Directly to content
  1. Publishing |
  2. Search |
  3. Browse |
  4. Recent items rss |
  5. Open Access |
  6. Jur. Issues |
  7. DeutschClear Cookie - decide language by browser settings

Choice of futility boundaries for group sequential designs with two endpoints

Schüler, Svenja ; Kieser, Meinhard ; Rauch, Geraldine

In: BMC Medical Research Methodology, 17 (2017), Nr. 119. pp. 1-10. ISSN 1471-2288

[thumbnail of 12874_2017_Article_387.pdf]
Preview
PDF, English
Download (756kB) | Lizenz: Creative Commons LizenzvertragChoice of futility boundaries for group sequential designs with two endpoints by Schüler, Svenja ; Kieser, Meinhard ; Rauch, Geraldine underlies the terms of Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Germany

Citation of documents: Please do not cite the URL that is displayed in your browser location input, instead use the DOI, URN or the persistent URL below, as we can guarantee their long-time accessibility.

Abstract

Background: In clinical trials, the opportunity for an early stop during an interim analysis (either for efficacy or for futility) may relevantly save time and financial resources. This is especially important, if the planning assumptions required for power calculation are based on a low level of evidence. For example, when including two primary endpoints in the confirmatory analysis, the power of the trial depends on the effects of both endpoints and on their correlation. Assessing the feasibility of such a trial is therefore difficult, as the number of parameter assumptions to be correctly specified is large. For this reason, so-called ‘group sequential designs’ are of particular importance in this setting. Whereas the choice of adequate boundaries to stop a trial early for efficacy has been broadly discussed in the literature, the choice of optimal futility boundaries has not been investigated so far, although this may have serious consequences with respect to performance characteristics. Methods: In this work, we propose a general method to construct ‘optimal’ futility boundaries according to predefined criteria. Further, we present three different group sequential designs for two endpoints applying these futility boundaries. Our methods are illustrated by a real clinical trial example and by Monte-Carlo simulations. Results: By construction, the provided method of choosing futility boundaries maximizes the probability to correctly stop in case of small or opposite effects while limiting the power loss and the probability of stopping the study ‘wrongly’. Our results clearly demonstrate the benefit of using such ‘optimal’ futility boundaries, especially compared to futility boundaries commonly applied in practice. Conclusions: As the properties of futility boundaries are often not considered in practice and unfavorably chosen futility boundaries may imply bad properties of the study design, we recommend assessing the performance of these boundaries according to the criteria proposed in here.

Document type: Article
Journal or Publication Title: BMC Medical Research Methodology
Volume: 17
Number: 119
Publisher: BioMed Central; Springer
Place of Publication: London; Berlin; Heidelberg
Date Deposited: 15 Aug 2017 13:00
Date: 2017
ISSN: 1471-2288
Page Range: pp. 1-10
Faculties / Institutes: Medizinische Fakultät Heidelberg > Institut für Medizinische Biometrie und Informatik
DDC-classification: 610 Medical sciences Medicine
About | FAQ | Contact | Imprint |
OA-LogoDINI certificate 2013Logo der Open-Archives-Initiative