title: Building efficient comparative effectiveness trials through adaptive designs, utility functions, and accrual rate optimization: finding the sweet spot.
abstract: The time is right for the use of Bayesian Adaptive Designs (BAD) in comparative effectiveness trials. For example, Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute has joined the Food and Drug Administration and National Intitutes of Health in adopting policies/guidelines encouraging their use. There are multiple aspects to BAD that need to be considered when designing a comparative effectiveness design. First, the adaptation rules can determine the expected size of the trial. Second, a utility function can be used to combine extremely important co-endpoints (e.g., efficacy and tolerability) and is a valuable tool for incorporating clinical expertise and potentially patient preference. Third, accrual rate is also very, very important. Specifically, there is a juxtaposition related to accrual and BAD. If accrual rate is too fast we never gain efficient information for adapting. If accrual rate is too slow we never finish the clinical trial. We propose methodology for finding the 'sweet spot' for BAD that addresses these as design parameters. We demonstrate the methodology on a comparative effectiveness BAD of pharmaceutical agents in cryptogenic sensory polyneuropathy. The study has five arms with two endpoints that are combined with a utility function. The accrual rate is assumed to stem from multiple sites. We perform simulations from which the composite accrual rates across sites result in various piecewise Poisson distributions as parameter inputs. We balance both average number of patients needed and average length of time to finish the study.
authors: Department of Biostatistics, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, 66160, KS, U.S.A.
authors: Byron J
authors: BJ
authors: Gajewski
authors: Scott M
authors: SM
authors: Berry
authors: Melanie
authors: M
authors: Quintana
authors: Mamatha
authors: M
authors: Pasnoor
authors: Mazen
authors: M
authors: Dimachkie
authors: Laura
authors: L
authors: Herbelin
authors: Richard
authors: R
authors: Barohn
mesh_terms: D000465:Algorithms; D001499:Bayes Theorem; D056808:Biostatistics / Q000379:methods*; D002986:Clinical Trials as Topic / Q000379:methods* / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D003198:Computer Simulation; D006801:Humans; D015233:Models, Statistical; D063868:Patient Outcome Assessment; D011115:Polyneuropathies / Q000188:drug therapy; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic / Q000379:methods / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D012984:Software
keywords: Bayesian adaptive design; accrual; comparative effectiveness; group sequential monitoring; patient centered outcomes
references: Stat Med. 2008 Jun 15;27(13):2328-40
references: 17979152
references: Stat Med. 2010 Mar 15;29(6):649-58
references: 20082363
references: Pharm Stat. 2011 Jan-Feb;10(1):50-9
references: 20112277
references: Int J Stat Probab. 2012 Nov 1;1(2):p43
references: 23869201
references: Biostatistics. 2007 Jul;8(3):595-608
references: 17030589
references: Stat Med. 2012 Nov 10;31(25):2955-72
references: 22711340
references: Clin Trials. 2009 Jun;6(3):205-16
references: 19528130
references: J Biopharm Stat. 2011 Sep;21(5):938-53
references: 21830924
references: J Clin Epidemiol. 2013 Aug;66(8 Suppl):S130-7
references: 23849147
references: J Biopharm Stat. 2012;22(3):425-37
references: 22416833
references: Biometrics. 1999 Sep;55(3):971-7
references: 11315037
references: Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2006 Jan;5(1):27-36
references: 16485344
references: Clin Trials. 2010 Apr;7(2):121-35
references: 20338905
references: Biometrics. 2004 Sep;60(3):684-93
references: 15339291
references: Stat Med. 2007 Nov 30;26(27):4958-75
references: 17639505
references: Neurol Clin. 2013 May;31(2):463-76
references: 23642719
references: Stat Med. 2012 May 20;31(11-12):1002-13
references: 21905067
references: Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2012 Apr;9(4):199-207
references: 22064459
references: J Urol. 2006 Jul;176(1):263-6
references: 16753417