RESUMEN

Bayesian adaptive designs with response adaptive randomization (RAR) have the potential to benefit more participants in a clinical trial. While there are many papers that describe RAR designs and results, there is a scarcity of works reporting the details of RAR implementation from a statistical point exclusively. In this paper, we introduce the statistical methodology and implementation of the trial Changing the Default (CTD). CTD is a single-center prospective RAR comparative effectiveness trial to compare opt-in to opt-out tobacco treatment approaches for hospitalized patients. The design assumed an uninformative prior, conservative initial allocation ratio, and a higher threshold for stopping for success to protect results from statistical bias. A particular emerging concern of RAR designs is the possibility that time trends will occur during the implementation of a trial. If there is a time trend and the analytic plan does not prespecify an appropriate model, this could lead to a biased trial. Adjustment for time trend was not pre-specified in CTD, but post hoc time-adjusted analysis showed no presence of influential drift. This trial was an example of a successful two-armed confirmatory trial with a Bayesian adaptive design using response adaptive randomization.

RESUMEN

Enrolling patients to the standard of care (SOC) arm in randomized clinical trials, especially for rare diseases, can be very challenging due to the lack of resources, restricted patient population availability, and ethical considerations. As the therapeutic effect for the SOC is often well documented in historical trials, we propose a Bayesian platform trial design with hybrid control based on the multisource exchangeability modelling (MEM) framework to harness historical control data. The MEM approach provides a computationally efficient method to formally evaluate the exchangeability of study outcomes between different data sources and allows us to make better informed data borrowing decisions based on the exchangeability between historical and concurrent data. We conduct extensive simulation studies to evaluate the proposed hybrid design. We demonstrate the proposed design leads to significant sample size reduction for the internal control arm and borrows more information compared to competing Bayesian approaches when historical and internal data are compatible.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

In conventional randomized controlled trials, adjustment for baseline values of covariates known to be at least moderately associated with the outcome increases the power of the trial. Recent work has shown a particular benefit for more flexible frequentist designs, such as information adaptive and adaptive multi-arm designs. However, covariate adjustment has not been characterized within the more flexible Bayesian adaptive designs, despite their growing popularity. We focus on a subclass of these which allow for early stopping at an interim analysis given evidence of treatment superiority. We consider both collapsible and non-collapsible estimands and show how to obtain posterior samples of marginal estimands from adjusted analyses. We describe several estimands for three common outcome types. We perform a simulation study to assess the impact of covariate adjustment using a variety of adjustment models in several different scenarios. This is followed by a real-world application of the compared approaches to a COVID-19 trial with a binary endpoint. For all scenarios, it is shown that covariate adjustment increases power and the probability of stopping the trials early, and decreases the expected sample sizes as compared to unadjusted analyses.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The past few decades have seen remarkable developments in dose-finding designs for phase I cancer clinical trials. While many of these designs rely on a binary toxicity response, there is an increasing focus on leveraging continuous toxicity responses. A continuous toxicity response pertains to a quantitative measure represented by real numbers. A higher value corresponds not only to an elevated likelihood of side effects for patients but also to an increased probability of treatment efficacy. This relationship between toxicity and dose is often nonlinear, necessitating flexibility in the quest to find an optimal dose. METHODS: A flexible, fully Bayesian dose-finding design is proposed to capitalize on continuous toxicity information, operating under the assumption that the true shape of the dose-toxicity curve is nonlinear. RESULTS: We conduct simulations of clinical trials across varying scenarios of non-linearity to evaluate the operational characteristics of the proposed design. Additionally, we apply the proposed design to a real-world problem to determine an optimal dose for a molecularly targeted agent. CONCLUSIONS: Phase I cancer clinical trials, designed within a fully Bayesian framework with the utilization of continuous toxicity outcomes, offer an alternative approach to finding an optimal dose, providing unique benefits compared to trials designed based on binary toxicity outcomes.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The use of Bayesian statistics to support regulatory evaluation of medical devices began in the late 1990s. We review the literature, focusing on recent developments of Bayesian methods, including hierarchical modeling of studies and subgroups, borrowing strength from prior data, effective sample size, Bayesian adaptive designs, pediatric extrapolation, benefit-risk decision analysis, use of real-world evidence, and diagnostic device evaluation. We illustrate how these developments were utilized in recent medical device evaluations. In Supplementary Material, we provide a list of medical devices for which Bayesian statistics were used to support approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), including those since 2010, the year the FDA published their guidance on Bayesian statistics for medical devices. We conclude with a discussion of current and future challenges and opportunities for Bayesian statistics, including artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML) Bayesian modeling, uncertainty quantification, Bayesian approaches using propensity scores, and computational challenges for high dimensional data and models.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Despite decades of extensive research, the progress in developing effective treatments for primary brain tumors lags behind that of other cancers, largely due to the unique challenges of brain tumors (eg, the blood-brain barrier and high heterogeneity) that limit the delivery and efficacy of many therapeutic agents. One way to address this issue is to employ novel trial designs to better optimize the treatment regimen (eg, dose and schedule) in early phase trials to improve the success rate of subsequent phase III trials. The objective of this article is to introduce Bayesian optimal interval (BOIN) designs as a novel platform to design various types of early phase brain tumor trials, including single-agent and combination regimen trials, trials with late-onset toxicities, and trials aiming to find the optimal biological dose (OBD) based on both toxicity and efficacy. Unlike many novel Bayesian adaptive designs, which are difficult to understand and complicated to implement by clinical investigators, the BOIN designs are self-explanatory and user friendly, yet yield more robust and powerful operating characteristics than conventional designs. We illustrate the BOIN designs using a phase I clinical trial of brain tumor and provide software (freely available at www.trialdesign.org) to facilitate the application of the BOIN design.

