IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/stabio/v10y2018i2d10.1007_s12561-017-9188-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Efficiency Considerations for Group Sequential Designs with Adaptive Unblinded Sample Size Re-assessment

Author

Listed:
  • Lingyun Liu

    (Cytel Corporation)

  • Sam Hsiao

    (Cytel Corporation)

  • Cyrus R. Mehta

    (Cytel Corporation
    Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health)

Abstract

Clinical trials with adaptive sample size re-assessment, based on an analysis of the unblinded interim results (ubSSR), have gained in popularity due to uncertainty regarding the value of $$\delta $$ δ at which to power the trial at the start of the study. While the statistical methodology for controlling the type-1 error of such designs is well established, there remain concerns that conventional group sequential designs with no ubSSR can accomplish the same goals with greater efficiency. The precise manner in which this efficiency comparison can be objectified has been difficult to quantify, however. In this paper, we present a methodology for making this comparison in a standard, well-accepted manner by plotting the unconditional power curves of the two approaches while holding constant their expected sample size, at each value of $$\delta $$ δ in the range of interest. It is seen that under reasonable decision rules for increasing sample size (conservative promising zones, and no more than a 50% increase in sample size) there is little or no loss of efficiency for the adaptive designs in terms of unconditional power. The two approaches, however, have very different conditional power profiles. More generally, a methodology has been provided for comparing any design with ubSSR relative to a comparable group sequential design with no ubSSR, so one can determine whether the efficiency loss, if any, of the ubSSR design is offset by the advantages it confers for re-powering the study at the time of the interim analysis.

Suggested Citation

  • Lingyun Liu & Sam Hsiao & Cyrus R. Mehta, 2018. "Efficiency Considerations for Group Sequential Designs with Adaptive Unblinded Sample Size Re-assessment," Statistics in Biosciences, Springer;International Chinese Statistical Association, vol. 10(2), pages 405-419, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:stabio:v:10:y:2018:i:2:d:10.1007_s12561-017-9188-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s12561-017-9188-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s12561-017-9188-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s12561-017-9188-x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Walter Lehmacher & Gernot Wassmer, 1999. "Adaptive Sample Size Calculations in Group Sequential Trials," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 55(4), pages 1286-1290, December.
    2. Lu Chi & H. M. James Hung & Sue-Jane Wang, 1999. "Modification of Sample Size in Group Sequential Clinical Trials," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 55(3), pages 853-857, September.
    3. Qing Liu & George Y. H. Chi, 2001. "On Sample Size and Inference for Two‐Stage Adaptive Designs," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 57(1), pages 172-177, March.
    4. Anastasios A. Tsiatis, 2003. "On the inefficiency of the adaptive design for monitoring clinical trials," Biometrika, Biometrika Trust, vol. 90(2), pages 367-378, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jingjing Chen, 2019. "A Note of Adaptive Design in Clinical Trials," Biostatistics and Biometrics Open Access Journal, Juniper Publishers Inc., vol. 9(5), pages 107-111, August.
    2. Guosheng Yin & Yu Shen, 2005. "Adaptive Design and Estimation in Randomized Clinical Trials with Correlated Observations," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 61(2), pages 362-369, June.
    3. P. Bauer, 2006. "Discussions," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 62(3), pages 676-678, September.
    4. Michael A. Proschan, 2006. "Discussions," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 62(3), pages 674-676, September.
    5. Werner Brannath & Peter Bauer, 2004. "Optimal Conditional Error Functions for the Control of Conditional Power," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 60(3), pages 715-723, September.
    6. Hanan Hammouri & Mohammed Ali & Marwan Alquran & Areen Alquran & Ruwa Abdel Muhsen & Belal Alomari, 2023. "Adaptive Multiple Testing Procedure for Clinical Trials with Urn Allocation," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-20, September.
    7. Uttam Bandyopadhyay & Atanu Biswas & Rahul Bhattacharya, 2010. "A covariate‐adjusted adaptive design for two‐stage clinical trials with survival data," Statistica Neerlandica, Netherlands Society for Statistics and Operations Research, vol. 64(2), pages 202-226, May.
    8. René Schmidt & Andreas Faldum & Joachim Gerß, 2015. "Adaptive designs with arbitrary dependence structure based on Fisher’s combination test," Statistical Methods & Applications, Springer;Società Italiana di Statistica, vol. 24(3), pages 427-447, September.
    9. Jin Wang, 2022. "Sample Size Re-estimation with the Com-Nougue Method to Evaluate Treatment Effect," Statistics in Biosciences, Springer;International Chinese Statistical Association, vol. 14(1), pages 90-103, April.
    10. Hanan Hammouri & Marwan Alquran & Ruwa Abdel Muhsen & Jaser Altahat, 2022. "Optimal Weighted Multiple-Testing Procedure for Clinical Trials," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-19, June.
    11. Christopher Jennison, 2023. "Discussion on “Adaptive enrichment designs with a continuous biomarker” by N. Stallard," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 79(1), pages 26-30, March.
    12. Martin Posch & Peter Bauer, 2000. "Interim Analysis and Sample Size Reassessment," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 56(4), pages 1170-1176, December.
    13. Georg Gutjahr & Werner Brannath & Peter Bauer, 2011. "An Approach to the Conditional Error Rate Principle with Nuisance Parameters," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 67(3), pages 1039-1046, September.
    14. Hans-Helge Müller & Helmut Schäfer, 2001. "Adaptive Group Sequential Designs for Clinical Trials: Combining the Advantages of Adaptive and of Classical Group Sequential Approaches," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 886-891, September.
    15. Chambaz Antoine & van der Laan Mark J., 2011. "Targeting the Optimal Design in Randomized Clinical Trials with Binary Outcomes and No Covariate: Theoretical Study," The International Journal of Biostatistics, De Gruyter, vol. 7(1), pages 1-32, January.
    16. Sebastian Irle & Helmut Schäfer, 2012. "Interim Design Modifications in Time-to-Event Studies," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 107(497), pages 341-348, March.
    17. Michael Rosenblum & Ethan X. Fang & Han Liu, 2020. "Optimal, two‐stage, adaptive enrichment designs for randomized trials, using sparse linear programming," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 82(3), pages 749-772, July.
    18. Zhiwei Jiang & Ling Wang & Chanjuan Li & Jielai Xia & Hongxia Jia, 2012. "A Practical Simulation Method to Calculate Sample Size of Group Sequential Trials for Time-to-Event Data under Exponential and Weibull Distribution," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(9), pages 1-12, September.
    19. W. Brannath & P. Bauer & W. Maurer & M. Posch, 2003. "Sequential Tests for Noninferiority and Superiority," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 59(1), pages 106-114, March.
    20. Gregory P. Levin & Sarah C. Emerson & Scott S. Emerson, 2014. "An evaluation of inferential procedures for adaptive clinical trial designs with pre-specified rules for modifying the sample size," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 70(3), pages 556-567, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:stabio:v:10:y:2018:i:2:d:10.1007_s12561-017-9188-x. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.