Bayesian Sequential Learning for Clinical Trials of Multiple Correlated Medical Interventions

References

• Adaptive Platform Trials Coalition (2019) Adaptive platform trials: Definition, design, conduct and reporting considerations. Nature Rev. Drug Discovery 18(10):797–807.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ahuja V, Birge JR (2016) Response-adaptive designs for clinical trials: Simultaneous learning from multiple patients. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 248(2):619–633.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Alban A, Chick SE, Forster M (2020) Value-based clinical trials: Selecting trial lengths and recruitment rates in different regulatory contexts. Discussion Paper No. 20/01, Department of Economics, University of York, York, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
• Anderer A, Bastani H, Silberholz J (2021) Adaptive clinical trial designs with surrogates: When should we bother? Management Sci. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
• Bastani H, Bayati M (2020) Online decision-making with high-dimensional covariates. Oper. Res. 58(1):276–294.Link, Google Scholar
• Berry DA (2011) Adaptive clinical trials: The promise and the caution. J. Clinical Oncology 29(6):606–609.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Berry DA (2012) Adaptive clinical trials in oncology. Nature Rev. Clinical Oncology 9(4):199–207.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Berry DA, Ho CH (1988) One-sided sequential stopping boundaries for clinical trials: A decision-theoretic approach. Biometrics 44(1):219–227.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Berry DA, Mueller P, Grieve AP, Smith M, Parke T, Blazek R, Mitchard N, Krams M (2002) Adaptive Bayesian designs for dose-ranging drug trials. Gatsonis C, Kass RE, Carlin B, Carriquiry A, Gelman A, Verdinelli I, West M, eds. Case Studies in Bayesian Statistics, Lecture Notes in Statistics, vol. 162 (Springer, New York), 99–181.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Boeree MJ, Heinrich N, Aarnoutse R, Diacon AH, Dawson R, Rehal S, Kibiki GS, et al. (2017) High-dose rifampicin, moxifloxacin, and SQ109 for treating tuberculosis: A multi-arm, multi-stage randomised controlled trial. Lancet Infectious Diseases 17(1):39–49.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bornkamp B, Bretz F, Dmitrienko A, Enas G, Gaydos B, Hsu C-H, König F, et al. (2007) Innovative approaches for designing and analyzing adaptive dose-ranging trials. J. Biopharmaceutical Statist. 17(6):965–995.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bravo F, Corcoran T, Long E (2021) Flexible drug approval policies. Manufacturing Service Oper. Management, ePub ahead of print March 23, https://doi.org/10.1287/msom.2020.0963.Google Scholar
• Cai C, Yuan Y, Johnson VE (2013) Bayesian adaptive phase II screening design for combination trials. Clinical Trials 10(3):353–362.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chen X, Ankenman BE, Nelson BL (2013) Enhancing stochastic kriging metamodels with gradient estimators. Oper. Res. 61(2):512–528.Link, Google Scholar
• Chick SE, Frazier PI (2012) Sequential sampling for selection with economics of selection procedures. Management Sci. 58(3):550–569.Link, Google Scholar
• Chick SE, Gans N (2009) Economic analysis of simulation selection problems. Management Sci. 55(3):421–437.Link, Google Scholar
• Chick SE, Inoue K (2001) New procedures for identifying the best simulated system using common random numbers. Management Sci. 47(8):1133–1149.Link, Google Scholar
• Chick SE, Forster M, Pertile P (2017) A Bayesian decision-theoretic model of sequential experimentation with delayed response. J. Roy. Statist. Soc. B 79(5):1439–1462.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chick SE, Gans N, Yapar O (2019) Sequential, value-based designs for certain clinical trials with multiple arms having correlated rewards. Mustafee N, Bae K-HG, Lazarova-Molnar S, Rabe M, Szabo C, Haas P, Son Y-J, eds. Proc. 2019 Winter Simulation Conf. (WSC) (IEEE, Piscataway, NJ), 1032–1043.Google Scholar
• Chow SC (2014) Adaptive clinical trial design. Annual Rev. Medicine 65:405–415.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Claxton K, Posnett J (1996) An economic approach to clinical trial design and research priority-setting. Health Econom. 5(6):513–524.Crossref, Google Scholar
• DeGroot MH (2004) Optimal Statistical Decisions (John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ).Crossref, Google Scholar
