjustment for misclassification in predictive biomarkers.

A two-stage enrichment design is a type of adaptive design, which extends a stratified design with a futility analysis on the marker negative cohort at the first stage, and the second stage can be either a targeted design with only the marker positive stratum, or still the stratified design with both marker strata, depending on the result of the interim futility analysis. In this paper, we consider the situation where the marker assay and the classification rule are possibly subject to error. We derive the sequential tests for the global hypothesis as well as the component tests for the overall cohort and the marker-positive cohort. We discuss the power analysis with the control of the type I error rate and show the adverse impact of the misclassification on the powers. We also show the enhanced power of the two-stage enrichment over the one-stage design and illustrate with examples of the recent successful development of immunotherapy in non-small-cell lung cancer.

Multi-stage enrichment and basket trial designs with population selection.

As biomarker information from early-phase trials can be unreliable due to high variability, it is logical to take a prospective two-stage approach when designing a late-phase confirmatory trial, ie, refining the target population at the first stage and performing the hypothesis testing at the second stage. The use of a reliable intermediate endpoint at the first stage can further improve the trial efficiency from both time and cost perspectives. Nevertheless, there are needs for expanding such two-stage confirmatory designs to more stages for monitoring efficacy on the refined population. There is limited literature on this matter, particularly for two popular designs with population selection midway, ie, the biomarker enrichment design and the basket design. In this manuscript, we focus on these two popular designs and discuss how to implement the interim efficacy analyses after population refinement while controlling type I error. Power and stopping probability are also explored for the two designs.

To add or not to add a new treatment arm to a multiarm study: A decision-theoretic framework.

Multiarm clinical trials, which compare several experimental treatments against control, are frequently recommended due to their efficiency gain. In practise, all potential treatments may not be ready to be tested in a phase II/III trial at the same time. It has become appealing to allow new treatment arms to be added into on-going clinical trials using a "platform" trial approach. To the best of our knowledge, many aspects of when to add arms to an existing trial have not been explored in the literature. Most works on adding arm(s) assume that a new arm is opened whenever a new treatment becomes available. This strategy may prolong the overall duration of a study or cause reduction in marginal power for each hypothesis if the adaptation is not well accommodated. Within a two-stage trial setting, we propose a decision-theoretic framework to investigate when to add or not to add a new treatment arm based on the observed stage one treatment responses. To account for different prospect of multiarm studies, we define utility in two different ways; one for a trial that aims to maximise the number of rejected hypotheses; the other for a trial that would declare a success when at least one hypothesis is rejected from the study. Our framework shows that it is not always optimal to add a new treatment arm to an existing trial. We illustrate a case study by considering a completed trial on knee osteoarthritis.

A Review of Clinical Trials With an Adaptive Design and Health Economic Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: An adaptive design uses data collected as a clinical trial progresses to inform modifications to the trial. Hence, adaptive designs and health economics aim to facilitate efficient and accurate decision making. Nevertheless, it is unclear whether the methods are considered together in the design, analysis, and reporting of trials. This review aims to establish how health economic outcomes are used in the design, analysis, and reporting of adaptive designs. METHODS: Registered and published trials up to August 2016 with an adaptive design and health economic analysis were identified. The use of health economics in the design, analysis, and reporting was assessed. Summary statistics are presented and recommendations formed based on the research team's experiences and a practical interpretation of the results. RESULTS: Thirty-seven trials with an adaptive design and health economic analysis were identified. It was not clear whether the health economic analysis accounted for the adaptive design in 17/37 trials where this was thought necessary, nor whether health economic outcomes were used at the interim analysis for 18/19 of trials with results. The reporting of health economic results was suboptimal for the (17/19) trials with published results. CONCLUSIONS: Appropriate consideration is rarely given to the health economic analysis of adaptive designs. Opportunities to use health economic outcomes in the design and analysis of adaptive trials are being missed. Further work is needed to establish whether adaptive designs and health economic analyses can be used together to increase the efficiency of health technology assessments without compromising accuracy.

Outcome-adaptive randomization in clinical trials: issues of participant welfare and autonomy.

