Operating characteristics of unequal allocation ratios in platform trials with the staggered addition of drugs using binary endpoints

IF 1.4 Q4 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications Pub Date : 2025-02-17 DOI:10.1016/j.conctc.2025.101450
Yosuke Shimizu , Ryoichi Hanazawa , Hiroyuki Sato , Akihiro Hirakawa
{"title":"Operating characteristics of unequal allocation ratios in platform trials with the staggered addition of drugs using binary endpoints","authors":"Yosuke Shimizu ,&nbsp;Ryoichi Hanazawa ,&nbsp;Hiroyuki Sato ,&nbsp;Akihiro Hirakawa","doi":"10.1016/j.conctc.2025.101450","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>One recommendation for the allocation ratio between multiple drugs and a shared placebo control group in platform trials (PTs) is to use a <span><math><mrow><msqrt><mi>k</mi></msqrt></mrow></math></span>:1 allocation ratio for the placebo group relative to the drug group, where <span><math><mrow><mi>k</mi></mrow></math></span> is the number of drug groups with ongoing patient enrollment during the trials. However, the practical utility of such unequal allocation ratios in PTs lacks adequate study.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We compared the performances of equal and unequal allocation ratios through simulations to imitate practical PTs using only concurrent controls and binary endpoints for hospitalized patients with infectious diseases. The operating characteristics, including the type I error rate, power of hypothesis testing, and total sample size, were evaluated.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>In PTs, using an unequal allocation ratio (i) results in a considerable augmentation of the total sample size and prolongs the study duration when monthly patient enrollment is low, but (ii) the target power of hypothesis testing is often preserved compared to an equal allocation ratio, even when we incorrectly specify the drug and placebo group mortality rates assumed in the sample size calculation. The average power increase using an unequal allocation ratio relative to the equal allocation ratio per 100-patient increase in the placebo group was approximately 1.9 % in the selected scenarios of our simulation studies.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The results of the current study highlight the quantitative advantages and disadvantages of using unequal allocation ratios in PTs using only concurrent controls under the specific conditions assumed in our simulations and analyses.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":37937,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications","volume":"44 ","pages":"Article 101450"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2451865425000249","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

One recommendation for the allocation ratio between multiple drugs and a shared placebo control group in platform trials (PTs) is to use a k:1 allocation ratio for the placebo group relative to the drug group, where k is the number of drug groups with ongoing patient enrollment during the trials. However, the practical utility of such unequal allocation ratios in PTs lacks adequate study.

Methods

We compared the performances of equal and unequal allocation ratios through simulations to imitate practical PTs using only concurrent controls and binary endpoints for hospitalized patients with infectious diseases. The operating characteristics, including the type I error rate, power of hypothesis testing, and total sample size, were evaluated.

Results

In PTs, using an unequal allocation ratio (i) results in a considerable augmentation of the total sample size and prolongs the study duration when monthly patient enrollment is low, but (ii) the target power of hypothesis testing is often preserved compared to an equal allocation ratio, even when we incorrectly specify the drug and placebo group mortality rates assumed in the sample size calculation. The average power increase using an unequal allocation ratio relative to the equal allocation ratio per 100-patient increase in the placebo group was approximately 1.9 % in the selected scenarios of our simulation studies.

Conclusion

The results of the current study highlight the quantitative advantages and disadvantages of using unequal allocation ratios in PTs using only concurrent controls under the specific conditions assumed in our simulations and analyses.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications
Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics-Pharmacology
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
6.70%
发文量
146
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊介绍: Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications is an international peer reviewed open access journal that publishes articles pertaining to all aspects of clinical trials, including, but not limited to, design, conduct, analysis, regulation and ethics. Manuscripts submitted should appeal to a readership drawn from a wide range of disciplines including medicine, life science, pharmaceutical science, biostatistics, epidemiology, computer science, management science, behavioral science, and bioethics. Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications is unique in that it is outside the confines of disease specifications, and it strives to increase the transparency of medical research and reduce publication bias by publishing scientifically valid original research findings irrespective of their perceived importance, significance or impact. Both randomized and non-randomized trials are within the scope of the Journal. Some common topics include trial design rationale and methods, operational methodologies and challenges, and positive and negative trial results. In addition to original research, the Journal also welcomes other types of communications including, but are not limited to, methodology reviews, perspectives and discussions. Through timely dissemination of advances in clinical trials, the goal of Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications is to serve as a platform to enhance the communication and collaboration within the global clinical trials community that ultimately advances this field of research for the benefit of patients.
期刊最新文献
Operating characteristics of unequal allocation ratios in platform trials with the staggered addition of drugs using binary endpoints Participant recruitment and retention in randomised controlled trials of melanoma surveillance: A scoping review Prevention of pneumococcal infections: Impact of structured medico-pharmaceutical collaborative management to improve vaccination coverage of at-risk patients (OPTIVACC study): Protocol for a multicenter randomized stepped -wedge study Effects and safety of acupuncture versus non-penetrating sham acupuncture for senile pruritus: Rationale and design for a randomized controlled trial Kaat koort: Study protocol for a pragmatic randomized controlled trial of a multifactorial, multidisciplinary Aboriginal Health Practitioner-led Aboriginal dementia prevention intervention
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1