A multi-arm multi-stage clinical trial design for binary outcomes with application to tuberculosis

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Mahesh KB Parmar¹  Patrick PJ Phillips¹  Daniel J Bratton¹ 

[1] Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at University College London, 125 Kingsway, London, UK

关键词: Treatment selection;    Adaptive design;    Binary outcome;    Tuberculosis;    Multi-stage;    Multi-arm;   

Others  :  866582
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2288-13-139

 received in 2013-04-26, accepted in 2013-10-25,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Randomised controlled trials are becoming increasingly costly and time-consuming. In 2011, Royston and colleagues proposed a particular class of multi-arm multi-stage (MAMS) designs intended to speed up the evaluation of new treatments in phase II and III clinical trials. Their design, which controls the type I error rate and power for each pairwise comparison, discontinues randomisation to poorly performing arms at interim analyses if they fail to show a pre-specified level of benefit over the control arm. Arms in which randomisation is continued to the final stage of the trial are compared against the control on a definitive time-to-event outcome measure. To increase efficiency, interim comparisons can be made on an intermediate time-to-event outcome which is on the causal pathway to the definitive outcome.

Methods

We adapt Royston’s MAMS design to binary outcomes observed at the end of a fixed follow-up period and analysed using an absolute difference in proportions. We apply the design to tuberculosis (TB), an area where many new drugs are in development, and demonstrate how it can greatly accelerate the evaluation of new TB regimens. We use simulations to support the extensions to the methodology and to investigate the amount of bias in the estimated treatment effects of arms in which randomisation is ceased at the first interim analysis and arms which continue to the final stage of the trial.

Results

The proposed seamless phase II/III TB trial designs are shown to greatly reduce sample size requirements and trial duration compared to conducting separate phase II and III trials. The bias in the estimated treatment effects for the definitive outcome is shown to be small, especially when treatment selection is based on an intermediate outcome or when a reanalysis is performed at the planned end of the trial after all recruited patients have completed follow-up.

