Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Trials 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Methodology

Sample size determination for a binary response in a superiority clinical trial using a hybrid classical and Bayesian procedure

Authors: Maria M. Ciarleglio, Christopher D. Arendt

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

When designing studies that have a binary outcome as the primary endpoint, the hypothesized proportion of patients in each population experiencing the endpoint of interest (i.e., π 1,π 2) plays an important role in sample size and power calculations. Point estimates for π 1 and π 2 are often calculated using historical data. However, the uncertainty in these estimates is rarely addressed.

Methods

This paper presents a hybrid classical and Bayesian procedure that formally integrates prior information on the distributions of π 1 and π 2 into the study’s power calculation. Conditional expected power (CEP), which averages the traditional power curve using the prior distributions of π 1 and π 2 as the averaging weight conditional on the presence of a positive treatment effect (i.e., π 2>π 1), is used, and the sample size is found that equates the pre-specified frequentist power (1−β) and the conditional expected power of the trial.

Results

Notional scenarios are evaluated to compare the probability of achieving a target value of power with a trial design based on traditional power and a design based on CEP. We show that if there is uncertainty in the study parameters and a distribution of plausible values for π 1 and π 2, the performance of the CEP design is more consistent and robust than traditional designs based on point estimates for the study parameters. Traditional sample size calculations based on point estimates for the hypothesized study parameters tend to underestimate the required sample size needed to account for the uncertainty in the parameters. The greatest marginal benefit of the proposed method is achieved when the uncertainty in the parameters is not large.

Conclusions

Through this procedure, we are able to formally integrate prior information on the uncertainty and variability of the study parameters into the design of the study while maintaining a frequentist framework for the final analysis. Solving for the sample size that is necessary to achieve a high level of CEP given the available prior information helps protect against misspecification of hypothesized treatment effect and provides a substantiated estimate that forms the basis for discussion about the study’s feasibility during the design phase.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Lachin JM. Introduction to sample size determination and power analysis for clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1981; 2(2):93–113.CrossRefPubMed Lachin JM. Introduction to sample size determination and power analysis for clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1981; 2(2):93–113.CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Fleiss J. Statistical methods for rates and proportions. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1973. Fleiss J. Statistical methods for rates and proportions. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1973.
3.
go back to reference Donner A. Approaches to sample size estimation in the design of clinical trials? a review. Stat Med. 1984; 3(3):199–214.CrossRefPubMed Donner A. Approaches to sample size estimation in the design of clinical trials? a review. Stat Med. 1984; 3(3):199–214.CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Halpern SD. Adding nails to the coffin of underpowered trials. J Rheumatol. 2005; 32(11):2065.PubMed Halpern SD. Adding nails to the coffin of underpowered trials. J Rheumatol. 2005; 32(11):2065.PubMed
5.
go back to reference Ciarleglio MM, Arendt CD, Makuch RW, Peduzzi PN. Selection of the treatment effect for sample size determination in a superiority clinical trial using a hybrid classical and Bayesian procedure. Contemp Clin Trials. 2015; 41:160–71.CrossRefPubMed Ciarleglio MM, Arendt CD, Makuch RW, Peduzzi PN. Selection of the treatment effect for sample size determination in a superiority clinical trial using a hybrid classical and Bayesian procedure. Contemp Clin Trials. 2015; 41:160–71.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Ciarleglio MM, Arendt CD, Peduzzi PN. Selection of the effect size for sample size determination for a continuous response in a superiority clinical trial using a hybrid classical and Bayesian procedure. Clin Trials. 2016; 12(3):275–85.CrossRef Ciarleglio MM, Arendt CD, Peduzzi PN. Selection of the effect size for sample size determination for a continuous response in a superiority clinical trial using a hybrid classical and Bayesian procedure. Clin Trials. 2016; 12(3):275–85.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Spiegelhalter DJ, Abrams KR, Myles JP. Bayesian approaches to clinical trials and health-care evaluation. 1st ed. Chinchester: Wiley; 2004. Spiegelhalter DJ, Abrams KR, Myles JP. Bayesian approaches to clinical trials and health-care evaluation. 1st ed. Chinchester: Wiley; 2004.
8.
go back to reference Brown BW, Herson J, Neely Atkinson E, Elizabeth Rozell M. Projection from previous studies: a Bayesian and frequentist compromise. Control Clin Trials. 1987; 8(1):29–44.CrossRefPubMed Brown BW, Herson J, Neely Atkinson E, Elizabeth Rozell M. Projection from previous studies: a Bayesian and frequentist compromise. Control Clin Trials. 1987; 8(1):29–44.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Spiegelhalter DJ, Freedman LS. A predictive approach to selecting the size of a clinical trial, based on subjective clinical opinion. Stat Med. 1986; 5(1):1–13.CrossRefPubMed Spiegelhalter DJ, Freedman LS. A predictive approach to selecting the size of a clinical trial, based on subjective clinical opinion. Stat Med. 1986; 5(1):1–13.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Joseph L, Belisle P. Bayesian sample size determination for normal means and differences between normal means. J R Stat Soc Series B Stat Methodol. 1997; 46(2):209–26. Joseph L, Belisle P. Bayesian sample size determination for normal means and differences between normal means. J R Stat Soc Series B Stat Methodol. 1997; 46(2):209–26.
11.
go back to reference Lee SJ, Zelen M. Clinical trials and sample size considerations: another perspective. Stat Sci. 2000; 15(2):95–110. Lee SJ, Zelen M. Clinical trials and sample size considerations: another perspective. Stat Sci. 2000; 15(2):95–110.
12.
go back to reference Inoue LY, Berry DA, Parmigiani G. Relationship between Bayesian and frequentist sample size determination. Am Stat. 2005; 59(1):79–87.CrossRef Inoue LY, Berry DA, Parmigiani G. Relationship between Bayesian and frequentist sample size determination. Am Stat. 2005; 59(1):79–87.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Lenth RV. Some practical guidelines for effective sample size determination. Am Stat. 2001; 55(3):187–93.CrossRef Lenth RV. Some practical guidelines for effective sample size determination. Am Stat. 2001; 55(3):187–93.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Wittes J. Sample size calculations for randomized controlled trials. Epidemiol Rev. 2002; 24(1):39–53.CrossRefPubMed Wittes J. Sample size calculations for randomized controlled trials. Epidemiol Rev. 2002; 24(1):39–53.CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Moussa MA. Exact, conditional, and predictive power in planning clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1989; 10(4):378–85.CrossRefPubMed Moussa MA. Exact, conditional, and predictive power in planning clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1989; 10(4):378–85.CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Spiegelhalter DJ, Freedman LS, Parmar MK. Applying Bayesian ideas in drug development and clinical trials. Stat Med. 1993; 12(15–16):1501–11.CrossRefPubMed Spiegelhalter DJ, Freedman LS, Parmar MK. Applying Bayesian ideas in drug development and clinical trials. Stat Med. 1993; 12(15–16):1501–11.CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Spiegelhalter DJ, Freedman LS, Parmar MK. Bayesian approaches to randomized trials. J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc. 1994; 157(3):357–416.CrossRef Spiegelhalter DJ, Freedman LS, Parmar MK. Bayesian approaches to randomized trials. J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc. 1994; 157(3):357–416.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Gillett R. An average power criterion for sample size estimation. Statistician. 1994; 43(3):389–94.CrossRef Gillett R. An average power criterion for sample size estimation. Statistician. 1994; 43(3):389–94.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Shih JH. Sample size calculation for complex clinical trials with survival endpoints. Control Clin Trials. 