A hybrid approach to sample size re-estimation in cluster randomized trials with continuous outcomes.

This study presents a hybrid (Bayesian-frequentist) approach to sample size re-estimation (SSRE) for cluster randomised trials with continuous outcome data, allowing for uncertainty in the intra-cluster correlation (ICC). In the hybrid framework, pre-trial knowledge about the ICC is captured by placing a Truncated Normal prior on it, which is then updated at an interim analysis using the study data, and used in expected power control. On average, both the hybrid and frequentist approaches mitigate against the implications of misspecifying the ICC at the trial's design stage. In addition, both frameworks lead to SSRE designs with approximate control of the type I error-rate at the desired level. It is clearly demonstrated how the hybrid approach is able to reduce the high variability in the re-estimated sample size observed within the frequentist framework, based on the informativeness of the prior. However, misspecification of a highly informative prior can cause significant power loss. In conclusion, a hybrid approach could offer advantages to cluster randomised trials using SSRE. Specifically, when there is available data or expert opinion to help guide the choice of prior for the ICC, the hybrid approach can reduce the variance of the re-estimated required sample size compared to a frequentist approach. As SSRE is unlikely to be employed when there is substantial amounts of such data available (ie, when a constructed prior is highly informative), the greatest utility of a hybrid approach to SSRE likely lies when there is low-quality evidence available to guide the choice of prior.

A hybrid approach to comparing parallel-group and stepped-wedge cluster-randomized trials with a continuous primary outcome when there is uncertainty in the intra-cluster correlation.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: To evaluate how uncertainty in the intra-cluster correlation impacts whether a parallel-group or stepped-wedge cluster-randomized trial design is more efficient in terms of the required sample size, in the case of cross-sectional stepped-wedge cluster-randomized trials and continuous outcome data. METHODS: We motivate our work by reviewing how the intra-cluster correlation and standard deviation were justified in 54 health technology assessment reports on cluster-randomized trials. To enable uncertainty at the design stage to be incorporated into the design specification, we then describe how sample size calculation can be performed for cluster- randomized trials in the 'hybrid' framework, which places priors on design parameters and controls the expected power in place of the conventional frequentist power. Comparison of the parallel-group and stepped-wedge cluster-randomized trial designs is conducted by placing Beta and truncated Normal priors on the intra-cluster correlation, and a Gamma prior on the standard deviation. RESULTS: Many Health Technology Assessment reports did not adhere to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guideline of indicating the uncertainty around the assumed intra-cluster correlation, while others did not justify the assumed intra-cluster correlation or standard deviation. Even for a prior intra-cluster correlation distribution with a small mode, moderate prior densities on high intra-cluster correlation values can lead to a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized trial being more efficient because of the degree to which a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized trial is more efficient for high intra-cluster correlations. With careful specification of the priors, the designs in the hybrid framework can become more robust to, for example, an unexpectedly large value of the outcome variance. CONCLUSION: When there is difficulty obtaining a reliable value for the intra-cluster correlation to assume at the design stage, the proposed methodology offers an appealing approach to sample size calculation. Often, uncertainty in the intra-cluster correlation will mean a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized trial is more efficient than a parallel-group cluster-randomized trial design.

Assurance in vaccine efficacy clinical trial design based on immunological responses.

The assurance of a future clinical trial is a key quantitative tool for decision-making in drug development. It is derived from prior knowledge (Bayesian approach) about the clinical endpoint of interest, typically from previous clinical trials. In this paper, we examine assurance in the specific context of vaccine development, where early development (Phase 2) is often based on immunological endpoints (e.g., antibody levels), while the confirmatory trial (Phase 3) is based on the clinical endpoint (very large sample sizes and long follow-up). Our proposal is to use the Phase 2 vaccine efficacy predicted by the immunological endpoint (using a model estimated from epidemiological studies) as prior information for the calculation of the assurance.

A Review of Bayesian Perspectives on Sample Size Derivation for Confirmatory Trials.

Sample size derivation is a crucial element of planning any confirmatory trial. The required sample size is typically derived based on constraints on the maximal acceptable Type I error rate and minimal desired power. Power depends on the unknown true effect and tends to be calculated either for the smallest relevant effect or a likely point alternative. The former might be problematic if the minimal relevant effect is close to the null, thus requiring an excessively large sample size, while the latter is dubious since it does not account for the a priori uncertainty about the likely alternative effect. A Bayesian perspective on sample size derivation for a frequentist trial can reconcile arguments about the relative a priori plausibility of alternative effects with ideas based on the relevance of effect sizes. Many suggestions as to how such "hybrid" approaches could be implemented in practice have been put forward. However, key quantities are often defined in subtly different ways in the literature. Starting from the traditional entirely frequentist approach to sample size derivation, we derive consistent definitions for the most commonly used hybrid quantities and highlight connections, before discussing and demonstrating their use in sample size derivation for clinical trials.

Sample size re-estimation in a superiority clinical trial using a hybrid classical and Bayesian procedure.