Outcome-adaptive randomization (OAR) has been proposed as a corrective to certain ethical difficulties inherent in the traditional randomized clinical trial (RCT) using fixed-ratio randomization. In particular, it has been suggested that OAR redresses the balance between individual and collective ethics in favour of the former. In this paper, I examine issues of welfare and autonomy arising in relation to OAR. A central issue in discussions of welfare in OAR is equipoise, and the moral status of OAR is crucially influenced by the way in which this concept is construed. If OAR is based on a model of equipoise that demands strict indifference between competing interventions throughout the trial, such equipoise is disturbed by accruing data favouring one treatment over another; OAR seeks to redress this by weighting randomization to the seemingly superior treatment. However, this is a partial response, as patients continue to be allocated to the inferior therapy. Moreover, it rests upon considerations of aggregate harms and benefits, and does not therefore uphold individual ethics. Issues of fairness also arise, as early and late enrollees are randomized on a different basis. Fixed-ratio randomization represents a fuller and more consistent response to a loss of equipoise, as so construed. With regard to consent, the complexity of OAR poses challenges to adequate disclosure and comprehension. Additionally, OAR does not offer a remedy to the therapeutic misconception-participants' tendency to attribute treatment allocation in an RCT to individual clinical judgments, rather than to scientific considerations-and, if anything, accentuates rather than alleviates this misconception. In relation to these issues, OAR fails to offer ethical advantages over fixed-ratio randomization. More broadly, the ethical basis of OAR can be seen to lie more in collective than in individual ethics, and overall it fares worse in this territory than fixed-ratio randomization.

Familywise error control in multi-armed response-adaptive trials.

Response-adaptive designs allow the randomization probabilities to change during the course of a trial based on cumulated response data so that a greater proportion of patients can be allocated to the better performing treatments. A major concern over the use of response-adaptive designs in practice, particularly from a regulatory viewpoint, is controlling the type I error rate. In particular, we show that the naïve z-test can have an inflated type I error rate even after applying a Bonferroni correction. Simulation studies have often been used to demonstrate error control but do not provide a guarantee. In this article, we present adaptive testing procedures for normally distributed outcomes that ensure strong familywise error control by iteratively applying the conditional invariance principle. Our approach can be used for fully sequential and block randomized trials and for a large class of adaptive randomization rules found in the literature. We show there is a high price to pay in terms of power to guarantee familywise error control for randomization schemes with extreme allocation probabilities. However, for proposed Bayesian adaptive randomization schemes in the literature, our adaptive tests maintain or increase the power of the trial compared to the z-test. We illustrate our method using a three-armed trial in primary hypercholesterolemia.

A Data Analysis Method for Using Longitudinal Binary Outcome Data from a SMART to Compare Adaptive Interventions.

Sequential multiple assignment randomized trials (SMARTs) are a useful and increasingly popular approach for gathering information to inform the construction of adaptive interventions to treat psychological and behavioral health conditions. Until recently, analysis methods for data from SMART designs considered only a single measurement of the outcome of interest when comparing the efficacy of adaptive interventions. Lu et al. proposed a method for considering repeated outcome measurements to incorporate information about the longitudinal trajectory of change. While their proposed method can be applied to many kinds of outcome variables, they focused mainly on linear models for normally distributed outcomes. Practical guidelines and extensions are required to implement this methodology with other types of repeated outcome measures common in behavioral research. In this article, we discuss implementation of this method with repeated binary outcomes. We explain how to compare adaptive interventions in terms of various summaries of repeated binary outcome measures, including average outcome (area under the curve) and delayed effects. The method is illustrated using an empirical example from a SMART study to develop an adaptive intervention for engaging alcohol- and cocaine-dependent patients in treatment. Monte Carlo simulations are provided to demonstrate the good performance of the proposed technique.

Maximum likelihood estimation of generalized linear models for adaptive designs: Applications and asymptotics.

Due to increasing discoveries of biomarkers and observed diversity among patients, there is growing interest in personalized medicine for the purpose of increasing the well-being of patients (ethics) and extending human life. In fact, these biomarkers and observed heterogeneity among patients are useful covariates that can be used to achieve the ethical goals of clinical trials and improving the efficiency of statistical inference. Covariate-adjusted response-adaptive (CARA) design was developed to use information in such covariates in randomization to maximize the well-being of participating patients as well as increase the efficiency of statistical inference at the end of a clinical trial. In this paper, we establish conditions for consistency and asymptotic normality of maximum likelihood (ML) estimators of generalized linear models (GLM) for a general class of adaptive designs. We prove that the ML estimators are consistent and asymptotically follow a multivariate Gaussian distribution. The efficiency of the estimators and the performance of response-adaptive (RA), CARA, and completely randomized (CR) designs are examined based on the well-being of patients under a logit model with categorical covariates. Results from our simulation studies and application to data from a clinical trial on stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (SPAF) show that RA designs lead to ethically desirable outcomes as well as higher statistical efficiency compared to CARA designs if there is no treatment by covariate interaction in an ideal model. CARA designs were however more ethical than RA designs when there was significant interaction.