» Articles » PMID: 36451173

Point Estimation for Adaptive Trial Designs I: A methodological Review

Overview
Journal Stat Med
Publisher Wiley
Specialty Public Health
Date 2022 Nov 30
PMID 36451173
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Recent FDA guidance on adaptive clinical trial designs defines bias as "a systematic tendency for the estimate of treatment effect to deviate from its true value," and states that it is desirable to obtain and report estimates of treatment effects that reduce or remove this bias. The conventional end-of-trial point estimates of the treatment effects are prone to bias in many adaptive designs, because they do not take into account the potential and realized trial adaptations. While much of the methodological developments on adaptive designs have tended to focus on control of type I error rates and power considerations, in contrast the question of biased estimation has received relatively less attention. This article is the first in a two-part series that studies the issue of potential bias in point estimation for adaptive trials. Part I provides a comprehensive review of the methods to remove or reduce the potential bias in point estimation of treatment effects for adaptive designs, while part II illustrates how to implement these in practice and proposes a set of guidelines for trial statisticians. The methods reviewed in this article can be broadly classified into unbiased and bias-reduced estimation, and we also provide a classification of estimators by the type of adaptive design. We compare the proposed methods, highlight available software and code, and discuss potential methodological gaps in the literature.

Citing Articles

Statistical Inference for a Two-Stage Adaptive Seamless Design Using Different Binary Endpoints.

Ishii R, Takahashi K, Maruo K, Gosho M Stat Med. 2025; 44(6):e70003.

PMID: 40047791 PMC: 11884423. DOI: 10.1002/sim.70003.


Unmasking Racial, Ethnic, and Socioeconomic Disparities in United States Chordoma Clinical Trials: Systematic Review.

Bangash A, Ryvlin J, Chakravarthy V, Akinduro O, Zadnik Sullivan P, Niu T Cancers (Basel). 2025; 17(2).

PMID: 39858008 PMC: 11763698. DOI: 10.3390/cancers17020225.


Past, present, and future of Phase 3 vaccine trial design: rethinking statistics for the 21st century.

Janani L, Phillips R, Van Vogt E, Liu X, Waddington C, Cro S Clin Exp Immunol. 2024; 219(1).

PMID: 39570146 PMC: 11754867. DOI: 10.1093/cei/uxae104.


Practical and analytical considerations when performing interim analyses in diagnostic test accuracy studies.

Fleming S, Mwandigha L, Fanshawe T Diagn Progn Res. 2024; 8(1):12.

PMID: 39160594 PMC: 11334588. DOI: 10.1186/s41512-024-00174-4.


The impact of heterogeneity on the analysis of platform trials with normally distributed outcomes.

Lee K, Emsley R BMC Med Res Methodol. 2024; 24(1):163.

PMID: 39080538 PMC: 11290279. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-024-02293-4.


References
1.
Di Stefano F, Pannaux M, Correges A, Galtier S, Robert V, Saint-Hilary G . A comparison of estimation methods adjusting for selection bias in adaptive enrichment designs with time-to-event endpoints. Stat Med. 2022; 41(10):1767-1779. DOI: 10.1002/sim.9327. View

2.
Brannath W, Mehta C, Posch M . Exact confidence bounds following adaptive group sequential tests. Biometrics. 2008; 65(2):539-46. DOI: 10.1111/j.1541-0420.2008.01101.x. View

3.
Broberg P, Miller F . Conditional estimation in two-stage adaptive designs. Biometrics. 2017; 73(3):895-904. DOI: 10.1111/biom.12642. View

4.
Pepe M, Feng Z, Longton G, Koopmeiners J . Conditional estimation of sensitivity and specificity from a phase 2 biomarker study allowing early termination for futility. Stat Med. 2008; 28(5):762-79. PMC: 2745932. DOI: 10.1002/sim.3506. View

5.
Denne J . Estimation following extension of a study on the basis of conditional power. J Biopharm Stat. 2000; 10(2):131-44. DOI: 10.1081/BIP-100101018. View