Design of a multi-arm randomized clinical trial with no control arm

Amalia Magaret, Derek C. Angus, Neill K.J. Adhikari, Patrick Banura, Niranjan Kissoon, James V. Lawler, Shevin T. Jacob

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Clinical trial designs that include multiple treatments are currently limited to those that perform pairwise comparisons of each investigational treatment to a single control. However, there are settings, such as the recent Ebola outbreak, in which no treatment has been demonstrated to be effective; and therefore, no standard of care exists which would serve as an appropriate control. Methods/design: For illustrative purposes, we focused on the care of patients presenting in austere settings with critically ill 'sepsis-like' syndromes. Our approach involves a novel algorithm for comparing mortality among arms without requiring a single fixed control. The algorithm allows poorly-performing arms to be dropped during interim analyses. Consequently, the study may be completed earlier than planned. We used simulation to determine operating characteristics for the trial and to estimate the required sample size. Results: We present a potential study design targeting a minimal effect size of a 23% relative reduction in mortality between any pair of arms. Using estimated power and spurious significance rates from the simulated scenarios, we show that such a trial would require 2550 participants. Over a range of scenarios, our study has 80 to 99% power to select the optimal treatment. Using a fixed control design, if the control arm is least efficacious, 640 subjects would be enrolled into the least efficacious arm, while our algorithm would enroll between 170 and 430. This simulation method can be easily extended to other settings or other binary outcomes. Conclusion: Early dropping of arms is efficient and ethical when conducting clinical trials with multiple arms.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)12-17
Number of pages6
JournalContemporary Clinical Trials
Volume46
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2016

Fingerprint

Randomized Controlled Trials
Clinical Trials
Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome
Patient-Centered Care
Investigational Therapies
Mortality
Standard of Care
Critical Illness
Sample Size
Disease Outbreaks
Therapeutics

Keywords

  • Clinical trial
  • Multi-arm
  • Randomized
  • Sepsis
  • Study design

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pharmacology (medical)

Cite this

Magaret, A., Angus, D. C., Adhikari, N. K. J., Banura, P., Kissoon, N., Lawler, J. V., & Jacob, S. T. (2016). Design of a multi-arm randomized clinical trial with no control arm. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 46, 12-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2015.11.003

Design of a multi-arm randomized clinical trial with no control arm. / Magaret, Amalia; Angus, Derek C.; Adhikari, Neill K.J.; Banura, Patrick; Kissoon, Niranjan; Lawler, James V.; Jacob, Shevin T.

In: Contemporary Clinical Trials, Vol. 46, 01.01.2016, p. 12-17.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Magaret, A, Angus, DC, Adhikari, NKJ, Banura, P, Kissoon, N, Lawler, JV & Jacob, ST 2016, 'Design of a multi-arm randomized clinical trial with no control arm', Contemporary Clinical Trials, vol. 46, pp. 12-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2015.11.003
Magaret, Amalia ; Angus, Derek C. ; Adhikari, Neill K.J. ; Banura, Patrick ; Kissoon, Niranjan ; Lawler, James V. ; Jacob, Shevin T. / Design of a multi-arm randomized clinical trial with no control arm. In: Contemporary Clinical Trials. 2016 ; Vol. 46. pp. 12-17.
@article{14ccb0326f5144bcb4e0c8a2a0f406e2,
title = "Design of a multi-arm randomized clinical trial with no control arm",
abstract = "Background: Clinical trial designs that include multiple treatments are currently limited to those that perform pairwise comparisons of each investigational treatment to a single control. However, there are settings, such as the recent Ebola outbreak, in which no treatment has been demonstrated to be effective; and therefore, no standard of care exists which would serve as an appropriate control. Methods/design: For illustrative purposes, we focused on the care of patients presenting in austere settings with critically ill 'sepsis-like' syndromes. Our approach involves a novel algorithm for comparing mortality among arms without requiring a single fixed control. The algorithm allows poorly-performing arms to be dropped during interim analyses. Consequently, the study may be completed earlier than planned. We used simulation to determine operating characteristics for the trial and to estimate the required sample size. Results: We present a potential study design targeting a minimal effect size of a 23{\%} relative reduction in mortality between any pair of arms. Using estimated power and spurious significance rates from the simulated scenarios, we show that such a trial would require 2550 participants. Over a range of scenarios, our study has 80 to 99{\%} power to select the optimal treatment. Using a fixed control design, if the control arm is least efficacious, 640 subjects would be enrolled into the least efficacious arm, while our algorithm would enroll between 170 and 430. This simulation method can be easily extended to other settings or other binary outcomes. Conclusion: Early dropping of arms is efficient and ethical when conducting clinical trials with multiple arms.",
keywords = "Clinical trial, Multi-arm, Randomized, Sepsis, Study design",
author = "Amalia Magaret and Angus, {Derek C.} and Adhikari, {Neill K.J.} and Patrick Banura and Niranjan Kissoon and Lawler, {James V.} and Jacob, {Shevin T.}",
year = "2016",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.cct.2015.11.003",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "46",
pages = "12--17",
journal = "Contemporary Clinical Trials",
issn = "1551-7144",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Design of a multi-arm randomized clinical trial with no control arm