RESUMEN

Bayesian adaptive designs have become popular because of the possibility of increasing the number of patients treated with more beneficial treatments, while still providing sufficient evidence for treatment efficacy comparisons. It can be essential, for regulatory and other purposes, to conduct frequentist analyses both before and after a Bayesian adaptive trial, and these remain challenging. In this paper, we propose a general simulation-based approach to compare frequentist designs with Bayesian adaptive designs based on frequentist criteria such as power and to compute valid frequentist p-values. We illustrate our approach by comparing the power of an equal randomization (ER) design with that of an optimal Bayesian adaptive (OBA) design. The Bayesian design considered here is the dynamic programming solution of the optimization of a specific utility function defined by the number of successes in a patient horizon, including patients whose treatment will be affected by the trial's results after the end of the trial. While the power of an ER design depends on treatment efficacy and the sample size, the power of the OBA design also depends on the patient horizon size. Our results quantify the trade-off between power and the optimal assignment of patients to treatments within the trial. We show that, for large patient horizons, the two criteria are in agreement, while for small horizons, differences can be substantial. This has implications for precision medicine, where patient horizons are decreasing as a result of increasing stratification of patients into subpopulations defined by molecular markers.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Targeted therapies on the basis of genomic aberrations analysis of the tumor have shown promising results in cancer prognosis and treatment. Regardless of tumor type, trials that match patients to targeted therapies for their particular genomic aberrations have become a mainstream direction of therapeutic management of patients with cancer. Therefore, finding the subpopulation of patients who can most benefit from an aberration-specific targeted therapy across multiple cancer types is important. We propose an adaptive Bayesian clinical trial design for patient allocation and subpopulation identification. We start with a decision theoretic approach, including a utility function and a probability model across all possible subpopulation models. The main features of the proposed design and population finding methods are the use of a flexible nonparametric Bayesian survival regression based on a random covariate-dependent partition of patients, and decisions based on a flexible utility function that reflects the requirement of the clinicians appropriately and realistically, and the adaptive allocation of patients to their superior treatments. Through extensive simulation studies, the new method is demonstrated to achieve desirable operating characteristics and compares favorably against the alternatives.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Development of treatments for rare diseases is challenging due to the limited number of patients available for participation. Learning about treatment effectiveness with a view to treat patients in the larger outside population, as in the traditional fixed randomised design, may not be a plausible goal. An alternative goal is to treat the patients within the trial as effectively as possible. Using the framework of finite-horizon Markov decision processes and dynamic programming (DP), a novel randomised response-adaptive design is proposed which maximises the total number of patient successes in the trial and penalises if a minimum number of patients are not recruited to each treatment arm. Several performance measures of the proposed design are evaluated and compared to alternative designs through extensive simulation studies using a recently published trial as motivation. For simplicity, a two-armed trial with binary endpoints and immediate responses is considered. Simulation results for the proposed design show that: (i) the percentage of patients allocated to the superior arm is much higher than in the traditional fixed randomised design; (ii) relative to the optimal DP design, the power is largely improved upon and (iii) it exhibits only a very small bias and mean squared error of the treatment effect estimator. Furthermore, this design is fully randomised which is an advantage from a practical point of view because it protects the trial against various sources of bias. As such, the proposed design addresses some of the key issues that have been suggested as preventing so-called bandit models from being implemented in clinical practice.

