{"title":"Operating characteristics of unequal allocation ratios in platform trials with the staggered addition of drugs using binary endpoints","authors":"Yosuke Shimizu , Ryoichi Hanazawa , Hiroyuki Sato , 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 :1 allocation ratio for the placebo group relative to the drug group, where 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.
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.