Two‐stage randomized clinical trials with a right‐censored endpoint: Comparison of frequentist and Bayesian adaptive designs

Fuente: Wiley Open Access
Enregistré dans:
Détails bibliographiques
Auteurs principaux: Luana Boumendil, Sylvie Chevret, Vincent Lévy, Lucie Biard
Format: Artículo Open Access
Publié: Wiley 2024
Sujets:
Accès en ligne:
Tags: Ajouter un tag
Pas de tags, Soyez le premier à ajouter un tag!
_version_ 1867017637372887040
author Luana Boumendil
Sylvie Chevret
Vincent Lévy
Lucie Biard
author_facet Luana Boumendil
Sylvie Chevret
Vincent Lévy
Lucie Biard
Luana Boumendil
Sylvie Chevret
Vincent Lévy
Lucie Biard
collection Wiley Open Access
contents Two‐stage randomized clinical trials with a right‐censored endpoint: Comparison of frequentist and Bayesian adaptive designs Luana Boumendil Sylvie Chevret Vincent Lévy Lucie Biard Statistics in Medicine Adaptive randomized clinical trials are of major interest when dealing with a time‐to‐event outcome in a prolonged observation window. No consensus exists either to define stopping boundaries or to combine values or test statistics in the terminal analysis in the case of a frequentist design and sample size adaptation. In a one‐sided setting, we compared three frequentist approaches using stopping boundaries relying on ‐spending functions and a Bayesian monitoring setting with boundaries based on the posterior distribution of the log‐hazard ratio. All designs comprised a single interim analysis with an efficacy stopping rule and the possibility of sample size adaptation at this interim step. Three frequentist approaches were defined based on the terminal analysis: combination of stagewise statistics (Wassmer) or of values (Desseaux), or on patientwise splitting (Jörgens), and we compared the results with those of the Bayesian monitoring approach (Freedman). These different approaches were evaluated in a simulation study and then illustrated on a real dataset from a randomized clinical trial conducted in elderly patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia. All approaches controlled for the type I error rate, except for the Bayesian monitoring approach, and yielded satisfactory power. It appears that the frequentist approaches are the best in underpowered trials. The power of all the approaches was affected by the violation of the proportional hazards (PH) assumption. For adaptive designs with a survival endpoint and a one‐sided alternative hypothesis, the Wassmer and Jörgens approaches after sample size adaptation should be preferred, unless violation of PH is suspected. 10.1002/sim.10130 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
doi_str_mv 10.1002/sim.10130
format Artículo Open Access
id wiley_oa_10_1002_sim_10130
institution Wiley Open Access
license_str_mv http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
publishDate 2024
publisher Wiley
record_format wiley_oa
spellingShingle Two‐stage randomized clinical trials with a right‐censored endpoint: Comparison of frequentist and Bayesian adaptive designs
Luana Boumendil
Sylvie Chevret
Vincent Lévy
Lucie Biard
Statistics in Medicine
Two‐stage randomized clinical trials with a right‐censored endpoint: Comparison of frequentist and Bayesian adaptive designs Luana Boumendil Sylvie Chevret Vincent Lévy Lucie Biard Statistics in Medicine Adaptive randomized clinical trials are of major interest when dealing with a time‐to‐event outcome in a prolonged observation window. No consensus exists either to define stopping boundaries or to combine values or test statistics in the terminal analysis in the case of a frequentist design and sample size adaptation. In a one‐sided setting, we compared three frequentist approaches using stopping boundaries relying on ‐spending functions and a Bayesian monitoring setting with boundaries based on the posterior distribution of the log‐hazard ratio. All designs comprised a single interim analysis with an efficacy stopping rule and the possibility of sample size adaptation at this interim step. Three frequentist approaches were defined based on the terminal analysis: combination of stagewise statistics (Wassmer) or of values (Desseaux), or on patientwise splitting (Jörgens), and we compared the results with those of the Bayesian monitoring approach (Freedman). These different approaches were evaluated in a simulation study and then illustrated on a real dataset from a randomized clinical trial conducted in elderly patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia. All approaches controlled for the type I error rate, except for the Bayesian monitoring approach, and yielded satisfactory power. It appears that the frequentist approaches are the best in underpowered trials. The power of all the approaches was affected by the violation of the proportional hazards (PH) assumption. For adaptive designs with a survival endpoint and a one‐sided alternative hypothesis, the Wassmer and Jörgens approaches after sample size adaptation should be preferred, unless violation of PH is suspected. 10.1002/sim.10130 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
title Two‐stage randomized clinical trials with a right‐censored endpoint: Comparison of frequentist and Bayesian adaptive designs
topic Statistics in Medicine
url https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sim.10130