RESUMEN

Phase I trials of anti-cancer therapies aim to identify a maximum tolerated dose (MTD), defined as the dose that causes unacceptable toxicity in a target proportion of patients. Both rule-based and model-based methods have been proposed for MTD recommendation. The escalation with overdose control (EWOC) approach is a model-based design where the dose assigned to the next patient is one that, given all available data, has a posterior probability of exceeding the MTD equal to a pre-specified value known as the feasibility bound. The aim is to conservatively dose-escalate and approach the MTD, avoiding severe overdosing early on in a trial. The EWOC approach has been applied in practice with the feasibility bound either fixed or varying throughout a trial, yet some of the methods may recommend incoherent dose-escalation, that is, an increase in dose after observing severe toxicity at the current dose. We present examples where varying feasibility bounds have been used in practice, and propose a toxicity-dependent feasibility bound approach that guarantees coherent dose-escalation and incorporates the desirable features of other EWOC approaches. We show via detailed simulation studies that the toxicity-dependent feasibility bound approach provides improved MTD recommendation properties to the original EWOC approach for both discrete and continuous doses across most dose-toxicity scenarios, with comparable performance to other approaches without recommending incoherent dose escalation. © 2017 The Authors. Statistics in Medicine Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The design of phase I studies is often challenging, because of limited evidence to inform study protocols. Adaptive designs are now well established in cancer but much less so in other clinical areas. A phase I study to assess the safety, pharmacokinetic profile and antiretroviral efficacy of C34-PEG4 -Chol, a novel peptide fusion inhibitor for the treatment of HIV infection, has been set up with Medical Research Council funding. During the study workup, Bayesian adaptive designs based on the continual reassessment method were compared with a more standard rule-based design, with the aim of choosing a design that would maximise the scientific information gained from the study. The process of specifying and evaluating the design options was time consuming and required the active involvement of all members of the trial's protocol development team. However, the effort was worthwhile as the originally proposed rule-based design has been replaced by a more efficient Bayesian adaptive design. While the outcome to be modelled, design details and evaluation criteria are trial specific, the principles behind their selection are general. This case study illustrates the steps required to establish a design in a novel context. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Clinical biomarkers play an important role in precision medicine and are now extensively used in clinical trials, particularly in cancer. A response adaptive trial design enables researchers to use treatment results about earlier patients to aid in treatment decisions of later patients. Optimal adaptive trial designs have been developed without consideration of biomarkers. In this article, we describe the mathematical steps for computing optimal biomarker-integrated adaptive trial designs. These designs maximize the expected trial utility given any pre-specified utility function, though we focus here on maximizing patient responses within a given patient horizon. We describe the performance of the optimal design in different scenarios. We compare it to Bayesian Adaptive Randomization (BAR), which is emerging as a practical approach to develop adaptive trials. The difference in expected utility between BAR and optimal designs is smallest when the biomarker subgroups are highly imbalanced. We also compare BAR, a frequentist play-the-winner rule with integrated biomarkers and a marker-stratified balanced randomization design (BR). We show that, in contrasting two treatments, BR achieves a nearly optimal expected utility when the patient horizon is relatively large. Our work provides novel theoretical solution, as well as an absolute benchmark for the evaluation of trial designs in personalized medicine.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Our increasing knowledge of biomedicine and genomics for human malignancies has placed us within reach of achieving personalized cancer medicine. The Biomarker-integrated Approaches of Targeted Therapy for Lung Cancer Elimination (BATTLE)-1 trial was the first completed, prospective biopsy-mandated, biomarker-based, adaptive randomized clinical trial for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The ongoing BATTLE-2 trial continues to search for effective targeted therapies by further refining the clinical trial design. The BATTLE program has demonstrated the feasibility and promise of novel biomarker-based clinical trial platforms, which has moved us one step closer to personalized medicine. In this paper, we describe the design and conduct of the BATTLE trials, summarize the main findings, and report the experiences and lessons learned from our pursuit of developing targeted therapies in cancer.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The Gittins index provides a well established, computationally attractive, optimal solution to a class of resource allocation problems known collectively as the multi-arm bandit problem. Its development was originally motivated by the problem of optimal patient allocation in multi-arm clinical trials. However, it has never been used in practice, possibly for the following reasons: (1) it is fully sequential, i.e., the endpoint must be observable soon after treating a patient, reducing the medical settings to which it is applicable; (2) it is completely deterministic and thus removes randomization from the trial, which would naturally protect against various sources of bias. We propose a novel implementation of the Gittins index rule that overcomes these difficulties, trading off a small deviation from optimality for a fully randomized, adaptive group allocation procedure which offers substantial improvements in terms of patient benefit, especially relevant for small populations. We report the operating characteristics of our approach compared to existing methods of adaptive randomization using a recently published trial as motivation.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Phase I clinical trials aim to identify a maximum tolerated dose (MTD), the highest possible dose that does not cause an unacceptable amount of toxicity in the patients. In trials of combination therapies, however, many different dose combinations may have a similar probability of causing a dose-limiting toxicity, and hence, a number of MTDs may exist. Furthermore, escalation strategies in combination trials are more complex, with possible escalation/de-escalation of either or both drugs. This paper investigates the properties of two existing proposed Bayesian adaptive models for combination therapy dose-escalation when a number of different escalation strategies are applied. We assess operating characteristics through a series of simulation studies and show that strategies that only allow 'non-diagonal' moves in the escalation process (that is, both drugs cannot increase simultaneously) are inefficient and identify fewer MTDs for Phase II comparisons. Such strategies tend to escalate a single agent first while keeping the other agent fixed, which can be a severe restriction when exploring dose surfaces using a limited sample size. Meanwhile, escalation designs based on Bayesian D-optimality allow more varied experimentation around the dose space and, consequently, are better at identifying more MTDs. We argue that for Phase I combination trials it is sensible to take forward a number of identified MTDs for Phase II experimentation so that their efficacy can be directly compared. Researchers, therefore, need to carefully consider the escalation strategy and model that best allows the identification of these MTDs.

Asunto(s)