Conditional bias adjusted estimator of treatment effect in 2-in-1 adaptive design.

For implementation of adaptive design, the adjustment of bias in treatment effect estimation becomes an increasingly important topic in recent years. While adaptive design literature traditionally focuses on the control of type I error rate and the adjustment of overall unconditional bias, the research on adjusting conditional bias has been limited. This paper proposes a conditional bias adjustment estimator of treatment effect under the context of 2-in-1 adaptive design and aims to provide a comprehensive investigation on their statistical properties including bias, mean squared error and coverage probability of confidence intervals. It demonstrated that conditional bias adjusted estimators greatly reduce the conditional bias and have similarly negligible unconditional bias compared with mean and median (unconditional) unbiased estimators. In addition, the test statistics is constructed based on the conditional bias adjustment estimators and compared with the naive unadjusted test.

Point estimation for adaptive trial designs II: Practical considerations and guidance.

In adaptive clinical trials, the conventional end-of-trial point estimate of a treatment effect is prone to bias, that is, a systematic tendency to deviate from its true value. As stated in recent FDA guidance on adaptive designs, it is desirable to report estimates of treatment effects that reduce or remove this bias. However, it may be unclear which of the available estimators are preferable, and their use remains rare in practice. This article is the second in a two-part series that studies the issue of bias in point estimation for adaptive trials. Part I provided a methodological review of approaches to remove or reduce the potential bias in point estimation for adaptive designs. In part II, we discuss how bias can affect standard estimators and assess the negative impact this can have. We review current practice for reporting point estimates and illustrate the computation of different estimators using a real adaptive trial example (including code), which we use as a basis for a simulation study. We show that while on average the values of these estimators can be similar, for a particular trial realization they can give noticeably different values for the estimated treatment effect. Finally, we propose guidelines for researchers around the choice of estimators and the reporting of estimates following an adaptive design. The issue of bias should be considered throughout the whole lifecycle of an adaptive design, with the estimation strategy prespecified in the statistical analysis plan. When available, unbiased or bias-reduced estimates are to be preferred.

Point estimation for adaptive trial designs I: A methodological review.

Recent FDA guidance on adaptive clinical trial designs defines bias as "a systematic tendency for the estimate of treatment effect to deviate from its true value," and states that it is desirable to obtain and report estimates of treatment effects that reduce or remove this bias. The conventional end-of-trial point estimates of the treatment effects are prone to bias in many adaptive designs, because they do not take into account the potential and realized trial adaptations. While much of the methodological developments on adaptive designs have tended to focus on control of type I error rates and power considerations, in contrast the question of biased estimation has received relatively less attention. This article is the first in a two-part series that studies the issue of potential bias in point estimation for adaptive trials. Part I provides a comprehensive review of the methods to remove or reduce the potential bias in point estimation of treatment effects for adaptive designs, while part II illustrates how to implement these in practice and proposes a set of guidelines for trial statisticians. The methods reviewed in this article can be broadly classified into unbiased and bias-reduced estimation, and we also provide a classification of estimators by the type of adaptive design. We compare the proposed methods, highlight available software and code, and discuss potential methodological gaps in the literature.

Conditional estimation and inference to address observed covariate imbalance in randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Baseline covariate imbalance (between treatment groups) is a common problem in randomized clinical trials which often raises questions about the validity of trial results. Answering these questions requires careful consideration of the statistical implications of covariate imbalance. The possibil ity of having covariate imbalance contributes to the marginal variance of an unadjusted treatment difference estimator, which can be reduced by making appropriate adjustments. Actual observed imbalance introduces a conditional bias into an unadjusted estimator, which may increase the conditional size of an unadjusted test. METHODS: This article provides conditional estimation and inference procedures to address the conditional bias due to observed imbalance. Interestingly, it is possible to use the same adjusted treatment difference estimator to address the marginal variance issue and the conditional bias issue associated with covariate imbalance. Its marginal variance estimator tends to be conservative for conditional inference, and we propose a conditionally appropriate variance estimator. We also provide an estimator of the conditional bias in an unadjusted treatment difference estimator, together with a conditional variance estimator. RESULTS: The proposed methodology is illustrated with real data from a stroke trial and evaluated in simulation experiments based on the same trial. The simulation results show that covariate imbalance can result in a substantial conditional bias and that the proposed methods deal with the conditional bias quite effectively. DISCUSSION: We recommend that the proposed methodology be used routinely to address the observed covariate imbalance in randomized clinical trials.

Conditional estimation using prior information in 2-stage group sequential designs assuming asymptotic normality when the trial terminated early.

Two-stage designs are widely used to determine whether a clinical trial should be terminated early. In such trials, a maximum likelihood estimate is often adopted to describe the difference in efficacy between the experimental and reference treatments; however, this method is known to display conditional bias. To reduce such bias, a conditional mean-adjusted estimator (CMAE) has been proposed, although the remaining bias may be nonnegligible when a trial is stopped for efficacy at the interim analysis. We propose a new estimator for adjusting the conditional bias of the treatment effect by extending the idea of the CMAE. This estimator is calculated by weighting the maximum likelihood estimate obtained at the interim analysis and the effect size prespecified when calculating the sample size. We evaluate the performance of the proposed estimator through analytical and simulation studies in various settings in which a trial is stopped for efficacy or futility at the interim analysis. We find that the conditional bias of the proposed estimator is smaller than that of the CMAE when the information time at the interim analysis is small. In addition, the mean-squared error of the proposed estimator is also smaller than that of the CMAE. In conclusion, we recommend the use of the proposed estimator for trials that are terminated early for efficacy or futility.

Reader reaction on estimation of treatment effects in all-comers randomized clinical trials with a predictive marker.

For a fallback randomized clinical trial design with a marker, Choai and Matsui (2015, Biometrics 71, 25-32) estimate the bias of the estimator of the treatment effect in the marker-positive subgroup conditional on the treatment effect not being statistically significant in the overall population. This is used to construct and examine conditionally bias-corrected estimators of the treatment effect for the marker-positive subgroup. We argue that it may not be appropriate to correct for conditional bias in this setting. Instead, we consider the unconditional bias of estimators of the treatment effect for marker-positive patients.