Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28886745›Full record

Trial reportTrials2017

Bayesian dose selection design for a binary outcome using restricted response adaptive randomization.

Caitlyn Meinzer, Renee Martin, Jose I Suarez

Abstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Trials, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Caitlyn MeinzerData Coordination Unit, Department of Public Health Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, 135 Cannon Street, Charleston, SC, USA. ellerbcn@musc.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-9905-4329
Renee MartinData Coordination Unit, Department of Public Health Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, 135 Cannon Street, Charleston, SC, USA.
Jose I SuarezDivision of Neurocritical Care, Departments of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Neurology, and Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins University, Houston, TX, USA.

Funding

Workshop to Identify Collaborative Project(s) for the NIH StrokeNet and the Japan NEtwork for Clinical Stroke Trials (NECST)U01NS087748 · NINDS · MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA · PI Catherine R. Dillon, Jordan J. Elm · 2014 to 2026
$14.1M
NINDS NIH HHS U01 NS087748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn phase II trials, the most efficacious dose is usually not known. Moreover, given limited resources, it is difficult to robustly identify a dose while also testing for a signal of efficacy that would support a phase III trial. Recent designs have sought to be more efficient by exploring multiple doses through the use of adaptive strategies. However, the added flexibility may potentially increase the risk of making incorrect assumptions and reduce the total amount of information available across the dose range as a function of imbalanced sample size.

methodsTo balance these challenges, a novel placebo-controlled design is presented in which a restricted Bayesian response adaptive randomization (RAR) is used to allocate a majority of subjects to the optimal dose of active drug, defined as the dose with the lowest probability of poor outcome. However, the allocation between subjects who receive active drug or placebo is held constant to retain the maximum possible power for a hypothesis test of overall efficacy comparing the optimal dose to placebo. The design properties and optimization of the design are presented in the context of a phase II trial for subarachnoid hemorrhage.

resultsFor a fixed total sample size, a trade-off exists between the ability to select the optimal dose and the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis. This relationship is modified by the allocation ratio between active and control subjects, the choice of RAR algorithm, and the number of subjects allocated to an initial fixed allocation period. While a responsive RAR algorithm improves the ability to select the correct dose, there is an increased risk of assigning more subjects to a worse arm as a function of ephemeral trends in the data. A subarachnoid treatment trial is used to illustrate how this design can be customized for specific objectives and available data.

conclusionsBayesian adaptive designs are a flexible approach to addressing multiple questions surrounding the optimal dose for treatment efficacy within the context of limited resources. While the design is general enough to apply to many situations, future work is needed to address interim analyses and the incorporation of models for dose response.

Indexed as

Bayes TheoremResearch DesignAlgorithmsDose-Response Relationship, DrugDrug Dosage CalculationsHumansInfusions, IntravenousNeuroprotective AgentsPilot ProjectsProspective StudiesSerum Albumin, HumanSubarachnoid HemorrhageTreatment OutcomeALB protein, humanNeuroprotective AgentsSerum Albumin, HumanAdaptive designBayesian designClinical trialDose selectionPhase IIResponse adaptive randomization

Identifiers

PMID28886745
PMCPMC5591573

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.