Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research article

Value of information methods to design a clinical trial in a small population to optimise a health economic utility function

Authors: Michael Pearce, Siew Wan Hee, Jason Madan, Martin Posch, Simon Day, Frank Miller, Sarah Zohar, Nigel Stallard

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Most confirmatory randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) are designed with specified power, usually 80% or 90%, for a hypothesis test conducted at a given significance level, usually 2.5% for a one-sided test. Approval of the experimental treatment by regulatory agencies is then based on the result of such a significance test with other information to balance the risk of adverse events against the benefit of the treatment to future patients. In the setting of a rare disease, recruiting sufficient patients to achieve conventional error rates for clinically reasonable effect sizes may be infeasible, suggesting that the decision-making process should reflect the size of the target population.

Methods

We considered the use of a decision-theoretic value of information (VOI) method to obtain the optimal sample size and significance level for confirmatory RCTs in a range of settings. We assume the decision maker represents society. For simplicity we assume the primary endpoint to be normally distributed with unknown mean following some normal prior distribution representing information on the anticipated effectiveness of the therapy available before the trial. The method is illustrated by an application in an RCT in haemophilia A. We explicitly specify the utility in terms of improvement in primary outcome and compare this with the costs of treating patients, both financial and in terms of potential harm, during the trial and in the future.

Results

The optimal sample size for the clinical trial decreases as the size of the population decreases. For non-zero cost of treating future patients, either monetary or in terms of potential harmful effects, stronger evidence is required for approval as the population size increases, though this is not the case if the costs of treating future patients are ignored.

