Meis Jan, Pilz Maximilian, Herrmann Carolin, Bokelmann Björn, Rauch Geraldine, Kieser Meinhard
Institute of Medical Biometry, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Institute of Biometry and Clinical Epidemiology, Berlin, Germany.
Stat Med. 2023 Feb 20;42(4):536-558. doi: 10.1002/sim.9630. Epub 2022 Dec 28.
If design parameters are chosen appropriately, group sequential trial designs are known to be able to reduce the expected sample size under the alternative hypothesis compared to single-stage designs. The same holds true for the so-called 'gold-standard' design for non-inferiority trials, a design involving an experimental group, an active control group, and a placebo group. However, choosing design parameters that maximize the advantages of a two-stage approach for the three-arm gold-standard design for non-inferiority trials is not a straightforward task. In particular, optimal choices of futility boundaries for this design have not been thoroughly discussed in existing literature. We present a variation of the hierarchical testing procedure, which allows for the incorporation of binding futility boundaries at interim analyses. We show that this procedure maintains strong control of the family-wise type I error rate. Within this framework, we consider the futility and efficacy boundaries as well as the sample size allocation ratios as optimization parameters. This allows the investigation of the efficiency gain from including the option to stop for futility in addition to the ability to stop for efficacy. To analyze the extended designs, optimality criteria that include the design's performance under the alternative as well as the null hypothesis are introduced. On top of this, we discuss methods to limit the allocation of placebo patients in the trial while maintaining relatively good operating characteristics. The results of our numerical optimization procedure are discussed and a comparison of different approaches to designing a three-arm gold-standard non-inferiority trial is provided.
如果设计参数选择得当,与单阶段设计相比,序贯试验设计能够在备择假设下减少预期样本量。对于非劣效性试验的所谓“金标准”设计(一种涉及试验组、活性对照组和安慰剂组的设计)也是如此。然而,为非劣效性试验的三臂金标准设计选择能最大化两阶段方法优势的设计参数并非易事。特别是,现有文献尚未对该设计的无效性边界的最优选择进行充分讨论。我们提出了一种分层检验程序的变体,它允许在期中分析时纳入具有约束力的无效性边界。我们表明该程序能严格控制族系I型错误率。在此框架内,我们将无效性和有效性边界以及样本量分配比例视为优化参数。这使得我们能够研究除了因有效性而停止试验的能力之外,纳入因无效性而停止试验的选项所带来的效率提升。为了分析扩展设计,引入了包括设计在备择假设和原假设下的性能的最优性标准。除此之外,我们讨论了在保持相对良好的操作特性的同时限制试验中安慰剂患者分配的方法。我们讨论了数值优化程序的结果,并对设计三臂金标准非劣效性试验的不同方法进行了比较。