When designing studies involving a continuous endpoint, the hypothesized difference in means ( θA ) and the assumed variability of the endpoint ( σ2 ) play an important role in sample size and power calculations. Traditional methods of sample size re-estimation often update one or both of these parameters using statistics observed from an internal pilot study. However, the uncertainty in these estimates is rarely addressed. We propose a hybrid classical and Bayesian method to formally integrate prior beliefs about the study parameters and the results observed from an internal pilot study into the sample size re-estimation of a two-stage study design. The proposed method is based on a measure of power called conditional expected power (CEP), which averages the traditional power curve using the prior distributions of θ and σ2 as the averaging weight, conditional on the presence of a positive treatment effect. The proposed sample size re-estimation procedure finds the second stage per-group sample size necessary to achieve the desired level of conditional expected interim power, an updated CEP calculation that conditions on the observed first-stage results. The CEP re-estimation method retains the assumption that the parameters are not known with certainty at an interim point in the trial. Notional scenarios are evaluated to compare the behavior of the proposed method of sample size re-estimation to three traditional methods.

Use of a random effects meta-analysis in the design and analysis of a new clinical trial.

In designing a randomized controlled trial, it has been argued that trialists should consider existing evidence about the likely intervention effect. One approach is to form a prior distribution for the intervention effect based on a meta-analysis of previous studies and then power the trial on its ability to affect the posterior distribution in a Bayesian analysis. Alternatively, methods have been proposed to calculate the power of the trial to influence the "pooled" estimate in an updated meta-analysis. These two approaches can give very different results if the existing evidence is heterogeneous, summarised using a random effects meta-analysis. We argue that the random effects mean will rarely represent the trialist's target parameter, and so, it will rarely be appropriate to power a trial based on its impact upon the random effects mean. Furthermore, the random effects mean will not generally provide an appropriate prior distribution. More appropriate alternatives include the predictive distribution and shrinkage estimate for the most similar study. Consideration of the impact of the trial on the entire random effects distribution might sometimes be appropriate. We describe how beliefs about likely sources of heterogeneity have implications for how the previous evidence should be used and can have a profound impact on the expected power of the new trial. We conclude that the likely causes of heterogeneity among existing studies need careful consideration. In the absence of explanations for heterogeneity, we suggest using the predictive distribution from the meta-analysis as the basis for a prior distribution for the intervention effect.

Sample size determination for a binary response in a superiority clinical trial using a hybrid classical and Bayesian procedure.

BACKGROUND: When designing studies that have a binary outcome as the primary endpoint, the hypothesized proportion of patients in each population experiencing the endpoint of interest (i.e., π 1,π 2) plays an important role in sample size and power calculations. Point estimates for π 1 and π 2 are often calculated using historical data. However, the uncertainty in these estimates is rarely addressed. METHODS: This paper presents a hybrid classical and Bayesian procedure that formally integrates prior information on the distributions of π 1 and π 2 into the study's power calculation. Conditional expected power (CEP), which averages the traditional power curve using the prior distributions of π 1 and π 2 as the averaging weight conditional on the presence of a positive treatment effect (i.e., π 2>π 1), is used, and the sample size is found that equates the pre-specified frequentist power (1-ß) and the conditional expected power of the trial. RESULTS: Notional scenarios are evaluated to compare the probability of achieving a target value of power with a trial design based on traditional power and a design based on CEP. We show that if there is uncertainty in the study parameters and a distribution of plausible values for π 1 and π 2, the performance of the CEP design is more consistent and robust than traditional designs based on point estimates for the study parameters. Traditional sample size calculations based on point estimates for the hypothesized study parameters tend to underestimate the required sample size needed to account for the uncertainty in the parameters. The greatest marginal benefit of the proposed method is achieved when the uncertainty in the parameters is not large. CONCLUSIONS: Through this procedure, we are able to formally integrate prior information on the uncertainty and variability of the study parameters into the design of the study while maintaining a frequentist framework for the final analysis. Solving for the sample size that is necessary to achieve a high level of CEP given the available prior information helps protect against misspecification of hypothesized treatment effect and provides a substantiated estimate that forms the basis for discussion about the study's feasibility during the design phase.

Selection of the effect size for sample size determination for a continuous response in a superiority clinical trial using a hybrid classical and Bayesian procedure.

BACKGROUND: When designing studies that have a continuous outcome as the primary endpoint, the hypothesized effect size ([Formula: see text]), that is, the hypothesized difference in means ([Formula: see text]) relative to the assumed variability of the endpoint ([Formula: see text]), plays an important role in sample size and power calculations. Point estimates for [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] are often calculated using historical data. However, the uncertainty in these estimates is rarely addressed. METHODS: This article presents a hybrid classical and Bayesian procedure that formally integrates prior information on the distributions of [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] into the study's power calculation. Conditional expected power, which averages the traditional power curve using the prior distributions of [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] as the averaging weight, is used, and the value of [Formula: see text] is found that equates the prespecified frequentist power ([Formula: see text]) and the conditional expected power of the trial. This hypothesized effect size is then used in traditional sample size calculations when determining sample size for the study. RESULTS: The value of [Formula: see text] found using this method may be expressed as a function of the prior means of [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text], and their prior standard deviations, [Formula: see text]. We show that the "naïve" estimate of the effect size, that is, the ratio of prior means, should be down-weighted to account for the variability in the parameters. An example is presented for designing a placebo-controlled clinical trial testing the antidepressant effect of alprazolam as monotherapy for major depression. CONCLUSION: Through this method, we are able to formally integrate prior information on the uncertainty and variability of both the treatment effect and the common standard deviation into the design of the study while maintaining a frequentist framework for the final analysis. Solving for the effect size which the study has a high probability of correctly detecting based on the available prior information on the difference [Formula: see text] and the standard deviation [Formula: see text] provides a valuable, substantiated estimate that can form the basis for discussion about the study's feasibility during the design phase.