Conclusions

The proposed designs are practical and could be used in a variety of disease areas. They hold considerable promise for speeding up the evaluation of new treatments particularly in TB where many new regimens will soon be available for testing in phase II and phase III trials.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Bratton et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]US Food and Drug Administration: Innovation or stagnation: challenge and opportunity on the critical path to new medical products. Tech. rep., US Dept of Health and Human Services 2004.
• [2]Ma Z, Lienhardt C, McIlleron H, Nunn AJ, Wang X: Global tuberculosis drug development pipeline: the need and the reality. Lancet 2010, 375(9731):2100-2109.
• [3]Lienhardt C, Raviglione M, Spigelman M, Hafner R, Jaramillo E, Hoelscher M, Zumla A, Gheuens J: New drugs for the treatment of tuberculosis: needs, challenges, promise, and prospects for the future. J Infect Dis 2012, 205(suppl 2):S241-S249.
• [4]World Health Organisation: WHO report. Global tuberculosis control. Geneva: World Health Organisation; 2011.
• [5]Phillips PPJ, Gillespie SH, Boeree M, Heinrich N, Aarnoutse R, McHugh T, Pletschette M, Lienhardt C, Hafner R, Mgone C, Zumla A, Nunn AJ, Hoelscher M: Innovative trial designs are practical solutions for improving the treatment of tuberculosis. J Infect Dis 2012, 205(suppl 2):S250-S257.
• [6]Royston P, Barthel FM, Parmar MK, Choodari-Oskooei B, Isham V: Designs for clinical trials with time-to-event outcomes based on stopping guidelines for lack of benefit. Trials 2011, 12:81. BioMed Central Full Text
• [7]Freidlin B, Korn EL, Gray R, Martin A: Multi-arm clinical trials of new agents: some design considerations. Clin Cancer Res 2008, 14(14):4368-4371.
• [8]Sydes MR, Parmar MK, James ND, Clarke NW, Dearnaley DP, Mason MD, Morgan RC, Sanders K, Royston P: Issues in applying multi-arm multi-stage methodology to a clinical trial in prostate cancer: the MRC STAMPEDE trial. Trials 2009, 10:39. BioMed Central Full Text
• [9]Parmar MK, Barthel FM, Sydes M, Langley R, Kaplan R, Eisenhauer E, Brady M, James N, Bookman MA, Swart AM, Qian W, Royston P: Speeding up the evaluation of new agents in cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008, 100(17):1204-1214.
• [10]Dorman SE, Johnson JL, Goldberg S, Muzanye G, Padayatchi N, Bozeman L, Heilig CM, Bernardo J, Choudhri S, Grosset JH, Guy E, Guyadeen P, Leus MC, Maltas G, Menzies D, Nuermberger EL, Villarino M, Vernon A, Chaisson RE: Substitution of moxifloxacin for isoniazid during intensive phase treatment of pulmonary tuberculosis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2009, 180(3):273-280.
• [11]Burman WJ, Goldberg S, Johnson JL, Muzanye G, Engle M, Mosher AW, Choudhri S, Daley CL, Munsiff SS, Zhao Z, Vernon A, Chaisson RE: Moxifloxacin versus ethambutol in the first 2 months of treatment for pulmonary tuberculosis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2006, 174(3):331-338.
• [12]Conde MB, Efron A, Loredo C, De Souza GR, Graca NP, Cezar MC, Ram M, Chaudhary MA, Bishai WR, Kritski AL, Chaisson RE: Moxifloxacin versus ethambutol in the initial treatment of tuberculosis: a double-blind, randomised, controlled phase II trial. Lancet 2009, 373(9670):1183-1189.
• [13]Phillips PP, Nunn AJ: Challenges of phase III study design for trials of new drug regimens for the treatment of TB. Future Med Chem 2010, 2(8):1273-1282.
• [14]Barthel FM, Parmar MK, Royston P: How do multi-stage, multi-arm trials compare to the traditional two-arm parallel group design–a reanalysis of 4 trials. Trials 2009, 10:21. BioMed Central Full Text
• [15]Choodari-Oskooei B, Parmar MKB, Royston P, Bowden J: Impact of lack-of-benefit stopping rules on treatment effect estiamtes of two-arm multi-stage (TAMS) trials with time to event outcome. Trials 2013, 14:23. BioMed Central Full Text
• [16]Blackwelder WC: “Proving the null hypothesis” in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1982, 3(4):345-53.
• [17]Machin D, Campbell MJ, Tan SB, Tan SH: Sample Size Tables for Clinical Studies. Wiley-Blackwell; 2009.
• [18]Little RJ, D’Agostino R, Cohen ML, Dickersin K, Emerson SS, Farrar JT, Frangakis C, Hogan JW, Molenberghs G, Murphy SA, Neaton JD, Rotnitzky A, Scharfstein D, Shih WJ, Siegel JP, Stern H: The prevention and treatment of missing data in clinical trials. N Engl J Med 2012, 367(14):1355-1360.
• [19]Korn EL, Freidlin B, Abrams JS, Halabi S: Design issues in randomized phase II/III trials. J Clin Oncol 2012, 30(6):667-671.
• [20]Nunn AJ, Phillips PP, Gillespie SH: Design issues in pivotal drug trials for drug sensitive tuberculosis (TB). Tuberculosis 2008, 88(Suppl 1):S85-S92.
• [21]McNerney R, Maeurer M, Abubakar I, Marais B, Mchugh TD, Ford N, Weyer K, Lawn S, Grobusch MP, Memish Z, Squire SB, Pantaleo G, Chakaya J, Casenghi M, Migliori GB, Mwaba P, Zijenah L, Hoelscher M, Cox H, Swaminathan S, Kim PS, Schito M, Harari A, Bates M, Schwank S, O’Grady J, Pletschette M, Ditui L, Atun R, Zumla A: Tuberculosis diagnostics and biomarkers: needs, challenges, recent advances, and opportunities. J Infect Dis 2012, 205(suppl 2):S147-S158.
• [22]Wason JM, Jaki T: Optimal design of multi-arm multi-stage trials. Stat Med 2012, 31(30):4269-4279.
• [23]Horne DJ, Royce SE, Gooze L, Narita M, Hopewell PC, Nahid P, Steingart KR: Sputum monitoring during tuberculosis treatment for predicting outcome: systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis 2010, 10(6):387-394.
• [24]Davies GR: Early clinical development of anti-tuberculosis drugs: science, statistics and sterilizing activity. Tuberculosis (Edinb) 2010, 90(3):171-176.
• [25]Goodman SN: Stopping at nothing? some Dilemmas of data monitoring in clinical trials. Ann Intern Med 2007, 146(12):882-887.
• [26]Freidlin B, Korn EL: Stopping clinical trials early for benefit: impact on estimation. Clin Trials 2009, 6(2):119-125.
• [27]Wason J, Magirr D, Law M, Jaki T: Some recommendations for multi-arm multi-stage trials. Stat Methods Med Res 2012. doi:10.1177/0962280212465498
• [28]Committee for propriertary medicinal products: Points to consider on multiplicity issues in clinical trials. Tech. rep., EMEA 2002.
• [29]Friede T, Parsons N, Stallard N, Todd S, Valdes Marquez E, Chataway J, Nicholas R: Designing a seamless phase II/III clinical trial using early outcomes for treatment selection: an application in multiple sclerosis. Stat Med 2011, 30(13):1528-1540.
• [30]Joshua Chen YH, Demets DL, Gordon Lan KK: Some drop-the-loser designs for monitoring multiple doses. Stat Med 2010, 29(17):1793-1807.
• [31]Magirr D, Jaki T, Whitehead J: A generalized Dunnett test for multi-arm multi-stage clinical studies with treatment selection. Biometrika 2012, 99(2):494-501.
• [32]Jaki T, Magirr D: Considerations on covariates and endpoints in multi-arm multi-stage clinical trials selecting all promising treatments. Stat Med 2013, 32(7):1150-1163.