When a novel treatment has successfully passed phase I, different options to design subsequent phase II trials are available. One approach is a single-arm trial, comparing the response rate in the intervention group against a fixed proportion. Another alternative is to conduct a randomized phase II trial, comparing the new treatment with placebo or the current standard. A significant problem arises in both approaches when the investigated patient population is very heterogeneous regarding prognostic factors. For the situation that a substantial dataset of historical controls exists, we propose an approach to enhance the classic single-arm trial design by including matched control patients. The outcome of the observed study population can be adjusted based on the matched controls with a comparable distribution of known confounders. We propose an adaptive two-stage design with the options of early stopping for futility and recalculation of the sample size taking the matching rate, number of matching partners, and observed treatment effect into account. The performance of the proposed design in terms of type I error rate, power, and expected sample size is investigated via simulation studies based on a hypothetical phase II trial investigating a novel therapy for patients with acute myeloid leukemia.
Numerous publications have now addressed the principles of designing, analyzing, and reporting the results of, stepped-wedge cluster randomized trials. In contrast, there is little research available pertaining to the design and analysis of multi-arm stepped-wedge cluster randomized trials, utilized to evaluate the effectiveness of multiple experimental interventions. In this paper, we address this by explaining how the required sample size in these multi-arm trials can be ascertained when data are to be analyzed using a linear mixed model. We then go on to describe how the design of such tria…
Clinical trials with a hybrid control arm (a control arm constructed from a combination of randomized patients and real-world data on patients receiving usual care in standard clinical practice) have the potential to decrease the cost of randomized trials while increasing the proportion of trial patients given access to novel therapeutics. However, due to stringent trial inclusion criteria and differences in care and data quality between trials and community practice, trial patients may have systematically different outcomes compared to their real-world counterparts. We propose a new method fo…
We address estimation of intervention effects in experimental designs in which (a) interventions are assigned at the cluster level; (b) clusters are selected to form pairs, matched on observed characteristics; and (c) intervention is assigned to one cluster at random within each pair. One goal of policy interest is to estimate the average outcome if all clusters in all pairs are assigned control versus if all clusters in all pairs are assigned to intervention. In such designs, inference that ignores individual level covariates can be imprecise because cluster-level assignment can leave substan…
Significant evidence has become available that emphasizes the importance of personalization in medicine. In fact, it has become a common belief that personalized medicine is the future of medicine. The core of personalized medicine is the ability to design clinical trials that investigate the role of patient covariates on treatment effects. In this work, we study the optimal design of two-armed clinical trials to maximize accuracy of statistical models where the interaction between patient covariates and treatment effect are incorporated to enable precision medication. Such a modeling extensio…
In randomized controlled trials (RCTs), treatment is often assigned by stratified randomization. I show that among all stratified randomization schemes which treat all units with probability one half, a certain matched-pair design achieves the maximum statistical precision for estimating the average treatment effect (ATE). In an important special case, the optimal design pairs units according to the baseline outcome. In a simulation study based on datasets from 10 RCTs, this design lowers the standard error for the estimator of the ATE by 10% on average, and by up to 34%, relative to the origi…
Cluster-randomized trials (CRTs) involve randomizing entire groups of participants -- called clusters -- to treatment arms but are often comprised of a limited or fixed number of available clusters. While covariate adjustment can account for chance imbalances between treatment arms and increase statistical efficiency in individually-randomized trials, analytical methods for individual-level covariate adjustment in small CRTs have received little attention to date. In this paper, we systematically investigate, through extensive simulations, the operating characteristics of propensity score weig…
This research was motivated by studying anti-drug antibody (ADA) formation and its potential impact on long-term benefit of a biologic treatment in a randomized controlled trial, in which ADA status was not only unobserved in the control arm but also in a subset of patients from the experimental treatment arm. Recent literature considers the principal stratum estimand strategy to estimate treatment effect in groups of patients defined by an intercurrent status, i.e. in groups defined by a post-randomization variable only observed in one arm and potentially associated with the outcome. However,…
