Journal
MEDICAL DECISION MAKING
Volume 42, Issue 4, Pages 461-473Publisher
SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X211045036
Keywords
adaptive designs; clinical trials; expected value of sample information; bias adjustment; value of information analysis
Ask authors/readers for more resources
This study introduces the incorporation of health economic considerations into adaptive trial designs and demonstrates how to estimate the expected value of sample information and expected net benefit through a case study. Results indicate that the O'Brien-Fleming stopping rule with 2 analyses was the most efficient design in the case study.
Introduction Adaptive designs allow changes to an ongoing trial based on prespecified early examinations of accrued data. Opportunities are potentially being missed to incorporate health economic considerations into the design of these studies. Methods We describe how to estimate the expected value of sample information for group sequential design adaptive trials. We operationalize this approach in a hypothetical case study using data from a pilot trial. We report the expected value of sample information and expected net benefit of sampling results for 5 design options for the future full-scale trial including the fixed-sample-size design and the group sequential design using either the Pocock stopping rule or the O'Brien-Fleming stopping rule with 2 or 5 analyses. We considered 2 scenarios relating to 1) using the cost-effectiveness model with a traditional approach to the health economic analysis and 2) adjusting the cost-effectiveness analysis to incorporate the bias-adjusted maximum likelihood estimates of trial outcomes to account for the bias that can be generated in adaptive trials. Results The case study demonstrated that the methods developed could be successfully applied in practice. The results showed that the O'Brien-Fleming stopping rule with 2 analyses was the most efficient design with the highest expected net benefit of sampling in the case study. Conclusions Cost-effectiveness considerations are unavoidable in budget-constrained, publicly funded health care systems, and adaptive designs can provide an alternative to costly fixed-sample-size designs. We recommend that when planning a clinical trial, expected value of sample information methods be used to compare possible adaptive and nonadaptive trial designs, with appropriate adjustment, to help justify the choice of design characteristics and ensure the cost-effective use of research funding.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available