Literature DB >> 22826199

Optimal design of multi-arm multi-stage trials.

James M S Wason1, Thomas Jaki.   

Abstract

In drug development, there is often uncertainty about the most promising among a set of different treatments. Multi-arm multi-stage (MAMS) trials provide large gains in efficiency over separate randomised trials of each treatment. They allow a shared control group, dropping of ineffective treatments before the end of the trial and stopping the trial early if sufficient evidence of a treatment being superior to control is found. In this paper, we discuss optimal design of MAMS trials. An optimal design has the required type I error rate and power but minimises the expected sample size at some set of treatment effects. Finding an optimal design requires searching over stopping boundaries and sample size, potentially a large number of parameters. We propose a method that combines quick evaluation of specific designs and an efficient stochastic search to find the optimal design parameters. We compare various potential designs motivated by the design of a phase II MAMS trial. We also consider allocating more patients to the control group, as has been carried out in real MAMS studies. We show that the optimal allocation to the control group, although greater than a 1:1 ratio, is smaller than previously advocated and that the gain in efficiency is generally small.
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22826199     DOI: 10.1002/sim.5513

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Med        ISSN: 0277-6715            Impact factor:   2.373


  40 in total

1.  The Adaptive designs CONSORT Extension (ACE) statement: a checklist with explanation and elaboration guideline for reporting randomised trials that use an adaptive design.

Authors:  Munyaradzi Dimairo; Philip Pallmann; James Wason; Susan Todd; Thomas Jaki; Steven A Julious; Adrian P Mander; Christopher J Weir; Franz Koenig; Marc K Walton; Jon P Nicholl; Elizabeth Coates; Katie Biggs; Toshimitsu Hamasaki; Michael A Proschan; John A Scott; Yuki Ando; Daniel Hind; Douglas G Altman
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2020-06-17

2.  A modest proposal for dropping poor arms in clinical trials.

Authors:  Michael A Proschan; Lori E Dodd
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2014-04-22       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  TOP: Time-to-Event Bayesian Optimal Phase II Trial Design for Cancer Immunotherapy.

Authors:  Ruitao Lin; Robert L Coleman; Ying Yuan
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2020-01-01       Impact factor: 13.506

4.  Simulation optimization for Bayesian multi-arm multi-stage clinical trial with binary endpoints.

Authors:  Zhenning Yu; Viswanathan Ramakrishnan; Caitlyn Meinzer
Journal:  J Biopharm Stat       Date:  2019-02-14       Impact factor: 1.051

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

Authors:  Kim May Lee; James Wason; Nigel Stallard
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2019-05-21       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 6.  Adaptive Designs for Clinical Trials: Application to Healthcare Epidemiology Research.

Authors:  W Charles Huskins; Vance G Fowler; Scott Evans
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2018-03-19       Impact factor: 9.079

7.  Choosing inclusion criteria that minimize the time and cost of clinical trials.

Authors:  Charles F Babbs
Journal:  World J Methodol       Date:  2014-06-26

8.  Controlling the family-wise error rate in multi-arm, multi-stage trials.

Authors:  Luis A Crouch; Lori E Dodd; Michael A Proschan
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2017-03-19       Impact factor: 2.486

9.  Controlled multi-arm platform design using predictive probability.

Authors:  Brian P Hobbs; Nan Chen; J Jack Lee
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2016-01-12       Impact factor: 3.021

Review 10.  The future of clinical trials in urological oncology.

Authors:  Vikram M Narayan; Philipp Dahm
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2019-10-11       Impact factor: 14.432

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.