TY - JOUR
T1 - Bayesian randomized clinical trials
T2 - From fixed to adaptive design
AU - Yin, Guosheng
AU - Lam, Chi Kin
AU - Shi, Haolun
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2017 Elsevier Inc.
PY - 2017/8
Y1 - 2017/8
N2 - Randomized controlled studies are the gold standard for phase III clinical trials. Using α-spending functions to control the overall type I error rate, group sequential methods are well established and have been dominating phase III studies. Bayesian randomized design, on the other hand, can be viewed as a complement instead of competitive approach to the frequentist methods. For the fixed Bayesian design, the hypothesis testing can be cast in the posterior probability or Bayes factor framework, which has a direct link to the frequentist type I error rate. Bayesian group sequential design relies upon Bayesian decision-theoretic approaches based on backward induction, which is often computationally intensive. Compared with the frequentist approaches, Bayesian methods have several advantages. The posterior predictive probability serves as a useful and convenient tool for trial monitoring, and can be updated at any time as the data accrue during the trial. The Bayesian decision-theoretic framework possesses a direct link to the decision making in the practical setting, and can be modeled more realistically to reflect the actual cost–benefit analysis during the drug development process. Other merits include the possibility of hierarchical modeling and the use of informative priors, which would lead to a more comprehensive utilization of information from both historical and longitudinal data. From fixed to adaptive design, we focus on Bayesian randomized controlled clinical trials and make extensive comparisons with frequentist counterparts through numerical studies.
AB - Randomized controlled studies are the gold standard for phase III clinical trials. Using α-spending functions to control the overall type I error rate, group sequential methods are well established and have been dominating phase III studies. Bayesian randomized design, on the other hand, can be viewed as a complement instead of competitive approach to the frequentist methods. For the fixed Bayesian design, the hypothesis testing can be cast in the posterior probability or Bayes factor framework, which has a direct link to the frequentist type I error rate. Bayesian group sequential design relies upon Bayesian decision-theoretic approaches based on backward induction, which is often computationally intensive. Compared with the frequentist approaches, Bayesian methods have several advantages. The posterior predictive probability serves as a useful and convenient tool for trial monitoring, and can be updated at any time as the data accrue during the trial. The Bayesian decision-theoretic framework possesses a direct link to the decision making in the practical setting, and can be modeled more realistically to reflect the actual cost–benefit analysis during the drug development process. Other merits include the possibility of hierarchical modeling and the use of informative priors, which would lead to a more comprehensive utilization of information from both historical and longitudinal data. From fixed to adaptive design, we focus on Bayesian randomized controlled clinical trials and make extensive comparisons with frequentist counterparts through numerical studies.
KW - Adaptive design
KW - Bayesian trial design
KW - Group sequential methods
KW - Phase III clinical trial
KW - Power
KW - Randomized study
KW - Type I error rate
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85020392908&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.cct.2017.04.010
DO - 10.1016/j.cct.2017.04.010
M3 - Review article
C2 - 28455232
AN - SCOPUS:85020392908
SN - 1551-7144
VL - 59
SP - 77
EP - 86
JO - Contemporary Clinical Trials
JF - Contemporary Clinical Trials
ER -