Maarten G Lansberg1, Ninad S Bhat2, Sharon D Yeatts2, Yuko Y Palesch2, Joseph P Broderick2, Gregory W Albers2, Tze L Lai2, Philip W Lavori2. 1. From the Stanford Stroke Center, School of Medicine (M.G.L., N.S.B., G.W.A.), Department of Statistics (T.L.L., P.W.L.), Department of Biomedical Data Science, School of Medicine (T.L.L., P.W.L.), Stanford University, CA; Department of Public Health Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston (S.D.Y., Y.Y.P.); and Department of Neurology, University of Cincinnati Medical Center, OH (J.P.B.). lansberg@stanford.edu. 2. From the Stanford Stroke Center, School of Medicine (M.G.L., N.S.B., G.W.A.), Department of Statistics (T.L.L., P.W.L.), Department of Biomedical Data Science, School of Medicine (T.L.L., P.W.L.), Stanford University, CA; Department of Public Health Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston (S.D.Y., Y.Y.P.); and Department of Neurology, University of Cincinnati Medical Center, OH (J.P.B.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Adaptive trial designs that allow enrichment of the study population through subgroup selection can increase the chance of a positive trial when there is a differential treatment effect among patient subgroups. The goal of this study is to illustrate the potential benefit of adaptive subgroup selection in endovascular stroke studies. METHODS: We simulated the performance of a trial design with adaptive subgroup selection and compared it with that of a traditional design. Outcome data were based on 90-day modified Rankin Scale scores, observed in IMS III (Interventional Management of Stroke III), among patients with a vessel occlusion on baseline computed tomographic angiography (n=382). Patients were categorized based on 2 methods: (1) according to location of the arterial occlusive lesion and onset-to-randomization time and (2) according to onset-to-randomization time alone. The power to demonstrate a treatment benefit was based on 10 000 trial simulations for each design. RESULTS: The treatment effect was relatively homogeneous across categories when patients were categorized based on arterial occlusive lesion and time. Consequently, the adaptive design had similar power (47%) compared with the fixed trial design (45%). There was a differential treatment effect when patients were categorized based on time alone, resulting in greater power with the adaptive design (82%) than with the fixed design (57%). CONCLUSIONS: These simulations, based on real-world patient data, indicate that adaptive subgroup selection has merit in endovascular stroke trials as it substantially increases power when the treatment effect differs among subgroups in a predicted pattern.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Adaptive trial designs that allow enrichment of the study population through subgroup selection can increase the chance of a positive trial when there is a differential treatment effect among patient subgroups. The goal of this study is to illustrate the potential benefit of adaptive subgroup selection in endovascular stroke studies. METHODS: We simulated the performance of a trial design with adaptive subgroup selection and compared it with that of a traditional design. Outcome data were based on 90-day modified Rankin Scale scores, observed in IMS III (Interventional Management of Stroke III), among patients with a vessel occlusion on baseline computed tomographic angiography (n=382). Patients were categorized based on 2 methods: (1) according to location of the arterial occlusive lesion and onset-to-randomization time and (2) according to onset-to-randomization time alone. The power to demonstrate a treatment benefit was based on 10 000 trial simulations for each design. RESULTS: The treatment effect was relatively homogeneous across categories when patients were categorized based on arterial occlusive lesion and time. Consequently, the adaptive design had similar power (47%) compared with the fixed trial design (45%). There was a differential treatment effect when patients were categorized based on time alone, resulting in greater power with the adaptive design (82%) than with the fixed design (57%). CONCLUSIONS: These simulations, based on real-world patient data, indicate that adaptive subgroup selection has merit in endovascular stroke trials as it substantially increases power when the treatment effect differs among subgroups in a predicted pattern.
Authors: Paul Gallo; Christy Chuang-Stein; Vladimir Dragalin; Brenda Gaydos; Michael Krams; José Pinheiro Journal: J Biopharm Stat Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 1.051
Authors: Robin Lemmens; Michael Mlynash; Matus Straka; Stephanie Kemp; Roland Bammer; Michael P Marks; Gregory W Albers; Maarten G Lansberg Journal: Neurology Date: 2013-07-12 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Bijoy K Menon; Emmad Qazi; Vivek Nambiar; Lydia D Foster; Sharon D Yeatts; David Liebeskind; Tudor G Jovin; Mayank Goyal; Michael D Hill; Thomas A Tomsick; Joseph P Broderick; Andrew M Demchuk Journal: Stroke Date: 2015-03-19 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Werner Hacke; Markku Kaste; Erich Bluhmki; Miroslav Brozman; Antoni Dávalos; Donata Guidetti; Vincent Larrue; Kennedy R Lees; Zakaria Medeghri; Thomas Machnig; Dietmar Schneider; Rüdiger von Kummer; Nils Wahlgren; Danilo Toni Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-09-25 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: W Hacke; M Kaste; C Fieschi; R von Kummer; A Davalos; D Meier; V Larrue; E Bluhmki; S Davis; G Donnan; D Schneider; E Diez-Tejedor; P Trouillas Journal: Lancet Date: 1998-10-17 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Joseph P Broderick; Yuko Y Palesch; Andrew M Demchuk; Sharon D Yeatts; Pooja Khatri; Michael D Hill; Edward C Jauch; Tudor G Jovin; Bernard Yan; Frank L Silver; Rüdiger von Kummer; Carlos A Molina; Bart M Demaerschalk; Ronald Budzik; Wayne M Clark; Osama O Zaidat; Tim W Malisch; Mayank Goyal; Wouter J Schonewille; Mikael Mazighi; Stefan T Engelter; Craig Anderson; Judith Spilker; Janice Carrozzella; Karla J Ryckborst; L Scott Janis; Renée H Martin; Lydia D Foster; Thomas A Tomsick Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-02-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Andrew M Demchuk; Mayank Goyal; Sharon D Yeatts; Janice Carrozzella; Lydia D Foster; Emmad Qazi; Michael D Hill; Tudor G Jovin; Marc Ribo; Bernard Yan; Osama O Zaidat; Donald Frei; Rüdiger von Kummer; Kevin M Cockroft; Pooja Khatri; David S Liebeskind; Thomas A Tomsick; Yuko Y Palesch; Joseph P Broderick Journal: Radiology Date: 2014-06-05 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Walter N Kernan; Catherine M Viscoli; Karen L Furie; Lawrence H Young; Silvio E Inzucchi; Mark Gorman; Peter D Guarino; Anne M Lovejoy; Peter N Peduzzi; Robin Conwit; Lawrence M Brass; Gregory G Schwartz; Harold P Adams; Leo Berger; Antonio Carolei; Wayne Clark; Bruce Coull; Gary A Ford; Dawn Kleindorfer; John R O'Leary; Mark W Parsons; Peter Ringleb; Souvik Sen; J David Spence; David Tanne; David Wang; Toni R Winder Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-02-17 Impact factor: 91.245