Applying the estimands framework to non-inferiority trials: guidance on choice of hypothetical estimands for non-adherence and comparison of estimation methods
Single-arm trials (SATs) may be used to support regulatory submissions in settings where there is a high unmet medical need and highly promising early efficacy data undermine the equipoise needed for randomization. In this context, patient-level real-world data (RWD) may be used to create an external control arm (ECA) to contextualize the SAT results. However, naive comparisons of the SAT with its ECA will yield biased estimates of causal effects if groups are imbalanced with regards to (un)measured prognostic factors. Several methods are available to adjust for measured confounding, but the i…
Causal inference from observational data can be viewed as a missing data problem arising from a hypothetical population-scale randomized trial matched to the observational study. This links a target trial protocol with a corresponding generative predictive model for inference, providing a complete framework for transparent communication of causal assumptions and statistical uncertainty on treatment effects, without the need for counterfactuals. The intuitive foundation for the work is that a whole population randomized trial would provide answers to any observable causal question with certaint…
An important task in early phase drug development is to identify patients, which respond better or worse to an experimental treatment. While a variety of different subgroup identification methods have been developed for the situation of trials that study an experimental treatment and control, much less work has been done in the situation when patients are randomized to different dose groups. In this article we propose new strategies to perform subgroup analyses in dose-finding trials and discuss the challenges, which arise in this new setting. We consider model-based recursive partitioning, wh…
Much evidence in comparative effectiveness research is based on observational studies. Researchers who conduct observational studies typically assume that there are no unobservable differences between the treated and control groups. Treatment effects are estimated after adjusting for observed differences between treated and controls. However, treatment effect estimates may be biased due to model misspecification. That is, if the method of treatment effect estimation imposes unduly strong functional form assumptions, treatment effect estimates may be significantly biased. In this study, we comp…
While randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for estimating treatment effects in medical research, there is increasing use of and interest in using real-world data for drug development. One such use case is the construction of external control arms for evaluation of efficacy in single-arm trials, particularly in cases where randomization is either infeasible or unethical. However, it is well known that treated patients in non-randomized studies may not be comparable to control patients -- on either measured or unmeasured variables -- and that the underlying population differ…
In a randomized controlled trial, treatment switching (also called contamination or crossover) occurs when a patient initially assigned to one treatment arm changes to another arm during the course of follow-up. Overlooking treatment switching might substantially bias the evaluation of treatment efficacy or safety. To account for treatment switching, instrumental variable (IV) methods by leveraging the initial randomized assignment as an IV serve as natural adjustment methods because they allow dependent treatment switching possibly due to underlying prognoses. However, the ``exclusion restric…
We consider applying multi-armed bandits to model-assisted designs for dose-finding clinical trials. Multi-armed bandits are very simple and powerful methods to determine actions to maximize a reward in a limited number of trials. Among the multi-armed bandits, we first consider the use of Thompson sampling which determines actions based on random samples from a posterior distribution. In the small sample size, as shown in dose-finding trials, because the tails of posterior distribution are heavier and random samples are too much variability, we also consider an application of regularized Thom…
A multi-arm multi-stage trial is a multi-arm trial which includes interim analyses - analysing the data at certain specified points, generally discontinuing treatments which are concluded to not work and proceeding with the remainder. It is possible that the advantages of multi-arm trials over single-arm trials may be enhanced further by considering the allocation ratio, R. For an R:1 allocation ratio, Rn patients are allocated to the control arm and n patients allocated to each active treatment arm. In this study, the optimal allocation ratio will be defined as the allocation ratio which resu…
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for assessing drug safety and efficacy. However, RCTs have some drawbacks which have led to the use of single-arm studies to make certain internal drug development and regulatory decisions, particularly in oncology. Hybrid controlled trials with real-world data (RWD), in which the control arm is composed of both trial and real-world patients, have the potential to help address some of the shortcomings of both RCTs and single-arm studies in particular situations, such as when a disease has low prevalence or when the standard of care to b…
