Cargando…

Blinded and unblinded sample size reestimation in crossover trials balanced for period

The determination of the sample size required by a crossover trial typically depends on the specification of one or more variance components. Uncertainty about the value of these parameters at the design stage means that there is often a risk a trial may be under‐ or overpowered. For many study desi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Grayling, Michael J., Mander, Adrian P., Wason, James M. S.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6175184/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30073679
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bimj.201700092
_version_ 1783361445305516032
author Grayling, Michael J.
Mander, Adrian P.
Wason, James M. S.
author_facet Grayling, Michael J.
Mander, Adrian P.
Wason, James M. S.
author_sort Grayling, Michael J.
collection PubMed
description The determination of the sample size required by a crossover trial typically depends on the specification of one or more variance components. Uncertainty about the value of these parameters at the design stage means that there is often a risk a trial may be under‐ or overpowered. For many study designs, this problem has been addressed by considering adaptive design methodology that allows for the re‐estimation of the required sample size during a trial. Here, we propose and compare several approaches for this in multitreatment crossover trials. Specifically, regulators favor reestimation procedures to maintain the blinding of the treatment allocations. We therefore develop blinded estimators for the within and between person variances, following simple or block randomization. We demonstrate that, provided an equal number of patients are allocated to sequences that are balanced for period, the proposed estimators following block randomization are unbiased. We further provide a formula for the bias of the estimators following simple randomization. The performance of these procedures, along with that of an unblinded approach, is then examined utilizing three motivating examples, including one based on a recently completed four‐treatment four‐period crossover trial. Simulation results show that the performance of the proposed blinded procedures is in many cases similar to that of the unblinded approach, and thus they are an attractive alternative.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6175184
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-61751842018-10-15 Blinded and unblinded sample size reestimation in crossover trials balanced for period Grayling, Michael J. Mander, Adrian P. Wason, James M. S. Biom J Issues in Complex Clinical Trials The determination of the sample size required by a crossover trial typically depends on the specification of one or more variance components. Uncertainty about the value of these parameters at the design stage means that there is often a risk a trial may be under‐ or overpowered. For many study designs, this problem has been addressed by considering adaptive design methodology that allows for the re‐estimation of the required sample size during a trial. Here, we propose and compare several approaches for this in multitreatment crossover trials. Specifically, regulators favor reestimation procedures to maintain the blinding of the treatment allocations. We therefore develop blinded estimators for the within and between person variances, following simple or block randomization. We demonstrate that, provided an equal number of patients are allocated to sequences that are balanced for period, the proposed estimators following block randomization are unbiased. We further provide a formula for the bias of the estimators following simple randomization. The performance of these procedures, along with that of an unblinded approach, is then examined utilizing three motivating examples, including one based on a recently completed four‐treatment four‐period crossover trial. Simulation results show that the performance of the proposed blinded procedures is in many cases similar to that of the unblinded approach, and thus they are an attractive alternative. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018-08-03 2018-09 /pmc/articles/PMC6175184/ /pubmed/30073679 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bimj.201700092 Text en © 2018 The Authors. Biometrical Journal Published by WILEY‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Issues in Complex Clinical Trials
Grayling, Michael J.
Mander, Adrian P.
Wason, James M. S.
Blinded and unblinded sample size reestimation in crossover trials balanced for period
title Blinded and unblinded sample size reestimation in crossover trials balanced for period
title_full Blinded and unblinded sample size reestimation in crossover trials balanced for period
title_fullStr Blinded and unblinded sample size reestimation in crossover trials balanced for period
title_full_unstemmed Blinded and unblinded sample size reestimation in crossover trials balanced for period
title_short Blinded and unblinded sample size reestimation in crossover trials balanced for period
title_sort blinded and unblinded sample size reestimation in crossover trials balanced for period
topic Issues in Complex Clinical Trials
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6175184/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30073679
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bimj.201700092
work_keys_str_mv AT graylingmichaelj blindedandunblindedsamplesizereestimationincrossovertrialsbalancedforperiod
AT manderadrianp blindedandunblindedsamplesizereestimationincrossovertrialsbalancedforperiod
AT wasonjamesms blindedandunblindedsamplesizereestimationincrossovertrialsbalancedforperiod