Multi-arm multi-stage trials can improve the efficiency of finding effective treatments for stroke: a case study.

BACKGROUND: Many recent Stroke trials fail to show a beneficial effect of the intervention late in the development. Currently a large number of new treatment options are being developed. Multi-arm multi-stage (MAMS) designs offer one potential strategy to avoid lengthy studies of treatments without beneficial effects while at the same time allowing evaluation of several novel treatments. In this paper we provide a review of what MAMS designs are and argue that they are of particular value for Stroke trials. We illustrate this benefit through a case study based on previous published trials of endovascular treatment for acute ischemic stroke. We show in this case study that MAMS trials provide additional power for the same sample size compared to alternative trial designs. This level of additional power depends on the recruitment length of the trial, with most efficiency gained when recruitment is relatively slow. We conclude with a discussion of additional considerations required when starting a MAMS trial. CONCLUSION: MAMS trial designs are potentially very useful for stroke trials due to their improved statistical power compared to the traditional approach.

Estimation after subpopulation selection in adaptive seamless trials.

During the development of new therapies, it is not uncommon to test whether a new treatment works better than the existing treatment for all patients who suffer from a condition (full population) or for a subset of the full population (subpopulation). One approach that may be used for this objective is to have two separate trials, where in the first trial, data are collected to determine if the new treatment benefits the full population or the subpopulation. The second trial is a confirmatory trial to test the new treatment in the population selected in the first trial. In this paper, we consider the more efficient two-stage adaptive seamless designs (ASDs), where in stage 1, data are collected to select the population to test in stage 2. In stage 2, additional data are collected to perform confirmatory analysis for the selected population. Unlike the approach that uses two separate trials, for ASDs, stage 1 data are also used in the confirmatory analysis. Although ASDs are efficient, using stage 1 data both for selection and confirmatory analysis introduces selection bias and consequently statistical challenges in making inference. We will focus on point estimation for such trials. In this paper, we describe the extent of bias for estimators that ignore multiple hypotheses and selecting the population that is most likely to give positive trial results based on observed stage 1 data. We then derive conditionally unbiased estimators and examine their mean squared errors for different scenarios.

A comparison of methods for constructing confidence intervals after phase II/III clinical trials.

Recently, in order to accelerate drug development, trials that use adaptive seamless designs such as phase II/III clinical trials have been proposed. Phase II/III clinical trials combine traditional phases II and III into a single trial that is conducted in two stages. Using stage 1 data, an interim analysis is performed to answer phase II objectives and after collection of stage 2 data, a final confirmatory analysis is performed to answer phase III objectives. In this paper we consider phase II/III clinical trials in which, at stage 1, several experimental treatments are compared to a control and the apparently most effective experimental treatment is selected to continue to stage 2. Although these trials are attractive because the confirmatory analysis includes phase II data from stage 1, the inference methods used for trials that compare a single experimental treatment to a control and do not have an interim analysis are no longer appropriate. Several methods for analysing phase II/III clinical trials have been developed. These methods are recent and so there is little literature on extensive comparisons of their characteristics. In this paper we review and compare the various methods available for constructing confidence intervals after phase II/III clinical trials.

Leveraging machine learning: Covariate-adjusted Bayesian adaptive randomization and subgroup discovery in multi-arm survival trials.

Clinical trials evaluate the safety and efficacy of treatments for specific diseases. Ensuring these studies are well-powered is crucial for identifying superior treatments. With the rise of personalized medicine, treatment efficacy may vary based on biomarker profiles. However, researchers often lack prior knowledge about which biomarkers are linked to varied treatment effects. Fixed or response-adaptive designs may not sufficiently account for heterogeneous patient characteristics, such as genetic diversity, potentially reducing the chance of selecting the optimal treatment for individuals. Recent advances in Bayesian nonparametric modeling pave the way for innovative trial designs that not only maintain robust power but also offer the flexibility to identify subgroups deriving greater benefits from specific treatments. Building on this inspiration, we introduce a Bayesian adaptive design for multi-arm trials focusing on time-to-event endpoints. We introduce a covariate-adjusted response adaptive randomization, updating treatment allocation probabilities grounded on causal effect estimates using a random intercept accelerated failure time BART model. After the trial concludes, we suggest employing a multi-response decision tree to pinpoint subgroups with varying treatment impacts. The performance of our design is then assessed via comprehensive simulations.

Planning multi-arm screening studies within the context of a drug development program.

Screening trials are small trials used to decide whether an intervention is sufficiently promising to warrant a large confirmatory trial. Previous literature examined the situation where treatments are tested sequentially until one is considered sufficiently promising to take forward to a confirmatory trial. An important consideration for sponsors of clinical trials is how screening trials should be planned to maximize the efficiency of the drug development process. It has been found previously that small screening trials are generally the most efficient. In this paper we consider the design of screening trials in which multiple new treatments are tested simultaneously. We derive analytic formulae for the expected number of patients until a successful treatment is found, and propose methodology to search for the optimal number of treatments, and optimal sample size per treatment. We compare designs in which only the best treatment proceeds to a confirmatory trial and designs in which multiple treatments may proceed to a multi-arm confirmatory trial. We find that inclusion of a large number of treatments in the screening trial is optimal when only one treatment can proceed, and a smaller number of treatments is optimal when more than one can proceed. The designs we investigate are compared on a real-life set of screening designs.

Practical guidance for running late-phase platform protocols for clinical trials: lessons from experienced UK clinical trials units.

BACKGROUND: Late-phase platform protocols (including basket, umbrella, multi-arm multi-stage (MAMS), and master protocols) are generally agreed to be more efficient than traditional two-arm clinical trial designs but are not extensively used. We have gathered the experience of running a number of successful platform protocols together to present some operational recommendations. METHODS: Representatives of six UK clinical trials units with experience in running late-phase platform protocols attended a 1-day meeting structured to discuss various practical aspects of running these trials. We report and give guidance on operational aspects which are either harder to implement compared to a traditional late-phase trial or are specific to platform protocols. RESULTS: We present a list of practical recommendations for trialists intending to design and conduct late-phase platform protocols. Our recommendations cover the entire life cycle of a platform trial: from protocol development, obtaining funding, and trial set-up, to a wide range of operational and regulatory aspects such as staffing, oversight, data handling, and data management, to the reporting of results, with a particular focus on communication with trial participants and stakeholders as well as public and patient involvement. DISCUSSION: Platform protocols enable many questions to be answered efficiently to the benefit of patients. Our practical lessons from running platform trials will support trial teams in learning how to run these trials more effectively and efficiently.

Bayesian adaptive decision-theoretic designs for multi-arm multi-stage clinical trials.

Multi-arm multi-stage clinical trials in which more than two drugs are simultaneously investigated provide gains over separate single- or two-arm trials. In this paper we propose a generic Bayesian adaptive decision-theoretic design for multi-arm multi-stage clinical trials with K (K≥2) arms. The basic idea is that after each stage a decision about continuation of the trial and accrual of patients for an additional stage is made on the basis of the expected reduction in loss. For this purpose, we define a loss function that incorporates the patient accrual costs as well as costs associated with an incorrect decision at the end of the trial. An attractive feature of our loss function is that its estimation is computationally undemanding, also when K > 2. We evaluate the frequentist operating characteristics for settings with a binary outcome and multiple experimental arms. We consider both the situation with and without a control arm. In a simulation study, we show that our design increases the probability of making a correct decision at the end of the trial as compared to nonadaptive designs and adaptive two-stage designs.