Background: Experimental treatments pass through various stages of development. If a treatment passes through early phase experiments, the investigators may want to assess it in a late phase randomised controlled trial. An efficient way to do this is adding it as a new research arm to an ongoing trial. This allows to add the new treatment while the existing arms continue. The familywise type I error rate (FWER) is often a key quantity of interest in any multi-arm trial. We set out to clarify how it should be calculated when new arms are added to a trial some time after it has started. Methods:…
This article proposes a novel adaptive design algorithm that can be used to find optimal treatment allocations in N-of-1 clinical trials. This new methodology uses two Laplace approximations to provide a computationally efficient estimate of population and individual random effects within a repeated measures, adaptive design framework. Given the efficiency of this approach, it is also adopted for treatment selection to target the collection of data for the precise estimation of treatment effects. To evaluate this approach, we consider both a simulated and motivating N-of-1 clinical trial from …
Platform trials can evaluate the efficacy of several treatments compared to a control. The number of treatments is not fixed, as arms may be added or removed as the trial progresses. Platform trials are more efficient than independent parallel-group trials because of using shared control groups. For arms entering the trial later, not all patients in the control group are randomised concurrently. The control group is then divided into concurrent and non-concurrent controls. Using non-concurrent controls (NCC) can improve the trial's efficiency, but can introduce bias due to time trends. We focu…
Clinical trials are an instrument for making informed decisions based on evidence from well-designed experiments. Here we consider adaptive designs mainly from the perspective of multi-arm Phase II clinical trials, in which one or more experimental treatments are compared to a control. Treatment allocation of individual trial participants is assumed to take place according to a fixed block randomization, albeit with an important twist: The performance of each treatment arm is assessed after every measured outcome, in terms of the posterior distribution of a corresponding model parameter. Diffe…
Multi-arm multi-stage trial designs can bring notable gains in efficiency to the drug development process. However, for normally distributed endpoints, the determination of a design typically depends on the assumption that the patient variance in response is known. In practice, this will not usually be the case. To allow for unknown variance, previous research explored the performance of t-test statistics, coupled with a quantile substitution procedure for modifying the stopping boundaries, at controlling the familywise error-rate to the nominal level. Here, we discuss an alternative method ba…
Platform trials offer a framework to study multiple interventions in a single trial with the opportunity of opening and closing arms. The use of a common control in platform trials can increase efficiency as compared to individual control arms or separate trials per treatment. However, the need for multiplicity adjustment as a consequence of common controls is currently a controversial debate among researchers, pharmaceutical companies, as well as regulators. We investigate the impact of a common control arm in platform trials on the type one error and power in comparison to what would have be…
Platform trials have gained a lot of attention recently as a possible remedy for time-consuming classical two-arm randomized controlled trials, especially in early phase drug development. This short article illustrates how to use the CohortPlat R package to simulate a cohort platform trial, where each cohort consists of a combination treatment and the respective monotherapies and standard-of-care. The endpoint is always assumed to be binary. The package offers extensive flexibility with respect to both platform trial trajectories, as well as treatment effect scenarios and decision rules. As a …
Due to ethical and economical reasons, sequential single-arm trial designs are used for assessing the therapeutic efficacy of new treatments in phase II trials. Simon's 2-stage design and Lan-DeMets' $α$-spending function method with O'Brien-Fleming type are widely recognized as the traditional methods for futility stopping and efficacy stopping, respectively. These methods have two practical problems, which are the difficulty of interpretation for stopping under staggered entry and the inflation of error rate due to a small-sample trial. In this research, we propose the exact sequential desig…
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 naive 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…
Randomised controlled trials in reproductive medicine are often subject to outcome truncation, where study outcomes are only defined in a subset of participants. Examples include birthweight (measurable only in the subgroup of participants who give birth) and miscarriage (which can only occur in participants who become pregnant). These are typically analysed by making a comparison between treatment arms within the subgroup (comparing birthweights in the subgroup who gave birth, or miscarriages in the subgroup who became pregnant). However, this approach does not represent a randomised comparis…
