Special Issue Paper
Article first published online: 23 JUL 2012
DOI: 10.1002/sim.5513
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Issue

Statistics in Medicine
Special Issue: Papers from the 32nd Annual Conference of the International Society for Clinical Biostatistics
Volume 31, Issue 30, pages 4269–4279, 30 December 2012
Additional Information
How to Cite
Wason, J. M. S. and Jaki, T. (2012), Optimal design of multi-arm multi-stage trials. Statist. Med., 31: 4269–4279. doi: 10.1002/sim.5513
Publication History
- Issue published online: 10 DEC 2012
- Article first published online: 23 JUL 2012
- Manuscript Accepted: 12 JUN 2012
- Manuscript Received: 31 OCT 2011
Funded by
- Medical Research Council. Grant Numbers: U.1052.00.014, MR/J004979/1
- National Institute for Health Research. Grant Number: NIHR-CDF-2010-03-32
Keywords:
- multi-arm multi-stage trials;
- optimal allocation, optimal design;
- simulated annealing
In drug development, there is often uncertainty about the most promising among a set of different treatments. Multi-arm multi-stage (MAMS) trials provide large gains in efficiency over separate randomised trials of each treatment. They allow a shared control group, dropping of ineffective treatments before the end of the trial and stopping the trial early if sufficient evidence of a treatment being superior to control is found. In this paper, we discuss optimal design of MAMS trials. An optimal design has the required type I error rate and power but minimises the expected sample size at some set of treatment effects. Finding an optimal design requires searching over stopping boundaries and sample size, potentially a large number of parameters. We propose a method that combines quick evaluation of specific designs and an efficient stochastic search to find the optimal design parameters. We compare various potential designs motivated by the design of a phase II MAMS trial. We also consider allocating more patients to the control group, as has been carried out in real MAMS studies. We show that the optimal allocation to the control group, although greater than a 1:1 ratio, is smaller than previously advocated and that the gain in efficiency is generally small. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

1097-0258/asset/SIM_left.gif?v=1&s=1b631772c3897aa95941da3609d901cd1d389e83)
1097-0258/asset/olbannerright.gif?v=1&s=6d257623b3308a7485294c87b3b5e1e665484099)
