Predictive Probabilities Made Simple: A Fast and Accurate Method for Clinical Trial Decision Making
Authors:
Joe Marion,
Liz Lorenzi,
Cora Allen-Savietta,
Scott Berry,
Kert Viele
Abstract:
Bayesian predictive probabilities are commonly used for interim monitoring of clinical trials through efficacy and futility stopping rules. Despite their usefulness, calculation of predictive probabilities, particularly in pre-experiment trial simulation, can be a significant challenge. We introduce an approximation for computing predictive probabilities using either a p-value or a posterior proba…
▽ More
Bayesian predictive probabilities are commonly used for interim monitoring of clinical trials through efficacy and futility stopping rules. Despite their usefulness, calculation of predictive probabilities, particularly in pre-experiment trial simulation, can be a significant challenge. We introduce an approximation for computing predictive probabilities using either a p-value or a posterior probability that significantly reduces this burden. We show the approximation has a high degree of concordance with standard Monte Carlo imputation methods for computing predictive probabilities, and present five simulation studies comparing the approximation to the full predictive probability for a range of primary analysis strategies: dichotomous, time-to-event, and ordinal endpoints, as well as historical borrowing and longitudinal modeling. We find that this faster method of predictive probability approximation works well in all five applications, thus significantly reducing the computational burden of trial simulation, allowing more virtual trials to be simulated to achieve greater precision in estimating trial operating characteristics.
△ Less
Submitted 17 June, 2024;
originally announced June 2024.
On model-based time trend adjustments in platform trials with non-concurrent controls
Authors:
Marta Bofill Roig,
Pavla Krotka,
Carl-Fredrik Burman,
Ekkehard Glimm,
Stefan M. Gold,
Katharina Hees,
Peter Jacko,
Franz Koenig,
Dominic Magirr,
Peter Mesenbrink,
Kert Viele,
Martin Posch
Abstract:
Platform trials can evaluate the efficacy of several treatments compared to a control. The number of treatments is not fixed, as arms may be added or removed as the trial progresses. Platform trials are more efficient than independent parallel-group trials because of using shared control groups. For arms entering the trial later, not all patients in the control group are randomised concurrently. T…
▽ More
Platform trials can evaluate the efficacy of several treatments compared to a control. The number of treatments is not fixed, as arms may be added or removed as the trial progresses. Platform trials are more efficient than independent parallel-group trials because of using shared control groups. For arms entering the trial later, not all patients in the control group are randomised concurrently. The control group is then divided into concurrent and non-concurrent controls. Using non-concurrent controls (NCC) can improve the trial's efficiency, but can introduce bias due to time trends. We focus on a platform trial with two treatment arms and a common control arm. Assuming that the second treatment arm is added later, we assess the robustness of model-based approaches to adjust for time trends when using NCC. We consider approaches where time trends are modeled as linear or as a step function, with steps at times where arms enter or leave the trial. For trials with continuous or binary outcomes, we investigate the type 1 error (t1e) rate and power of testing the efficacy of the newly added arm under a range of scenarios. In addition to scenarios where time trends are equal across arms, we investigate settings with trends that are different or not additive in the model scale. A step function model fitted on data from all arms gives increased power while controlling the t1e, as long as the time trends are equal for the different arms and additive on the model scale. This holds even if the trend's shape deviates from a step function if block randomisation is used. But if trends differ between arms or are not additive on the model scale, t1e control may be lost. The efficiency gained by using step function models to incorporate NCC can outweigh potential biases. However, the specifics of the trial, plausibility of different time trends, and robustness of results should be considered
△ Less
Submitted 26 July, 2022; v1 submitted 13 December, 2021;
originally announced December 2021.