• DiMasi J, Grabowski H, Hansen R (2016) Innovation in the pharmaceutical industry: New estimates of R&D costs. J. Health Econom. 47:20–33.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dimmitt S, Stampfer H, Martin JH (2017) When less is more-efficacy with less toxicity at the ED50. British J. Clinical Pharmacology 83(7):1365–1368.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Draper D (2013) Discussion on ‘Group sequential tests for delayed responses’ (by L. Hampson and C. Jennison). J. Roy. Statist. Soc. B 75(1):48.Google Scholar
• Ellenberg SS, Ellenberg JH (2017) Proceedings of the University of Pennsylvania ninth annual conference on statistical issues in clinical trials: Where are we with adaptive clinical trial designs? Clinical Oncology 14(5):415–416.Google Scholar
• EMA (2017) Paediatric Gaucher disease: A strategic collaborative approach from EMA and FDA. European Medicines Agency Working Paper No. EMA/237265/2017, European Medicines Agency, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
• EU (2014) Clinical trial regulation EU no. 536/2014. European Union, Amsterdam. Accessed February 7, 2021, https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory/research-development/clinical-trials/clinical-trial-regulation.Google Scholar
• FDA (2016) Adaptive designs for medical device clinical studies. US Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, MD. Accessed May 7, 2018, https://www.fda.gov/media/92671/download.Google Scholar
• Fenwick E, Steuten L, Knies S, Ghabri S, Basu A, Murray JF, Koffijberg HE, Strong M, Sanders Schmidler GD, Rothery C (2020) Value of information analysis for research decisions-an introduction: Report 1 of the ISPOR value of information analysis emerging good practices task force. Value Health 23(2):139–150.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Flight L, Julious SA, Goodacre S (2017) Can emergency medicine research benefit from adaptive design clinical trials? Emergency Medicine J. 34(4):243–248.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Flight L, Arshad F, Barnsley R, Patel K, Julious S, Brennan A, Todd S (2019) A review of clinical trials with an adaptive design and health economic analysis. Value Health 22(4):391–398.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Forster M, Brealey S, Chick S, Keding A, Corbacho B, Alban A, Rangan A, (2021) A Bayesian decision-theoretic model of a sequential clinical trial: Application to the ProFHER pragmatic trial. Clinical Trials: J. Soc. Clinical Trials. https://doi.org/10.1177/17407745211032909.Google Scholar
• Frazier PI, Powell W, Dayanik S (2009) The knowledge-gradient policy for correlated normal beliefs. INFORMS J. Comput. 21(4):599–613.Link, Google Scholar
• Fu MC, Hu JQ, Chen CH, Xiong X (2007) Simulation allocation for determining the best design in the presence of correlated sampling. INFORMS J. Comput. 19(1):101–111.Link, Google Scholar
• Gadagkar SR, Call GB (2015) Computational tools for fitting the hill equation to dose-response curves. J. Pharmacological Toxicological Methods 71:68–76.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Huang JH, Su QM, Yang J, Lv YH, He YC, Chen JC, Xu L, Wang K, Zheng QS (2015) Sample sizes in dosage investigational clinical trials: A systematic evaluation. Drug Design Development Therapy 9:305–312.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hudson KL, Lauer MS, Collins FS (2016) Toward a new era of trust and transparency in clinical trials. JAMA 316(13):1353–1354.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jaki T, Hampson LV (2016) Designing multi-arm multi-stage clinical trials using a risk-benefit criterion for treatment selection. Statist. Medicine 35(4):522–533.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kouvelis P, Milner J, Tian Z (2017) Clinical trials for new drug development: Optimal investment and application. Manufacturing Service Oper. Management 19(3):437–452.Link, Google Scholar
• Lewis RJ, Lipsky AM, Berry DA (2007) Bayesian decision-theoretic group sequential clinical trial design based on a quadratic loss function: A frequentist evaluation. Clinical Trials 4(1):5–14.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Li F, Li F (2019) Propensity score weighting for causal inference with multiple treatments. Ann. Appl. Statist. 13(4):2389–2415.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lipsky A, Greenland S (2011) Confounding due to changing background risk in adaptively randomized trials. Clinical Trials 8(4):390–397.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lock S (2019) Matching clinical trials with unmet clinical need. BioScience Today 16(Spring):24–25.Google Scholar
