Abstract
Importance Bayesian adaptive trial design has the potential to create more efficient clinical trials. However, one of the barriers to the uptake of Bayesian adaptive designs for confirmatory trials is limited experience with how they may perform compared to a frequentist design.
Objective Compare the performance of a Bayesian and a frequentist adaptive clinical trial design.
Design Prospective observational study comparing two trial designs using individual patient level data from a completed stroke trial, including the timing and order of enrollments and outcome ascertainment. The implemented frequentist design had group sequential boundaries for efficacy and futility interim analyses when 90-days post-randomization was met for 500, 700, 900, and 1,100 patients. The Bayesian alternative utilized predictive probability of trial success to govern early termination for efficacy and futility with a first interim analysis at 500 randomized patients, and subsequent interims after every 100 randomizations.
Setting Multi-center, acute stroke study conducted within a National Institutes of Health neurological emergencies clinical trials network.
Participants Patient level data from 1,151 patients randomized in a clinical trial comparing intensive insulin therapy to standard in acute stroke patients with hyperglycemia.
Main Outcome(s) and Measure(s) Sample size at end of study. This was defined as the sample size at which each of the studies stopped accrual of patients.
Results As conducted, the frequentist design passed the futility boundary after 936 participants were randomized. Using the same sequence and timing of randomization and outcome data, the Bayesian alternative crossed the futility boundary about 3 months earlier after 800 participants were randomized.
Conclusions and Relevance Both trial designs stopped for futility prior to reaching the planned maximum sample size. In both cases, the clinical community and patients would benefit from learning the answer to the trial’s primary question earlier. The common feature across the two designs was frequent interim analyses to stop early for efficacy or for futility. Differences between how this was implemented between the two trials resulted in the differences in early stopping.
Trial Registration The SHINE trial was registered and results are reported on clinicaltrials.gov under identifier: NCT01369069
Competing Interest Statement
Ms. Broglio and Dr. Connor were formerly employed by Berry Consultants, LLC. Dr. Meurer currently is a consultant to Berry Consultants. Dr. Lewis is a part time employee of Berry Consultants, LLC. Donald Berry, PhD is an owner and founder of Berry Consultants, LLC.
Clinical Trial
NCT01369069
Funding Statement
The SHINE trial was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health - National Institutes of Neurological Disorders and Stroke U01 NS069498, U01 NS056975, and U01 NS059041. ADAPT-IT was funded by the NIH Common Fund and the FDA, U01NS073476.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The research was conducted with a dataset free of personal identifiers. The data coordinating center did not have access to trial participant identities and the investigators could not link the data to individuals. This was considered a non-regulated activity by the University of Michigan IRBMED.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
krbroglio{at}gmail.com, durkalsv{at}musc.edu, wuqqi{at}musc.edu, jason{at}confluencestat.com, don{at}berryconsultants.net, roger{at}emedharbor.edu, kj4v{at}virginia.edu, wbarsan{at}med.umich.edu
Data Availability
Dr. Durkalski and Ms. Broglio can attest to the integrity of the data analysis and access. While the investigators used the trial database, other individuals can obtain the trial data from the National Institutes of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Archived Clinical Research Datasets available online. The code to run the simulations is available at the DeepBlue University of Michigan archive.