Using Adaptive Designs to Avoid Selecting the Wrong Arms in Multiarm Comparative Effectiveness Trials. (2nd October 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Gajewski, Byron J.; Statland, Jeffrey; Barohn, Richard
• Is Part Of: Statistics in biopharmaceutical research. Volume 11:Number 4(2019)
• Page Start: 375
• Page End: 386
• Publication Date: 2019-10-02
• Subjects: Adaptive designs -- Bayesian methods -- Clinical trials -- Equal randomization -- Response adaptive randomization; Pharmacy -- Statistical methods -- Periodicals; Pharmaceutical biotechnology -- Statistical methods -- Periodicals; Biopharmaceutics -- Periodicals; Biometry -- Periodicals; Pharmacy -- Statistical methods; Periodicals; 615.190727
• DOI: 10.1080/19466315.2019.1610044
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1946-6315

Abstract

Abstract: Limited resources are a challenge when planning comparative effectiveness studies of multiple promising treatments, often prompting study planners to reduce the sample size to meet the financial constraints. The practical solution is often to increase the efficiency of this sample size by selecting a pair of treatments among the pool of promising treatments before the clinical trial begins. The problem with this approach is that the investigator may inadvertently leave out the most beneficial treatment. This article demonstrates a possible solution to this problem by using Bayesian adaptive designs. We use a planned comparative effectiveness clinical trial of treatments for sialorrhea in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis as an example of the approach. Rather than having to guess at the two best treatments to compare based on limited data, we suggest putting more arms in the trial and letting response adaptive randomization (RAR) determine better arms. To ground this study relative to previous literature we first compare RAR, adaptive equal randomization, arm(s) dropping, and a fixed design. Given the goals of this trial we demonstrate that we may avoid "Type III errors"—inadvertently leaving out the best treatment—with little loss in power compared to a two-arm design, even when choosing the correct two arms for the two-armed design. There are appreciable gains in power when the two arms are prescreened at random.