AU - Magaret, Amalia

AU - Angus, Derek C.

AU - Adhikari, Neill K.J.

AU - Banura, Patrick

AU - Kissoon, Niranjan

AU - Lawler, James V.

AU - Jacob, Shevin T.

PY - 2016/1/1

Y1 - 2016/1/1

N2 - Background: Clinical trial designs that include multiple treatments are currently limited to those that perform pairwise comparisons of each investigational treatment to a single control. However, there are settings, such as the recent Ebola outbreak, in which no treatment has been demonstrated to be effective; and therefore, no standard of care exists which would serve as an appropriate control. Methods/design: For illustrative purposes, we focused on the care of patients presenting in austere settings with critically ill 'sepsis-like' syndromes. Our approach involves a novel algorithm for comparing mortality among arms without requiring a single fixed control. The algorithm allows poorly-performing arms to be dropped during interim analyses. Consequently, the study may be completed earlier than planned. We used simulation to determine operating characteristics for the trial and to estimate the required sample size. Results: We present a potential study design targeting a minimal effect size of a 23% relative reduction in mortality between any pair of arms. Using estimated power and spurious significance rates from the simulated scenarios, we show that such a trial would require 2550 participants. Over a range of scenarios, our study has 80 to 99% power to select the optimal treatment. Using a fixed control design, if the control arm is least efficacious, 640 subjects would be enrolled into the least efficacious arm, while our algorithm would enroll between 170 and 430. This simulation method can be easily extended to other settings or other binary outcomes. Conclusion: Early dropping of arms is efficient and ethical when conducting clinical trials with multiple arms.

AB - Background: Clinical trial designs that include multiple treatments are currently limited to those that perform pairwise comparisons of each investigational treatment to a single control. However, there are settings, such as the recent Ebola outbreak, in which no treatment has been demonstrated to be effective; and therefore, no standard of care exists which would serve as an appropriate control. Methods/design: For illustrative purposes, we focused on the care of patients presenting in austere settings with critically ill 'sepsis-like' syndromes. Our approach involves a novel algorithm for comparing mortality among arms without requiring a single fixed control. The algorithm allows poorly-performing arms to be dropped during interim analyses. Consequently, the study may be completed earlier than planned. We used simulation to determine operating characteristics for the trial and to estimate the required sample size. Results: We present a potential study design targeting a minimal effect size of a 23% relative reduction in mortality between any pair of arms. Using estimated power and spurious significance rates from the simulated scenarios, we show that such a trial would require 2550 participants. Over a range of scenarios, our study has 80 to 99% power to select the optimal treatment. Using a fixed control design, if the control arm is least efficacious, 640 subjects would be enrolled into the least efficacious arm, while our algorithm would enroll between 170 and 430. This simulation method can be easily extended to other settings or other binary outcomes. Conclusion: Early dropping of arms is efficient and ethical when conducting clinical trials with multiple arms.

KW - Clinical trial

KW - Multi-arm

KW - Randomized

KW - Sepsis

KW - Study design

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84947269900&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84947269900&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.cct.2015.11.003

DO - 10.1016/j.cct.2015.11.003

M3 - Article

C2 - 26542388

AN - SCOPUS:84947269900

VL - 46

SP - 12

EP - 17

JO - Contemporary Clinical Trials

JF - Contemporary Clinical Trials

SN - 1551-7144

ER -