Determining optimal sample sizes for multistage adaptive randomized clinical trials from an industry perspective using value of information methods

Abstract

Background

Most often, sample size determinations for randomized clinical trials are based on frequentist approaches that depend on somewhat arbitrarily chosen factors, such as type I and II error probabilities and the smallest clinically important difference. As an alternative, many authors have proposed decision-theoretic (full Bayesian) approaches, often referred to as value of information methods that attempt to determine the sample size that maximizes the difference between the trial’s expected utility and its expected cost, referred to as the expected net gain. Taking an industry perspective, Willan proposes a solution in which the trial’s utility is the increase in expected profit. Furthermore, Willan and Kowgier, taking a societal perspective, show that multistage designs can increase expected net gain.

Purpose

The purpose of this article is to determine the optimal sample size using value of information methods for industry-based, multistage adaptive randomized clinical trials, and to demonstrate the increase in expected net gain realized. At the end of each stage, the trial’s sponsor must decide between three actions: continue to the next stage, stop the trial and seek regulatory approval, or stop the trial and abandon the drug.

Methods

A model for expected total profit is proposed that includes consideration of per-patient profit, disease incidence, time horizon, trial duration, market share, and the relationship between trial results and probability of regulatory approval. The proposed method is extended to include multistage designs with a solution provided for a two-stage design. An example is given.

Results

Significant increases in the expected net gain are realized by using multistage designs.

Limitations

The complexity of the solutions increases with the number of stages, although far simpler near-optimal solutions exist. The method relies on the central limit theorem, assuming that the sample size is sufficiently large so that the relevant statistics are normally distributed.

Conclusion

From a value of information perspective, the use of multistage designs in industry trials leads to significant gains in the expected net gain.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Willan

Cruess

Ballantyne

.Argon green vs krypton red laser photocoagulation of extrafoveal choroidal neovascular lesions: Three-year results in age-related macular generation. Can J Ophthalmol 1996; 31(1): 11–17.

Hannah

Hewson

. Term breech trial: A multicentre international randomised controlled trial of planned caesarean section and planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term. Lancet 2000; 356(9239): 1375–83.

Grundy

Healy

MJR

Rees

.Economic choice of the amount of experimentation. J R Stat Soc Series B Stat Methodol 1956;18(1): 32–48.

Raiffa

Schlaifer

. Applied Statistical Decision Theory. Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, 1961.

Claxton

Posnett

. An economic approach to clinical trial design and research priority setting. Health Econ 1996; 5(6): 513–24.

Claxton

. The irrelevance of inference: A decision-making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies. J Health Econ 1999; 18(3): 341–64.

Claxton

Thompson

.A dynamic programming approach to the efficient design of clinical trials. J Health Econ 2001; 20(5): 797–822.

Eckermann

Willan

.Expected value of information and decision making in HTA. Health Econ 2007; 16(2): 195–209.

Eckermann

Willan

.Time and expected value of sample information wait for no patient. Value Health 2008; 11(3): 522–26.

10.

Eckermann

Willan

.The option value of delay in health technology assessment. Med Decis Making 2008; 28(3): 300–05.

11.

Eckermann

Willan

.Globally optimal trial design for local decision making. Health Econ 2009; 18(2): 203–16.

12.

Gittins

Pezeshk

.How large should a trial be? Statistician 2000; 49(Part 2): 177–97.

13.

Gittins

Pezeshk

.A behavioral Bayes method for determining the size of a clinical trial. Drug Inf J 2000; 34(2): 355–63.

14.

Gittins

Pezeshk

.A decision theoretic approach to sample size determination in clinical trials. J Biopharm Stat 2002; 12(4): 535–51.

15.

Halpern

Brown

Jr Hornberger

.The sample size for a clinical trial: A Bayesian-decision theoretic approach. Stat Med 2001; 20(6): 841–58.

16.

Hornberger

Brown

Jr Halpern

.Designing a cost-effective clinical trial. Stat Med 1995;14(20): 2249–59.

17.

Hornberger

Eghtesady

.The cost-benefit of a randomized trial to a health care organization. Control Clin Trials 1998; 19(2): 198–211.

18.

Kikuchi

Pezeshk

Gittins

.A Bayesian cost-benefit approach to the determination of sample size in clinical trials. Stat Med 2008; 27(1): 68–82.

19.

Lindley

.The choice of sample size. Statistician 1997; 46(2): 129–38.

20.

Pezeshk

Gittins

.A fully Bayesian approach to calculating sample sizes for clinical trials with binary response. Drug Inf J 2002; 36(1): 143–50.

21.

Willan

Pinto

.The expected value of information and optimal clinical trial design. Stat Med 2005; 24(12): 1791–806 (Correction: Stat Med 2006; 25(4): 720).

22.

Willan

.Clinical decision making and the expected value of information. Clin Trials 2007; 4(3): 279–85.

23.

Willan

.Optimal sample size determinations from an industry perspective based on the expected value of information. Clin Trials 2008; 5(6): 587–94.

24.

Willan

Kowgier

.Determining optimal sample sizes for multi-stage randomized clinical trials using value of information methods. Clin Trials 2008; 5(4): 289–300.

25.

Willan

Eckermann

.Optimal clinical trial design using value of information methods with imperfect implementation. Health Econ 2010; 19(5): 549–61.

26.

Willan

Eckermann

.Accounting for between-study variation in incremental net benefit in value of information methodology. Health Econ 2012; 21(10): 1183–95.

27.

Willan

Goeree

Boutis

.Value of Information methods for planning and analyzing clinical studies optimize decision making and research planning. J Clin Epidemiol 2012; 65(8): 870–76.

28.

Aldcock

.Sample size determination: A review. Statistician 1997; 46(2): 261–83.

29.

Pezeshk

.Bayesian techniques for sample size determination in clinical trials: A short review. Stat Methods Med Res 2003; 12(6): 489–504.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB