Operating characteristics of unequal allocation ratios in platform trials with the staggered addition of drugs using binary endpoints

IF 1.4 Q4 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Yosuke Shimizu , Ryoichi Hanazawa , Hiroyuki Sato , Akihiro Hirakawa
{"title":"Operating characteristics of unequal allocation ratios in platform trials with the staggered addition of drugs using binary endpoints","authors":"Yosuke Shimizu ,&nbsp;Ryoichi Hanazawa ,&nbsp;Hiroyuki Sato ,&nbsp;Akihiro Hirakawa","doi":"10.1016/j.conctc.2025.101450","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>One recommendation for the allocation ratio between multiple drugs and a shared placebo control group in platform trials (PTs) is to use a <span><math><mrow><msqrt><mi>k</mi></msqrt></mrow></math></span>:1 allocation ratio for the placebo group relative to the drug group, where <span><math><mrow><mi>k</mi></mrow></math></span> is the number of drug groups with ongoing patient enrollment during the trials. However, the practical utility of such unequal allocation ratios in PTs lacks adequate study.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We compared the performances of equal and unequal allocation ratios through simulations to imitate practical PTs using only concurrent controls and binary endpoints for hospitalized patients with infectious diseases. The operating characteristics, including the type I error rate, power of hypothesis testing, and total sample size, were evaluated.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>In PTs, using an unequal allocation ratio (i) results in a considerable augmentation of the total sample size and prolongs the study duration when monthly patient enrollment is low, but (ii) the target power of hypothesis testing is often preserved compared to an equal allocation ratio, even when we incorrectly specify the drug and placebo group mortality rates assumed in the sample size calculation. The average power increase using an unequal allocation ratio relative to the equal allocation ratio per 100-patient increase in the placebo group was approximately 1.9 % in the selected scenarios of our simulation studies.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The results of the current study highlight the quantitative advantages and disadvantages of using unequal allocation ratios in PTs using only concurrent controls under the specific conditions assumed in our simulations and analyses.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":37937,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications","volume":"44 ","pages":"Article 101450"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2451865425000249","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

One recommendation for the allocation ratio between multiple drugs and a shared placebo control group in platform trials (PTs) is to use a k:1 allocation ratio for the placebo group relative to the drug group, where k is the number of drug groups with ongoing patient enrollment during the trials. However, the practical utility of such unequal allocation ratios in PTs lacks adequate study.

Methods

We compared the performances of equal and unequal allocation ratios through simulations to imitate practical PTs using only concurrent controls and binary endpoints for hospitalized patients with infectious diseases. The operating characteristics, including the type I error rate, power of hypothesis testing, and total sample size, were evaluated.

Results

In PTs, using an unequal allocation ratio (i) results in a considerable augmentation of the total sample size and prolongs the study duration when monthly patient enrollment is low, but (ii) the target power of hypothesis testing is often preserved compared to an equal allocation ratio, even when we incorrectly specify the drug and placebo group mortality rates assumed in the sample size calculation. The average power increase using an unequal allocation ratio relative to the equal allocation ratio per 100-patient increase in the placebo group was approximately 1.9 % in the selected scenarios of our simulation studies.

Conclusion

The results of the current study highlight the quantitative advantages and disadvantages of using unequal allocation ratios in PTs using only concurrent controls under the specific conditions assumed in our simulations and analyses.
使用双终点交错添加药物的平台试验中不平等分配比例的运行特征
背景:对于平台试验(PTs)中多种药物和共享安慰剂对照组之间的分配比例,推荐使用安慰剂组相对于药物组的k:1分配比例,其中k为试验期间持续入组患者的药物组数量。然而,这种不平等分配比例在PTs中的实际效用缺乏充分的研究。方法通过模拟传染病住院患者的实际PTs,采用并行对照和双终点,比较等分配比例和不等分配比例的效果。评估了操作特征,包括I型错误率、假设检验能力和总样本量。结果在PTs中,使用不平等分配比例(i)会导致总样本量的显著增加,并在每月患者入组率较低时延长研究时间,但(ii)即使我们在样本量计算中错误地指定了药物组和安慰剂组的死亡率,与平均分配比例相比,假设检验的目标功率通常仍然保留。在我们模拟研究的选定情景中,使用不平等分配比例的平均功率增加相对于安慰剂组每增加100例患者的平均功率增加约为1.9%。结论本研究的结果突出了在我们的模拟和分析中假设的特定条件下,在仅使用并发对照的PTs中使用不平等分配比例的定量优势和劣势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications
Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics-Pharmacology
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
6.70%
发文量
146
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊介绍: Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications is an international peer reviewed open access journal that publishes articles pertaining to all aspects of clinical trials, including, but not limited to, design, conduct, analysis, regulation and ethics. Manuscripts submitted should appeal to a readership drawn from a wide range of disciplines including medicine, life science, pharmaceutical science, biostatistics, epidemiology, computer science, management science, behavioral science, and bioethics. Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications is unique in that it is outside the confines of disease specifications, and it strives to increase the transparency of medical research and reduce publication bias by publishing scientifically valid original research findings irrespective of their perceived importance, significance or impact. Both randomized and non-randomized trials are within the scope of the Journal. Some common topics include trial design rationale and methods, operational methodologies and challenges, and positive and negative trial results. In addition to original research, the Journal also welcomes other types of communications including, but are not limited to, methodology reviews, perspectives and discussions. Through timely dissemination of advances in clinical trials, the goal of Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications is to serve as a platform to enhance the communication and collaboration within the global clinical trials community that ultimately advances this field of research for the benefit of patients.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信