Conclusions

Decision-theoretic VOI methods offer a flexible approach with both type I error rate and power (or equivalently trial sample size) depending on the size of the future population for whom the treatment under investigation is intended. This might be particularly suitable for small populations when there is considerable information about the patient population.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
2.
go back to reference Bell SA, Tudur Smith C. A comparison of interventional clinical trials in rare versus non-rare diseases: an analysis of clinicaltrials.gov. Orhpanet J Rare Dis. 2014; 9:1–11.CrossRef Bell SA, Tudur Smith C. A comparison of interventional clinical trials in rare versus non-rare diseases: an analysis of clinicaltrials.gov. Orhpanet J Rare Dis. 2014; 9:1–11.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Hee SW, Willis A, Tudur Smith C, Day S, Miller F, Madan J, Posch M, Zohar S, Stallard N. Does the low prevalence affect the sample size of interventional clinical trials of rare diseases? An analysis of data from the aggregate analysis of clinicaltrials.gov. Orhpanet J Rare Dis. 2017; 12:44.CrossRef Hee SW, Willis A, Tudur Smith C, Day S, Miller F, Madan J, Posch M, Zohar S, Stallard N. Does the low prevalence affect the sample size of interventional clinical trials of rare diseases? An analysis of data from the aggregate analysis of clinicaltrials.gov. Orhpanet J Rare Dis. 2017; 12:44.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Hee SW, Hamborg T, Day S, Madan J, Miller F, Posch M, Zohar S, Stallard N. Decision-theoretic designs for small trials and pilot studies: a review. Stat Methods Med Res. 2016; 25:1022–38.CrossRefPubMed Hee SW, Hamborg T, Day S, Madan J, Miller F, Posch M, Zohar S, Stallard N. Decision-theoretic designs for small trials and pilot studies: a review. Stat Methods Med Res. 2016; 25:1022–38.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Blanck TJJ, Conahan TJ, Merin RG, Prager RL, Richter JJ. Bayesian Methods and Ethics in a Clinical Trial Design In: Kadane JB, editor. New York: Wiley: 1996. p. 159–62. Blanck TJJ, Conahan TJ, Merin RG, Prager RL, Richter JJ. Bayesian Methods and Ethics in a Clinical Trial Design In: Kadane JB, editor. New York: Wiley: 1996. p. 159–62.
6.
go back to reference Chaloner K, Church T, Louis TA, Matts JP. Graphical elicitation of a prior distribution for a clinical trial. J R Stat Soc Ser D Stat. 1993; 42:341–53. Chaloner K, Church T, Louis TA, Matts JP. Graphical elicitation of a prior distribution for a clinical trial. J R Stat Soc Ser D Stat. 1993; 42:341–53.
7.
go back to reference Kadane J, Wolfson LJ. Experiences in elicitation. J R Stat Soc Ser D Stat. 1998; 47:3–19.CrossRef Kadane J, Wolfson LJ. Experiences in elicitation. J R Stat Soc Ser D Stat. 1998; 47:3–19.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Kinnersley N, Day S. Structured approach to the elicitation of expert beliefs for a Bayesian-designed clinical trial: a case study. Pharm Stat. 2013; 12:104–13.CrossRefPubMed Kinnersley N, Day S. Structured approach to the elicitation of expert beliefs for a Bayesian-designed clinical trial: a case study. Pharm Stat. 2013; 12:104–13.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference O’Hagan A. Eliciting expert beliefs in substantial practical applications. J R Stat Soc Ser D Stat. 1998; 47:21–35.CrossRef O’Hagan A. Eliciting expert beliefs in substantial practical applications. J R Stat Soc Ser D Stat. 1998; 47:21–35.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Pezeshk H, Nematollahi N, Maroufy V, Gittins J. The choice of sample size: a mixed Bayesian/frequentist approach. Stat Methods Med Res. 2009; 18:183–94.CrossRefPubMed Pezeshk H, Nematollahi N, Maroufy V, Gittins J. The choice of sample size: a mixed Bayesian/frequentist approach. Stat Methods Med Res. 2009; 18:183–94.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Patel NR, Ankolekar S. A Bayesian approach for incorporating economic factors in sample size design for clinical trials of individual drugs and portfolios of drugs. Stat Med. 2007; 26:4976–88.CrossRefPubMed Patel NR, Ankolekar S. A Bayesian approach for incorporating economic factors in sample size design for clinical trials of individual drugs and portfolios of drugs. Stat Med. 2007; 26:4976–88.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Abrahamyan L, Willan AR, Beyene J, Mclimont M, Blanchette V, Feldman BM. Using value-of-information methods when the disease is rare and the treatment is expensive - the example of hemophilia A. J Gen Intern Med. 2014; 29:767–73.CrossRefPubMedCentral Abrahamyan L, Willan AR, Beyene J, Mclimont M, Blanchette V, Feldman BM. Using value-of-information methods when the disease is rare and the treatment is expensive - the example of hemophilia A. J Gen Intern Med. 2014; 29:767–73.CrossRefPubMedCentral
14.
go back to reference The World Bank: Population total. 2016. http://api.worldbank.org/v2/en/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL?downloadformat=excel. Accessed 28 Sept 2016. The World Bank: Population total. 2016. http://​api.​worldbank.​org/​v2/​en/​indicator/​SP.​POP.​TOTL?​downloadformat=​excel.​ Accessed 28 Sept 2016.
15.
go back to reference Cheng Y, Su F, Berry DA. Choosing sample size for a clinical trial using decision analysis. Biometrika. 2003; 90:923–36.CrossRef Cheng Y, Su F, Berry DA. Choosing sample size for a clinical trial using decision analysis. Biometrika. 2003; 90:923–36.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Stallard N, Miller F, Day S, Hee SW, Madan J, Zohar S, Posch M. Determination of the optimal sample size for a clinical trial accounting for the population size. Biom J. 2017; 59:609–25.CrossRefPubMed Stallard N, Miller F, Day S, Hee SW, Madan J, Zohar S, Posch M. Determination of the optimal sample size for a clinical trial accounting for the population size. Biom J. 2017; 59:609–25.CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Montazerhodjat V, Lo AW. Is the FDA too conservative or too aggressive? A Bayesian decision analysis of clinical trial design. NBER Working Paper No. 21499 2015. 23 September 2016, http://www.nber.org/papers/w12499. Montazerhodjat V, Lo AW. Is the FDA too conservative or too aggressive? A Bayesian decision analysis of clinical trial design. NBER Working Paper No. 21499 2015. 23 September 2016, http://​www.​nber.​org/​papers/​w12499.​
18.