1995; 16(6):395–407.CrossRefPubMed Shih JH. Sample size calculation for complex clinical trials with survival endpoints. Control Clin Trials. 1995; 16(6):395–407.CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference O’Hagan A, Stevens JW, Campbell MJ. Assurance in clinical trial design. Pharm Stat. 2005; 4(3):187–201.CrossRef O’Hagan A, Stevens JW, Campbell MJ. Assurance in clinical trial design. Pharm Stat. 2005; 4(3):187–201.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Chuang-Stein C. Sample size and the probability of a successful trial. Pharm Stat. 2006; 5(4):305–9.CrossRefPubMed Chuang-Stein C. Sample size and the probability of a successful trial. Pharm Stat. 2006; 5(4):305–9.CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Lan KG, Wittes JT. Some thoughts on sample size: a Bayesian-frequentist hybrid approach. Clin Trials. 2012; 9(5):561–9.CrossRef Lan KG, Wittes JT. Some thoughts on sample size: a Bayesian-frequentist hybrid approach. Clin Trials. 2012; 9(5):561–9.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Wang Y, Fu H, Kulkarni P, Kaiser C. Evaluating and utilizing probability of study success in clinical development. Clin Trials. 2013; 10:407–13.CrossRefPubMed Wang Y, Fu H, Kulkarni P, Kaiser C. Evaluating and utilizing probability of study success in clinical development. Clin Trials. 2013; 10:407–13.CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Rufibach K, Burger HU, Abt M. Bayesian predictive power: choice of prior and some recommendations for its use as probability of success in drug development. Pharm Stat. 2016; 15(5):438–46.CrossRefPubMed Rufibach K, Burger HU, Abt M. Bayesian predictive power: choice of prior and some recommendations for its use as probability of success in drug development. Pharm Stat. 2016; 15(5):438–46.CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Sillitto G. Note on approximations to the power function of the 2 × 2 comparative trial. Biometrika. 1949; 36(3/4):347–52.CrossRef Sillitto G. Note on approximations to the power function of the 2 × 2 comparative trial. Biometrika. 1949; 36(3/4):347–52.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Cochran WG, Cox GM. Experimental designs. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1957. Cochran WG, Cox GM. Experimental designs. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1957.
27.
go back to reference DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986; 7(3):177–88.CrossRefPubMed DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986; 7(3):177–88.CrossRefPubMed
28.
go back to reference Thompson SG, Sharp SJ. Explaining heterogeneity in meta-analysis: a comparison of methods. Stat Med. 1999; 18(20):2693–708.CrossRefPubMed Thompson SG, Sharp SJ. Explaining heterogeneity in meta-analysis: a comparison of methods. Stat Med. 1999; 18(20):2693–708.CrossRefPubMed
29.
go back to reference Smith TC, Spiegelhalter DJ, Thomas A. Bayesian approaches to random-effects meta-analysis: a comparative study. Stat Med. 1995; 14(24):2685–99.CrossRefPubMed Smith TC, Spiegelhalter DJ, Thomas A. Bayesian approaches to random-effects meta-analysis: a comparative study. Stat Med. 1995; 14(24):2685–99.CrossRefPubMed
30.
go back to reference Neuenschwander B, Capkun-Niggli G, Branson M, Spiegelhalter DJ. Summarizing historical information on controls in clinical trials. Clin Trials. 2010; 7(1):5–18.CrossRefPubMed Neuenschwander B, Capkun-Niggli G, Branson M, Spiegelhalter DJ. Summarizing historical information on controls in clinical trials. Clin Trials. 2010; 7(1):5–18.CrossRefPubMed
31.
go back to reference Schmidli H, Gsteiger S, Roychoudhury S, O’Hagan A, Spiegelhalter D, Neuenschwander B. Robust meta-analytic-predictive priors in clinical trials with historical control information. Biometrics. 2014; 70(4):1023–32.CrossRefPubMed Schmidli H, Gsteiger S, Roychoudhury S, O’Hagan A, Spiegelhalter D, Neuenschwander B. Robust meta-analytic-predictive priors in clinical trials with historical control information. Biometrics. 2014; 70(4):1023–32.CrossRefPubMed
32.
go back to reference Freedman L, Spiegelhalter D. The assessment of the subjective opinion and its use in relation to stopping rules for clinical trials. Statistician. 1983; 32:153–60.CrossRef Freedman L, Spiegelhalter D. The assessment of the subjective opinion and its use in relation to stopping rules for clinical trials. Statistician. 1983; 32:153–60.CrossRef
33.
go back to reference Chaloner K, Church T, Louis TA, Matts JP. Graphical elicitation of a prior distribution for a clinical trial. Statistician. 1993; 42:341–53.CrossRef Chaloner K, Church T, Louis TA, Matts JP. Graphical elicitation of a prior distribution for a clinical trial. Statistician. 1993; 42:341–53.CrossRef
34.
go back to reference Chaloner K. The elicitation of prior distributions In: Berry DA, Stangl DK, editors. Case studies in Bayesian biostatistics. New York: Dekker: 1996. p. 141–56. Chaloner K. The elicitation of prior distributions In: Berry DA, Stangl DK, editors. Case studies in Bayesian biostatistics. New York: Dekker: 1996. p. 141–56.
35.
go back to reference Chaloner K, Rhame FS. Quantifying and documenting prior beliefs in clinical trials. Stat Med. 2001; 20(4):581–600.CrossRefPubMed Chaloner K, Rhame FS. Quantifying and documenting prior beliefs in clinical trials. Stat Med. 2001; 20(4):581–600.CrossRefPubMed
36.
go back to reference Halpern SD, Karlawish JHT, Berlin JA. The continuing unethical conduct of underpowered clinical trials. JAMA. 2002; 288(3):358–62.CrossRefPubMed Halpern SD, Karlawish JHT, Berlin JA. The continuing unethical conduct of underpowered clinical trials. JAMA. 2002; 288(3):358–62.CrossRefPubMed
37.
go back to reference Aberegg SK, Richards DR, O’Brien JM. Delta inflation: a bias in the design of randomized controlled trials in critical care medicine. Crit Care. 2010; 14:R77.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Aberegg SK, Richards DR, O’Brien JM. Delta inflation: a bias in the design of randomized controlled trials in critical care medicine. Crit Care. 2010; 14:R77.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
38.
go back to reference Freedman B. Scientific value and validity as ethical requirements for research: a proposed explication. IRB Rev Hum Subjects Res. 1987; 9(6):7–10. Freedman B. Scientific value and validity as ethical requirements for research: a proposed explication. IRB Rev Hum Subjects Res. 1987; 9(6):7–10.
Metadata
Title
Sample size determination for a binary response in a superiority clinical trial using a hybrid classical and Bayesian procedure
Authors
Maria M. Ciarleglio
Christopher D. Arendt
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-017-1791-0

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

Trials 1/2017 Go to the issue