Optimization the design of fixed and group sequential three-arm non-inferiority trials with dichotomous endpoints of risk difference and odds ratio.

Wenwen Wang, Yaru Huang, Jielai Xia, Ling Wang, Chen Li
Author Information
  1. Wenwen Wang: Department of Health Statistics, School of Preventive Medicine, Ministry of Education Key Lab of Hazard Assessment and Control in Special Operational Environment, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, 710042, Shaanxi Province, China.
  2. Yaru Huang: Department of Health Statistics, School of Preventive Medicine, Ministry of Education Key Lab of Hazard Assessment and Control in Special Operational Environment, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, 710042, Shaanxi Province, China.
  3. Jielai Xia: Department of Health Statistics, School of Preventive Medicine, Ministry of Education Key Lab of Hazard Assessment and Control in Special Operational Environment, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, 710042, Shaanxi Province, China.
  4. Ling Wang: Department of Health Statistics, School of Preventive Medicine, Ministry of Education Key Lab of Hazard Assessment and Control in Special Operational Environment, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, 710042, Shaanxi Province, China.
  5. Chen Li: Department of Health Statistics, School of Preventive Medicine, Ministry of Education Key Lab of Hazard Assessment and Control in Special Operational Environment, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, 710042, Shaanxi Province, China.

Abstract

Although the risk difference (RD) is the most common and well explored functional form for testing efficacy with dichotomous endpoint, odds ratio (OR) is also suggested and well applied measure for non-inferiority (NI) trials. Since the construction and interpretation of these function forms are quite different, this study aims to provide detailed discussions and comprehensive comparisons on the design and testing approach for RD and OR scales for the fixed and group sequential three-arm NI trials under various of situations. The sample size determinations and testing approaches for assessing NI of a new treatment in three-arm clinical trials for RD and OR scales were reviewed comprehensively. Simulation studies are conducted for hundreds of scenarios with parameter configurations of the response rates, randomized allocations, NI margins and interim analysis. The operating characteristic (OC) of RD and OR scales based on the MLE and RMLE methods were thoroughly investigated. A trial example was designed and analyzed to demonstrate the methodologies. It is found that sample size determination on OR scale gives smaller sample size and robust procedure compared to RD scale in the majority of situations. When evaluating the behaviors of the attained power, the RMLE methods based on OR scale outperforms the MLE method and tend to have more power to reject the null hypothesis especially under the small sample size situations. Compared to the fixed design, the group sequential design has better OC, which provides a comparable power while needing smaller total average sample sizes for all cases. In addition, we suggest a lower significance level with a higher power for the sample size determination in the superiority test stage in the group sequential design, which can significantly reduce the total sample sizes while the number of subjects in the placebo group does not increase much. It can offer some recommendations for the investigators to choose the optimal endpoints and parameter configurations to design a three-arm NI trial under certain situations.

Keywords

References

  1. Biostatistics. 2022 Jan 13;23(1):136-156 [PMID: 32385495]
  2. Stat Med. 2003 Mar 30;22(6):883-99 [PMID: 12627407]
  3. Stat Med. 2023 Feb 20;42(4):536-558 [PMID: 36577519]
  4. Stat Med. 2007 Jan 30;26(2):253-73 [PMID: 16685703]
  5. Stat Med. 2006 May 30;25(10):1628-38 [PMID: 16639773]
  6. Stat Methods Med Res. 2018 Feb;27(2):507-520 [PMID: 26994213]
  7. J Appl Stat. 2021 Nov 11;50(4):848-870 [PMID: 36925904]
  8. Lancet. 2010 Jan 23;375(9711):318-28 [PMID: 19692116]
  9. Stat Med. 2017 Mar 15;36(6):883-898 [PMID: 27859506]
  10. J Biopharm Stat. 2017;27(1):1-24 [PMID: 26892481]
  11. Stat Med. 2011 Feb 10;30(3):224-31 [PMID: 21213340]
  12. Biom J. 2010 Aug;52(4):504-18 [PMID: 20645389]
  13. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014 Dec 18;14:134 [PMID: 25524326]
  14. Stat Med. 2013 Aug 15;32(18):3055-66 [PMID: 23508697]
  15. J Biopharm Stat. 2004 May;14(2):315-25 [PMID: 15206529]
  16. Stat Med. 2003 Jan 30;22(2):169-86 [PMID: 12520555]
  17. J Biopharm Stat. 2004 May;14(2):337-47 [PMID: 15206531]
  18. Stat Methods Med Res. 2018 Aug;27(8):2437-2446 [PMID: 27920362]
  19. Stat Med. 2006 Oct 15;25(19):3396-406 [PMID: 16900573]
  20. J Biopharm Stat. 2007;17(2):201-13 [PMID: 17365218]
  21. Stat Med. 2008 Nov 20;27(26):5392-406 [PMID: 18680173]
  22. Stat Med. 2008 Nov 10;27(25):5093-110 [PMID: 18570271]
  23. Stat Med. 2013 Dec 10;32(28):4875-89 [PMID: 23970488]
  24. Stat Med. 2003 Jan 30;22(2):213-25 [PMID: 12520558]
  25. Stat Med. 2015 Mar 15;34(6):950-65 [PMID: 25534903]
  26. Lancet. 2002 Apr 13;359(9314):1337-40 [PMID: 11965296]
  27. Stat Med. 2008 Feb 20;27(4):490-503 [PMID: 17853384]
  28. Comput Stat Data Anal. 2019 Apr;132:70-83 [PMID: 31749512]
  29. Biometrics. 1979 Sep;35(3):549-56 [PMID: 497341]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0sampleORdesignRDNItrialsgroupsequentialsizethree-armsituationspowerdifferencetestingrationon-inferiorityscalesfixedtrialscaleriskwelldichotomousoddsclinicalparameterconfigurationsOCbasedMLERMLEmethodsdeterminationsmallertotalsizescanendpointsAlthoughcommonexploredfunctionalformefficacyendpointalsosuggestedappliedmeasureSinceconstructioninterpretationfunctionformsquitedifferentstudyaimsprovidedetaileddiscussionscomprehensivecomparisonsapproachvariousdeterminationsapproachesassessingnewtreatmentreviewedcomprehensivelySimulationstudiesconductedhundredsscenariosresponseratesrandomizedallocationsmarginsinterimanalysisoperatingcharacteristicthoroughlyinvestigatedexampledesignedanalyzeddemonstratemethodologiesfoundgivesrobustprocedurecomparedmajorityevaluatingbehaviorsattainedoutperformsmethodtendrejectnullhypothesisespeciallysmallComparedbetterprovidescomparableneedingaveragecasesadditionsuggestlowersignificancelevelhighersuperiorityteststagesignificantlyreducenumbersubjectsplaceboincreasemuchofferrecommendationsinvestigatorschooseoptimalcertainOptimizationDichotomousGroupOddsRiskThree-arm

Similar Articles

Cited By