Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2023

Open Access 01-12-2023 | Research

Optimal trial design selection: a comparative analysis between two-arm and three-arm trials incorporating network meta-analysis for evaluating a new treatment

Authors: Fangshu Ye, Chong Wang, Annette M. O’Connor

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2023

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Planning the design of a new trial comparing two treatments already in a network of trials with an a-priori plan to estimate the effect size using a network meta-analysis increases power or reduces the sample size requirements. However, when the comparison of interest is between a treatment already in the existing network (old treatment) and a treatment that hasn’t been studied previously (new treatment), the impact of leveraging information from the existing network to inform trial design has not been extensively investigated. We aim to identify the most powerful trial design for a comparison of interest between an old treatment A and a new treatment Z, given a fixed total sample size. We consider three possible designs: a two-arm trial between A and Z (’direct two-arm’), a two-arm trial between another old treatment B and Z (’indirect two-arm’), and a three-arm trial among A, B, and Z.

Methods

We compare the standard error of the estimated effect size between treatments A and Z for each of the three trial designs using formulas. For continuous outcomes, the direct two-arm trial always has the largest power, while for a binary outcome, the minimum variances among the three trial designs are conclusive only when \(p_A(1-p_A) \ge p_B(1-p_B)\). Simulation studies are conducted to demonstrate the potential for the indirect two-arm and three-arm trials to outperform the direct two-arm trial in terms of power under the condition of \(p_A(1-p_A) < p_B(1-p_B)\).

Results

Based on the simulation results, we observe that the indirect two-arm and three-arm trials have the potential to be more powerful than a direct two-arm trial only when \(p_A(1-p_A) < p_B(1-p_B)\). This power advantage is influenced by various factors, including the risk of the three treatments, the total sample size, and the standard error of the estimated effect size from the existing network meta-analysis.

Conclusions

The standard two-arm trial design between two treatments in the comparison of interest may not always be the most powerful design. Utilizing information from the existing network meta-analysis, incorporating an additional old treatment into the trial design through an indirect two-arm trial or a three-arm trial can increase power.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Salanti G, Nikolakopoulou A, Sutton AJ, Reichenbach S, Trelle S, Naci H, et al. Planning a future randomized clinical trial based on a network of relevant past trials. Trials. 2018;19(1):1–7.CrossRef Salanti G, Nikolakopoulou A, Sutton AJ, Reichenbach S, Trelle S, Naci H, et al. Planning a future randomized clinical trial based on a network of relevant past trials. Trials. 2018;19(1):1–7.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Nikolakopoulou A, Mavridis D, Salanti G. Using conditional power of network meta-analysis (NMA) to inform the design of future clinical trials. Biom J. 2014;56(6):973–90.CrossRefPubMed Nikolakopoulou A, Mavridis D, Salanti G. Using conditional power of network meta-analysis (NMA) to inform the design of future clinical trials. Biom J. 2014;56(6):973–90.CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Sedrakyan N. About the applications of one useful inequality. Kvant J. 1997;97(2):42–4. Sedrakyan N. About the applications of one useful inequality. Kvant J. 1997;97(2):42–4.
4.
go back to reference Storn R, Price K. Differential evolution-a simple and efficient heuristic for global optimization over continuous spaces. J Glob Optim. 1997;11(4):341–59.CrossRef Storn R, Price K. Differential evolution-a simple and efficient heuristic for global optimization over continuous spaces. J Glob Optim. 1997;11(4):341–59.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference O’Connor A, Yuan C, Cullen J, Coetzee J, Da Silva N, Wang C. A mixed treatment meta-analysis of antibiotic treatment options for bovine respiratory disease-an update. Prev Vet Med. 2016;132:130–9.CrossRefPubMed O’Connor A, Yuan C, Cullen J, Coetzee J, Da Silva N, Wang C. A mixed treatment meta-analysis of antibiotic treatment options for bovine respiratory disease-an update. Prev Vet Med. 2016;132:130–9.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Pallmann P, Bedding AW, Choodari-Oskooei B, Dimairo M, Flight L, Hampson LV, et al. Adaptive designs in clinical trials: why use them, and how to run and report them. BMC Med. 2018;16(1):1–15.CrossRef Pallmann P, Bedding AW, Choodari-Oskooei B, Dimairo M, Flight L, Hampson LV, et al. Adaptive designs in clinical trials: why use them, and how to run and report them. BMC Med. 2018;16(1):1–15.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Lu Y, Zhou J, Xing L, Zhang X. The optimal design of clinical trials with potential biomarker effects: A novel computational approach. Stat Med. 2021;40(7):1752–66.CrossRefPubMed Lu Y, Zhou J, Xing L, Zhang X. The optimal design of clinical trials with potential biomarker effects: A novel computational approach. Stat Med. 2021;40(7):1752–66.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Optimal trial design selection: a comparative analysis between two-arm and three-arm trials incorporating network meta-analysis for evaluating a new treatment
Authors
Fangshu Ye
Chong Wang
Annette M. O’Connor
Publication date
01-12-2023
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2023
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-023-02089-y

Other articles of this Issue 1/2023

BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2023 Go to the issue