Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics
-
The traditional rule-based design, 3 + 3, has been shown to be less likely to achieve the objectives of dose-finding trials when compared with model-based designs. We propose a new rule-based design called i3 + 3, which is based on simple but more advanced rules that account for the variabilities in the observed data. ⋯ The i3 + 3 design is far superior than the 3 + 3 design in trial safety and the ability to identify the true MTD. Compared with model-based phase I designs, i3 + 3 also demonstrates comparable performances.
-
This work focuses on the modification of two classical phase II trials designs, the A'Hern design, a single-arm single-stage design, and the Sargent and Goldberg design introduced in the context of flexible screening designs. In the first part of the paper, we have proposed a drift-adjusted A'Hern design, a hybrid design combining the A'Hern design and the Sargent and Goldberg design. Indeed, classical single-arm phase II designs such as the A'Hern design are still widely used in oncology. ⋯ The latter, introduced in recent years by Yap et al. and Wu et al., extended the Sargent and Goldberg design to include a comparison to a historical control. However, their sample size computations may have potential weaknesses, which motivated us to revisit the existing approaches. A detailed simulation study has been carried out to evaluate the operating characteristics of the drift-adjusted A'Hern design and the different sample size strategies of the screened selection designs.
-
Comparative Study
Good statistical practice in utilizing real-world data in a comparative study for premarket evaluation of medical devices.
Observational (non-randomized) comparative studies have been adopted in the pre-market safety/effectiveness evaluation of medical devices. There has been an increased interest in utilizing this design with the growing available real-world data. ⋯ In this paper, challenges and opportunities are discussed from the regulatory perspective. Considerations and good statistical practice to mitigate the potential bias are presented.
-
Phase I designs traditionally use the dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), a binary endpoint from the first treatment cycle, to identify the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) assuming a monotonically increasing relationship between dose and efficacy. In this article, we establish a general framework for a multi-stage adaptive design where we jointly model a continuous efficacy outcome and continuous/quasi-continuous toxicity endpoints from multiple treatment cycles. The normalized Total Toxicity Profile (nTTP) is used as an illustration for quasi-continuous toxicity endpoints, and we replace DLT with nTTP to take into account multiple grades and types of toxicities. ⋯ Simulations showed that the design had a high probability of making the correct dose selection and good overdose control across various dose-efficacy and dose-toxicity scenarios. In addition, the proposed design allows for early termination when all doses are too toxic. To our best knowledge, the proposed dual-endpoint dose-finding design is the first such study to incorporate multiple cycles of toxicities and a continuous efficacy outcome.