Dataset Information

A placebo-controlled Bayesian dose finding design based on continuous reassessment method with application to stroke research.

ABSTRACT: Traditional dose-finding designs do not require assignment of patients to a control group. Motivated by SHRINC (Safety of Pioglitazone for hematoma resolution in intracerebral hemorrhage), we developed a placebo-controlled dose-finding study to identify the maximum tolerated dose for pioglitazone in stroke patients with spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage. We designed an extension of the continuous reassessment method that allowed to incorporate information from the control group (i.e., the standard of care), and utilized it to determine the maximum tolerated dose in the SHRINC trial. We evaluated the operating characteristics of our design by conducting extensive simulation studies. Our findings from the simulation studies demonstrate that our proposed design is robust and performs well. By estimating the toxicity rate in the control group, we were able to obtain more accurate information about the natural history of the disease and identify appropriate dose for the next phase of this study. The proposed design provides a tool to incorporate the information from the control group into the dose-finding framework for trials with similar objectives.

SUBMITTER: Cai C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5650116 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A placebo-controlled Bayesian dose finding design based on continuous reassessment method with application to stroke research.

Cai Chunyan C Rahbar Mohammad H MH Hossain Md Monir MM Yuan Ying Y Gonzales Nicole R NR

Contemporary clinical trials communications 20170506

Traditional dose-finding designs do not require assignment of patients to a control group. Motivated by SHRINC (Safety of Pioglitazone for hematoma resolution in intracerebral hemorrhage), we developed a placebo-controlled dose-finding study to identify the maximum tolerated dose for pioglitazone in stroke patients with spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage. We designed an extension of the continuous reassessment method that allowed to incorporate information from the control group (i.e., the sta ...[more]

PMID: 29062975

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThe continual reassessment method (CRM) is a model-based design for phase I trials, which aims to find the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of a new therapy. The CRM has been shown to be more accurate in targeting the MTD than traditional rule-based approaches such as the 3 + 3 design, which is used in most phase I trials. Furthermore, the CRM has been shown to assign more trial participants at or close to the MTD than the 3 + 3 design. However, the CRM's uptake in clinical research has been incredibly slow, putting trial participants, drug development and patients at risk. Barriers to increasing the use of the CRM have been identified, most notably a lack of knowledge amongst clinicians and statisticians on how to apply new designs in practice. No recent tutorial, guidelines, or recommendations for clinicians on conducting dose-finding studies using the CRM are available. Furthermore, practical resources to support clinicians considering the CRM for their trials are scarce.MethodsTo help overcome these barriers, we present a structured framework for designing a dose-finding study using the CRM. We give recommendations for key design parameters and advise on conducting pre-trial simulation work to tailor the design to a specific trial. We provide practical tools to support clinicians and statisticians, including software recommendations, and template text and tables that can be edited and inserted into a trial protocol. We also give guidance on how to conduct and report dose-finding studies using the CRM.ResultsAn initial set of design recommendations are provided to kick-start the design process. To complement these and the additional resources, we describe two published dose-finding trials that used the CRM. We discuss their designs, how they were conducted and analysed, and compare them to what would have happened under a 3 + 3 design.ConclusionsThe framework and resources we provide are aimed at clinicians and statisticians new to the CRM design. Provision of key resources in this contemporary guidance paper will hopefully improve the uptake of the CRM in phase I dose-finding trials.

Project description:An extensive literature has covered the statistical properties of the Continual Reassessment Method (CRM) and the modifications of this method. While there are some applications of CRM designs in recent Phase I trials, the standard method (SM) of escalating doses after three patients with an option for an additional three patients SM remains very popular, mainly due to its simplicity. From a practical perspective, clinicians are interested in designs that can estimate the MTD using fewer patients for a fixed number of doses, or can test more dose levels for a given sample size.This article compares CRM-based methods with the SM in terms of the number of patients needed to reach the MTD, total sample size required, and trial duration.The comparisons are performed under two alternative schemes: a fixed or a varying sample approach with the implementation of a stopping rule. The stopping rule halts the trial if the confidence interval around the MTD is within a pre-specified bound. Our simulations evaluated several CRM-based methods under different scenarios by varying the number of dose levels from five to eight and the location of the true MTD.CRM and SM are comparable in terms of how fast they reach the MTD and the total sample size required when testing a limited number of dose levels (<or=5), but as the number of dose levels increases, CRM reaches the MTD in fewer patients when used with a fixed sample of 20 patients. However, a sample size of 20-25 patients is not sufficient to achieve a narrow precision around the estimated toxicity rate at the MTD.We focused on methods with practical design features that are of interest to clinicians. However, there are several alternative CRM-based designs that are not investigated in this manuscript, and hence our results are not generalizable to other designs.We show that CRM-based methods are an improvement over the SM in terms of accuracy and optimal dose allocation in almost all cases, except when the true dose is among the lower levels.

Project description:BACKGROUND:This article studies the notion of irrational dose assignment in Phase I clinical trials. This property was recently defined by Zhou and colleagues as a dose assignment that fails to de-escalate the dose when two out of three, three out of six, or four out of six patients have experienced a dose-limiting toxicity event at the current dose level. The authors claimed that a drawback of the well-known continual reassessment method is that it can result in irrational dose assignments. The aim of this article is to examine this definition of irrationality more closely within the conduct of the continual reassessment method. METHODS:Over a broad range of assumed dose-limiting toxicity probability scenarios for six study dose levels and a variety of target dose-limiting toxicity rates, we simulated 2000 trials of n = 36 patients. For each scenario, we counted the number of irrational dose assignments that were made by the continual reassessment method, according to the definitions of Zhou and colleagues. For each of the irrational decisions made, we classified the dose assignment as an underdose assignment, a target dose assignment, or an overdose assignment based on the true dose-limiting toxicity probability at that dose. RESULTS:Across eight dose-toxicity scenarios, there were a total of 181,581 dose assignments made in the simulation study. Of these assignments, 8165 (4.5%) decisions were made when two out of three, three out of six, or four out of six patients had experienced a dose-limiting toxicity at the current dose. Of these 8165 decisions, 1505 (18.4%) recommended staying at the current dose level and would therefore be classified as irrational by Zhou and colleagues. Among the irrational decisions, 41.2% were misclassified, meaning they were made either at the true target dose (17.9%) or at a true underdose (23.3%). The remaining 58.8% were made at a true overdose and therefore truly irrational. Overall, irrational dose assignments comprised <1% of the total dose assignments made during the simulation study. Similar findings are reported in simulations across 100 randomly generated dose-toxicity scenarios from a recently proposed family of curves. CONCLUSION:Zhou and colleagues argue that the behavior of the continual reassessment method is disturbing due to its ability to make irrational dose assignments. These definitions are based on rules that mimic the popular 3 + 3 design, which should not be the benchmark used to construct guidelines for trial conduct of modern Phase I methods. Our study illustrates that these dose assignments occur very seldom in the continual reassessment method and that even when they do occur, they can often be considered sensible when accounting for all accumulated data in the study.

Dataset Information

A placebo-controlled Bayesian dose finding design based on continuous reassessment method with application to stroke research.

Publications

A placebo-controlled Bayesian dose finding design based on continuous reassessment method with application to stroke research.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets