Registration for a live webinar on 'Neuroleptic malignant syndrome' is now open.
See webinar detailsWe noted you are experiencing viewing problems
-
Check with your IT department that JWPlatform, JWPlayer and Amazon AWS & CloudFront are not being blocked by your network. The relevant domains are *.jwplatform.com, *.jwpsrv.com, *.jwpcdn.com, jwpltx.com, jwpsrv.a.ssl.fastly.net, *.amazonaws.com and *.cloudfront.net. The relevant ports are 80 and 443.
-
Check the following talk links to see which ones work correctly:
Auto Mode
HTTP Progressive Download Send us your results from the above test links at access@hstalks.com and we will contact you with further advice on troubleshooting your viewing problems. -
No luck yet? More tips for troubleshooting viewing issues
-
Contact HST Support access@hstalks.com
-
Please review our troubleshooting guide for tips and advice on resolving your viewing problems.
-
For additional help, please don't hesitate to contact HST support access@hstalks.com
We hope you have enjoyed this limited-length demo
This is a limited length demo talk; you may
login or
review methods of
obtaining more access.
Printable Handouts
Navigable Slide Index
- Introduction
- Outline
- Introduction
- MAMS vs. traditional design
- Rationale: MAMS
- Outcome measures: intermediate and definitive / primary outcome
- Motivation for use of intermediate outcome measure
- PFS and overall survival: ovarian cancer – ICON3 trial
- The MAMS design
- The MAMS design: intermediate stages
- The MAMS design: final stage
- Estimation of treatment effect in the TAMS setting
- Unbiased treatment effect estimator
- Impact of selection mechanism on the sampling distribution of log(HR) (1)
- Impact of selection mechanism on the sampling distribution of log(HR) (2)
- Example trials to quantify bias (1)
- Example trials to quantify bias (2)
- “Successful” trials I: ICON4 trial
- “Successful” trials II: RE01 trial
- “Unsuccessful” trials I: ICON3 trial
- “Unsuccessful” trials II: RE04 trial
- Methods proposed to reduce bias
- Follow-up in trials stopped at the interim look
- Simulations I: bias in arms that reach the final stage
- Simulations II: parameters were based on ICON5 trial
- Simulations results: trials passed interim looks
- Conclusions (1)
- Conclusions (2)
- References
- Thank you and acknowledgements
Topics Covered
- Introduction to MAMS clinical trials
- MAMS designs with an intermediate outcome
- TAMS setting
- Definition of selection bias in treatment effect estimates
- Impact of stopping rules in MAMS designs
- Quantifying potential bias using simulations and real trials
- Methods to reduce bias
Links
Series:
Categories:
Talk Citation
Choodari-Oskooei, B. (2020, June 30). Treatment effect estimates in multi-arm multi-stage (MAMS) clinical trials [Video file]. In The Biomedical & Life Sciences Collection, Henry Stewart Talks. Retrieved October 6, 2024, from https://doi.org/10.69645/GFNO8459.Export Citation (RIS)
Publication History
Financial Disclosures
- There are no commercial/financial matters to disclose.
Other Talks in the Series: The Risk of Bias in Randomized Clinical Trials
Transcript
Please wait while the transcript is being prepared...
0:00
This talk is about the analysis and the issue of bias in the estimate of
treatment effects in multi-arm multi-stage randomised clinical trials designs.
I'm Babak Oskooei, I'm a statistician
at the MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL in London.
0:19
The outline of my talk is, first,
I'm going to give you some introduction to clinical trials in general,
and then I'm going to move on to just give a brief overview of
multi-arm multi-stage randomised trials which is one type of adaptive designs.
I'm going to go through the basic principles and give you some details,
and then I'll move on to the issue of estimation of treatment effect.
I'm going to go through that relevant issues at the definition
of bias in a two-arm multi-stage setting,
that is TAMS setting.
Then for this presentation,
I use real trial data to show how the stopping rules that we have
in the multi-arm multi-stage setting which is
a generalised version of group sequential designs,
might affect their estimates of treatment effect in those trials.
I'm going to re-design and re-analyse those four trials, mainly cancer trials.
Then I'm going to explore the proposed methods to reduce
the potential bias we might have because of these stopping rules in our design,
and then finally, conclusions.
1:30
Usually, treatments or treatment regimens
go through different phases in the course of their development.
In this talk, I'm focusing on mainly Phase II/Phase III setting, where
several such treatments or treatment combinations or
those regimens might be available for testing in those late-phase trials.
We know that in those settings,
especially in cancer trials,
those trials can be quite large and lengthy trials.
The aim is to minimise patient exposure to toxic or ineffective treatments,
and also reduce the cost.
They can cost sometimes millions of dollars or pounds,
and they can take up to 5-15 years depending on the disease area to do.
Another aim would be to reduce costs incurred to ineffective treatments.
For that reason, we need a design that allows faster and more effective evaluation of
several treatments against the gold standard of
control group as we have in this setting at the same time.
Hide