Cargando…

Point estimation for adaptive trial designs I: A methodological review

Recent FDA guidance on adaptive clinical trial designs defines bias as “a systematic tendency for the estimate of treatment effect to deviate from its true value,” and states that it is desirable to obtain and report estimates of treatment effects that reduce or remove this bias. The conventional en...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Robertson, David S., Choodari‐Oskooei, Babak, Dimairo, Munya, Flight, Laura, Pallmann, Philip, Jaki, Thomas
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7613995/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36451173
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sim.9605
_version_ 1783605550425047040
author Robertson, David S.
Choodari‐Oskooei, Babak
Dimairo, Munya
Flight, Laura
Pallmann, Philip
Jaki, Thomas
author_facet Robertson, David S.
Choodari‐Oskooei, Babak
Dimairo, Munya
Flight, Laura
Pallmann, Philip
Jaki, Thomas
author_sort Robertson, David S.
collection PubMed
description Recent FDA guidance on adaptive clinical trial designs defines bias as “a systematic tendency for the estimate of treatment effect to deviate from its true value,” and states that it is desirable to obtain and report estimates of treatment effects that reduce or remove this bias. The conventional end‐of‐trial point estimates of the treatment effects are prone to bias in many adaptive designs, because they do not take into account the potential and realized trial adaptations. While much of the methodological developments on adaptive designs have tended to focus on control of type I error rates and power considerations, in contrast the question of biased estimation has received relatively less attention. This article is the first in a two‐part series that studies the issue of potential bias in point estimation for adaptive trials. Part I provides a comprehensive review of the methods to remove or reduce the potential bias in point estimation of treatment effects for adaptive designs, while part II illustrates how to implement these in practice and proposes a set of guidelines for trial statisticians. The methods reviewed in this article can be broadly classified into unbiased and bias‐reduced estimation, and we also provide a classification of estimators by the type of adaptive design. We compare the proposed methods, highlight available software and code, and discuss potential methodological gaps in the literature.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7613995
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-76139952023-01-30 Point estimation for adaptive trial designs I: A methodological review Robertson, David S. Choodari‐Oskooei, Babak Dimairo, Munya Flight, Laura Pallmann, Philip Jaki, Thomas Stat Med Research Articles Recent FDA guidance on adaptive clinical trial designs defines bias as “a systematic tendency for the estimate of treatment effect to deviate from its true value,” and states that it is desirable to obtain and report estimates of treatment effects that reduce or remove this bias. The conventional end‐of‐trial point estimates of the treatment effects are prone to bias in many adaptive designs, because they do not take into account the potential and realized trial adaptations. While much of the methodological developments on adaptive designs have tended to focus on control of type I error rates and power considerations, in contrast the question of biased estimation has received relatively less attention. This article is the first in a two‐part series that studies the issue of potential bias in point estimation for adaptive trials. Part I provides a comprehensive review of the methods to remove or reduce the potential bias in point estimation of treatment effects for adaptive designs, while part II illustrates how to implement these in practice and proposes a set of guidelines for trial statisticians. The methods reviewed in this article can be broadly classified into unbiased and bias‐reduced estimation, and we also provide a classification of estimators by the type of adaptive design. We compare the proposed methods, highlight available software and code, and discuss potential methodological gaps in the literature. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2022-11-30 2023-01-30 /pmc/articles/PMC7613995/ /pubmed/36451173 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sim.9605 Text en © 2022 The Authors. Statistics in Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Articles
Robertson, David S.
Choodari‐Oskooei, Babak
Dimairo, Munya
Flight, Laura
Pallmann, Philip
Jaki, Thomas
Point estimation for adaptive trial designs I: A methodological review
title Point estimation for adaptive trial designs I: A methodological review
title_full Point estimation for adaptive trial designs I: A methodological review
title_fullStr Point estimation for adaptive trial designs I: A methodological review
title_full_unstemmed Point estimation for adaptive trial designs I: A methodological review
title_short Point estimation for adaptive trial designs I: A methodological review
title_sort point estimation for adaptive trial designs i: a methodological review
topic Research Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7613995/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36451173
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sim.9605
work_keys_str_mv AT robertsondavids pointestimationforadaptivetrialdesignsiamethodologicalreview
AT choodarioskooeibabak pointestimationforadaptivetrialdesignsiamethodologicalreview
AT dimairomunya pointestimationforadaptivetrialdesignsiamethodologicalreview
AT flightlaura pointestimationforadaptivetrialdesignsiamethodologicalreview
AT pallmannphilip pointestimationforadaptivetrialdesignsiamethodologicalreview
AT jakithomas pointestimationforadaptivetrialdesignsiamethodologicalreview