go back to reference Ades AE, Lu G, Claxton K. Expected value of sample information calculations in medical decision modeling. Med Dec Making. 2004; 24:207–27.CrossRef Ades AE, Lu G, Claxton K. Expected value of sample information calculations in medical decision modeling. Med Dec Making. 2004; 24:207–27.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Eckermann S, Willan AR. Expected value of information and decision making in HTA. Health Econ. 2007; 16:195–209.CrossRefPubMed Eckermann S, Willan AR. Expected value of information and decision making in HTA. Health Econ. 2007; 16:195–209.CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Kikuchi T, Gittins J. A behavioral Bayes method to determine the sample size of a clinical trial considering efficacy and safety. Stat Med. 2009; 28:2293–306.CrossRefPubMed Kikuchi T, Gittins J. A behavioral Bayes method to determine the sample size of a clinical trial considering efficacy and safety. Stat Med. 2009; 28:2293–306.CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Willan AR, Eckermann S. Value of information and pricing new healthcare interventions. Pharmacoeconomics. 2012; 30:447–59.CrossRefPubMed Willan AR, Eckermann S. Value of information and pricing new healthcare interventions. Pharmacoeconomics. 2012; 30:447–59.CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Willan AR. Optimal sample size determinations from an industry perspective based on the expected value of information. Clin Trials. 2008; 5:587–94.CrossRefPubMed Willan AR. Optimal sample size determinations from an industry perspective based on the expected value of information. Clin Trials. 2008; 5:587–94.CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Hornberger J, Eghtesady P. The cost-benefit of a randomized trial to a health care organization. Control Clin Trials. 1998; 19:198–211.CrossRefPubMed Hornberger J, Eghtesady P. The cost-benefit of a randomized trial to a health care organization. Control Clin Trials. 1998; 19:198–211.CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Halpern J, Brown Jr BW, Hornberger J. The sample size for a clinical trial: a Bayesian-decision theoretic approach. Stat Med. 2001; 20:841–58.CrossRefPubMed Halpern J, Brown Jr BW, Hornberger J. The sample size for a clinical trial: a Bayesian-decision theoretic approach. Stat Med. 2001; 20:841–58.CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Willan AR, Pinto EM. The value of information and optimal clinical trial design. Stat Med. 2005; 24:1791–1806.CrossRefPubMed Willan AR, Pinto EM. The value of information and optimal clinical trial design. Stat Med. 2005; 24:1791–1806.CrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference Gittins J, Pezeshk H. A behavioral Bayes method for determining the size of a clinical trial. Drug Inf J. 2000; 34:355–63.CrossRef Gittins J, Pezeshk H. A behavioral Bayes method for determining the size of a clinical trial. Drug Inf J. 2000; 34:355–63.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Gittins J, Pezeshk H. How large should a clinical trial be?J R Stat Soc Ser D Stat. 2000; 49:177–87.CrossRef Gittins J, Pezeshk H. How large should a clinical trial be?J R Stat Soc Ser D Stat. 2000; 49:177–87.CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Pezeshk H, Gittins J. A fully Bayesian approach to calculating sample sizes for clinical trials with binary responses. Drug Inf J. 2002; 36:143–50.CrossRef Pezeshk H, Gittins J. A fully Bayesian approach to calculating sample sizes for clinical trials with binary responses. Drug Inf J. 2002; 36:143–50.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Maroufy V, Marriott P, Pezeshk H. An optimization approach to calculating sample sizes with binary responses. J Biopharm Stat. 2014; 24:715–31.CrossRefPubMed Maroufy V, Marriott P, Pezeshk H. An optimization approach to calculating sample sizes with binary responses. J Biopharm Stat. 2014; 24:715–31.CrossRefPubMed
30.
go back to reference Hampson LV, Whitehead J, Eleftheriou D, Brogan P. Bayesian methods for the design and interpretation of clinical trials in very rare diseases. Stat Med. 2014; 33:4186–201.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Hampson LV, Whitehead J, Eleftheriou D, Brogan P. Bayesian methods for the design and interpretation of clinical trials in very rare diseases. Stat Med. 2014; 33:4186–201.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
31.
go back to reference Berry DA, Ho CH. One-sided sequential stopping boundaries for clinical trials: a decision-theoretic approach. Biometrics. 1988; 44:219–27.CrossRefPubMed Berry DA, Ho CH. One-sided sequential stopping boundaries for clinical trials: a decision-theoretic approach. Biometrics. 1988; 44:219–27.CrossRefPubMed
32.
go back to reference Lewis RT, Berry DA. Group sequential clinical trials: A classical evaluation of bayesian decision-theoretic designs. J Am Stat Assoc. 1994; 89:1528–1534.CrossRef Lewis RT, Berry DA. Group sequential clinical trials: A classical evaluation of bayesian decision-theoretic designs. J Am Stat Assoc. 1994; 89:1528–1534.CrossRef
33.
go back to reference Mehta CR, Patel NR. Adaptive, group sequential and decision theoretic approaches to sample size determination. Stat Med. 2006; 25:3250–69.CrossRefPubMed Mehta CR, Patel NR. Adaptive, group sequential and decision theoretic approaches to sample size determination. Stat Med. 2006; 25:3250–69.CrossRefPubMed
34.
go back to reference Chen MH, Willan AR. Determining optimal sample sizes for multistage adaptive randomized clinical trials from an industry perspective using value of information methods. Clin Trials. 2013; 10:54–62.CrossRefPubMed Chen MH, Willan AR. Determining optimal sample sizes for multistage adaptive randomized clinical trials from an industry perspective using value of information methods. Clin Trials. 2013; 10:54–62.CrossRefPubMed
35.
go back to reference Yin G, Lam CK, Shi H. Bayesian randomized clinical trials: from fixed to adaptive design. Contemp Clin Trials. 2017; 59:77–86.CrossRefPubMed Yin G, Lam CK, Shi H. Bayesian randomized clinical trials: from fixed to adaptive design. Contemp Clin Trials. 2017; 59:77–86.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Value of information methods to design a clinical trial in a small population to optimise a health economic utility function
Authors
Michael Pearce
Siew Wan Hee
Jason Madan
Martin Posch
Simon Day
Frank Miller
Sarah Zohar
Nigel Stallard
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0475-0

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2018 Go to the issue