Literature DB >> 25332910

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

Charles F Babbs1.   

Abstract

AIM: To present statistical tools to model and optimize the cost of a randomized clinical trial as a function of the stringency of patient inclusion criteria.
METHODS: We consider a two treatment, dichotomous outcome trial that includes a proportion of patients who are strong responders to the tested intervention. Patients are screened for inclusion using an arbitrary number of test results that are combined into an aggregate suitability score. The screening score is regarded as a diagnostic test for the responsive phenotype, having a specific cutoff value for inclusion and a particular sensitivity and specificity. The cutoff is a measure of stringency of inclusion criteria. Total cost is modeled as a function of the cutoff value, number of patients screened, the number of patients included, the case occurrence rate, response probabilities for control and experimental treatments, and the trial duration required to produce a statistically significant result with a specified power. Regression methods are developed to estimate relevant model parameters from pilot data in an adaptive trial design.
RESULTS: The patient numbers and total cost are strongly related to the choice of the cutoff for inclusion. Clear cost minimums exist between 5.6 and 6.1 on a representative 10-point scale of exclusiveness. Potential cost savings for typical trial scenarios range in millions of dollars. As the response rate for controls approaches 50%, the proper choice of inclusion criteria can mean the difference between a successful trial and a failed trial.
CONCLUSION: Early formal estimation of optimal inclusion criteria allows planning of clinical trials to avoid high costs, excessive delays, and moral hazards of Type II errors.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Adaptive trial designs; Biomarkers; Clinical trials; Device; Drug therapy; Ethics; Methodology; Optimal allocation; Personalized medicine; Sequential design

Year:  2014        PMID: 25332910      PMCID: PMC4202479          DOI: 10.5662/wjm.v4.i2.109

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Methodol        ISSN: 2222-0682


  23 in total

1.  Adaptive group sequential designs for clinical trials: combining the advantages of adaptive and of classical group sequential approaches.

Authors:  H H Müller; H Schäfer
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 2.571

2.  Modification of sample size in group sequential clinical trials.

Authors:  L Cui; H M Hung; S J Wang
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1999-09       Impact factor: 2.571

Review 3.  Simplified meta-analysis of clinical trials in resuscitation.

Authors:  Charles F Babbs
Journal:  Resuscitation       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 5.262

4.  A sample size adjustment procedure for clinical trials based on conditional power.

Authors:  Gang Li; Weichung J Shih; Tailiang Xie; Jiang Lu
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 5.899

5.  Adaptive signature design: an adaptive clinical trial design for generating and prospectively testing a gene expression signature for sensitive patients.

Authors:  Boris Freidlin; Richard Simon
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2005-11-01       Impact factor: 12.531

Review 6.  Nonconventional clinical trial designs: approaches to provide more precise estimates of treatment effects with a smaller sample size, but at a cost.

Authors:  George Howard
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 7.914

7.  Adaptive designs from the viewpoint of an academic biostatistician.

Authors:  Helmut Schäfer
Journal:  Biom J       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 2.207

Review 8.  An overview of statistical approaches for adaptive designs and design modifications.

Authors:  Helmut Schäfer; Nina Timmesfeld; Hans-Helge Müller
Journal:  Biom J       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 2.207

Review 9.  Group sequential and adaptive designs - a review of basic concepts and points of discussion.

Authors:  Marc Vandemeulebroecke
Journal:  Biom J       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 2.207

10.  Optimal design of multi-arm multi-stage trials.

Authors:  James M S Wason; Thomas Jaki
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2012-07-23       Impact factor: 2.373

View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  Considerations and recommendations for selection and utilization of upper extremity clinical outcome assessments in human spinal cord injury trials.

Authors:  Linda A T Jones; Anne Bryden; Tracey L Wheeler; Keith E Tansey; Kim D Anderson; Michael S Beattie; Andrew Blight; Armin Curt; Edelle Field-Fote; James D Guest; Jane Hseih; Lyn B Jakeman; Sukhvinder Kalsi-Ryan; Laura Krisa; Daniel P Lammertse; Benjamin Leiby; Ralph Marino; Jan M Schwab; Giorgio Scivoletto; David S Tulsky; Ed Wirth; José Zariffa; Naomi Kleitman; Mary Jane Mulcahey; John D Steeves
Journal:  Spinal Cord       Date:  2017-12-28       Impact factor: 2.772

Review 2.  Factors associated with clinical trials that fail and opportunities for improving the likelihood of success: A review.

Authors:  David B Fogel
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials Commun       Date:  2018-08-07
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.