• Magaret A, Angus DC, Adhikari NK, Banura P, Kissoon N, Lawler JV, Jacob ST (2016) Design of a multi-arm randomized clinical trial with no control arm. Contemporary Clinical Trials 46:12–17.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Meltzer DO, Smith PC (2011) Theoretical issues relevant to the economic evaluation of health technologies. Pauly MV, McGuire TG, Barros PP, eds. Handbook of Health Economics, vol. 2 (Elsevier, New York), 433–469.Google Scholar
• NHS England (2017) Twelve Actions to Support and Apply Research in the NHS (NIHR, London). https://www.england.nhs.uk/publication/12-actions-to-support-and-apply-research-in-the-nhs/.Google Scholar
• NICE (2014) Developing NICE Guidelines: The Manual (UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, London). https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg20/.Google Scholar
• NIHR (2018) NIHR Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (UK National Institute for Health Research, London). https://www.nihr.ac.uk/explore-nihr/funding-programmes/efficacy-and-mechanism-evaluation.htm.Google Scholar
• NIHR (2020) Annual Efficient Studies Funding Calls for CTU Projects (UK National Institute for Health Research, London). https://www.nihr.ac.uk/documents/ad-hoc-funding-calls-for-ctu-projects/20141.Google Scholar
• Nixon R, O’Hagan A, Oakley J, Madan J, Stevens JW, Bansback N, Brennan A (2009) The rheumatoid arthritis drug development model: A case study in Bayesian clinical trial simulation. Pharmaceutical Statist. 8(4):371–389.Google Scholar
• Pallmann P, Bedding AW, Choodari-Oskooei B, Dimairo M, Flight L, Hampson LV, Holmes J, et al. (2018) Adaptive designs in clinical trials: Why use them, and how to run and report them. BMC Medicine 16(1):29.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pertile P, Forster M, Torre DL (2014) Optimal Bayesian sequential sampling rules for the economic evaluation of health technologies. J. Roy. Statist. Soc. Series A 177(2):419–438.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Piantadosi S (1997) Clinical Trials: A Methodologic Perspective (John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ).Google Scholar
• Powell WB, Ryzhov IO (2012) Optimal Learning (John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rasmussen CE, Williams CK (2006) Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DR (1983) The central role of the propsensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 70(1):41–55.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Russo D (2020) Simple Bayesian algorithms for best arm identification. Oper. Res. 68(6):1625–1647.Link, Google Scholar
• Smith AL, Villar SS (2018) Bayesian adaptive bandit-based designs using the Gittins index for multi-armed trials with normally distributed endpoints. J. Appl. Statist. 45(6):1052–1076.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sydes MR, Parmar MKB, Mason MD, Clarke NW, Amos C, Anderson J, de Bono J, et al. (2012) Flexible trial design in practice–stopping arms for lack-of-benefit and adding research arms mid-trial in STAMPEDE: A multi-arm multi-stage randomized controlled trial. Trials 13(1):168.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Villar SS, Rosenberger WF (2018) Covariate-adjusted response-adaptive randomization for multi-arm clinical trials using a modified forward looking Gittins index rule. Biometrics 74(1):49–57.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Villar SS, Bowden J, Wason J (2018) Response-adaptive designs for binary responses: How to offer patient benefit while being robust to time trends? Pharmaceutical Statist. 17(2):182–197.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wason J, Jaki T (2012) Optimal design of multi-arm multi-stage trials. Statist. Medicine 31(30):4269–4279.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wheeler G, Mander A, Bedding A, Brock K, Cornelius V, Grieve AP, Jaki T, et al. (2019) How to design a dose-finding study using the continual reassessment method. BMC Medicine Res. Methodology 19(1):18.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Williamson SF, Villar SS (2020) A response-adaptive randomization procedure for multi-armed clinical trials with normally distributed outcomes. Biometrics 76(1):197–209.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Williamson SF, Jacko P, Villar SS, Jaki T (2017) A Bayesian adaptive design for clinical trials in rare diseases. Comput. Statist. Data Anal. 113:136–153.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wu J, Frazier P (2016) The parallel knowledge gradient method for batch Bayesian optimization. Adv. Neural Inform. Processing Systems 29:3126–3134.Google Scholar
• Xie J, Frazier PI, Chick SE (2016) Bayesian optimization via simulation with pairwise sampling and correlated prior beliefs. Oper. Res. 64(2):542–559.Link, Google Scholar