Treatment selection in multi-arm multi-stage designs: With application to a postpartum haemorrhage trial

3Citations
Citations of this article
9Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: Multi-arm multi-stage trials are an efficient, adaptive approach for testing many treatments simultaneously within one protocol. In settings where numbers of patients available to be entered into trials and resources might be limited, such as primary postpartum haemorrhage, it may be necessary to select a pre-specified subset of arms at interim stages even if they are all showing some promise against the control arm. This will put a limit on the maximum number of patients required and reduce the associated costs. Motivated by the World Health Organization Refractory HaEmorrhage Devices trial in postpartum haemorrhage, we explored the properties of such a selection design in a randomised phase III setting and compared it with other alternatives. The objectives are: (1) to investigate how the timing of treatment selection affects the operating characteristics; (2) to explore the use of an information-rich (continuous) intermediate outcome to select the best-performing arm, out of four treatment arms, compared with using the primary (binary) outcome for selection at the interim stage; and (3) to identify factors that can affect the efficiency of the design. Methods: We conducted simulations based on the refractory haemorrhage devices multi-arm multi-stage selection trial to investigate the impact of the timing of treatment selection and applying an adaptive allocation ratio on the probability of correct selection, overall power and familywise type I error rate. Simulations were also conducted to explore how other design parameters will affect both the maximum sample size and trial timelines. Results: The results indicate that the overall power of the trial is bounded by the probability of ‘correct’ selection at the selection stage. The results showed that good operating characteristics are achieved if the treatment selection is conducted at around 17% of information time. Our results also showed that although randomising more patients to research arms before selection will increase the probability of selecting correctly, this will not increase the overall efficiency of the (selection) design compared with the fixed allocation ratio of 1:1 to all arms throughout. Conclusions: Multi-arm multi-stage selection designs are efficient and flexible with desirable operating characteristics. We give guidance on many aspects of these designs including selecting the intermediate outcome measure, the timing of treatment selection, and choosing the operating characteristics.

References Powered by Scopus

A Multiple Comparison Procedure for Comparing Several Treatments with a Control

5387Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: Definition and operational criteria

1644Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Practical guidelines for multiplicity adjustment in clinical trials

178Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Multi-arm multi-stage (MAMS) randomised selection designs: impact of treatment selection rules on the operating characteristics

1Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Facilities for optimizing and designing multiarm multistage (MAMS) randomized controlled trials with binary outcomes

1Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Analysis of Nonconcurrent Controls in Adaptive Platform Trials: Separating Randomized and Nonrandomized Information

0Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Choodari-Oskooei, B., Thwin, S. S., Blenkinsop, A., Widmer, M., Althabe, F., & Parmar, M. K. B. (2023). Treatment selection in multi-arm multi-stage designs: With application to a postpartum haemorrhage trial. Clinical Trials, 20(1), 71–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/17407745221136527

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

Researcher 4

67%

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 2

33%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Nursing and Health Professions 1

33%

Mathematics 1

33%

Neuroscience 1

33%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free