No abstract

Goal Attainment Scaling is an assessment instrument to evaluate interventions on the basis of individual, patient-specific goals. The attainment of these goals is mapped in a pre-specified way to attainment levels on an ordinal scale, which is common to all goals. This approach is patient-centred and allows one to integrate the outcomes of patients with very heterogeneous symptoms. The latter is of particular importance in clinical trials in rare diseases because it enables larger sample sizes by including a broader patient population. In this paper, we focus on the statistical analysis of Goal Attainment Scaling outcomes for the comparison of two treatments in randomised clinical trials. Building on a general statistical model, we investigate the properties of different hypothesis testing approaches. Additionally, we propose a latent variable approach to generate Goal Attainment Scaling data in a simulation study, to assess the impact of model parameters such as the number of goals per patient and their correlation, the choice of discretisation thresholds and the type of design (parallel group or cross-over). Based on our findings, we give recommendations for the design of clinical trials with a Goal Attainment Scaling endpoint. Furthermore, we discuss an application of Goal Attainment Scaling in a clinical trial in mastocytosis.

BackgroundThe ASTERIX project developed a number of novel methods suited to study small populations. The objective of this exercise was to evaluate the applicability and added value of novel methods to improve drug development in small populations, using real world drug development programmes as reported in European Public Assessment Reports.MethodsThe applicability and added value of thirteen novel methods developed within ASTERIX were evaluated using data from 26 European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs) for orphan medicinal products, representative of rare medical conditions as predefined through six clusters. The novel methods included were ‘innovative trial designs’ (six methods), ‘level of evidence’ (one method), ‘study endpoints and statistical analysis’ (four methods), and ‘meta-analysis’ (two methods) and they were selected from the methods developed within ASTERIX based on their novelty; methods that discussed already available and applied strategies were not included for the purpose of this validation exercise. Pre-requisites for application in a study were systematized for each method, and for each main study in the selected EPARs it was assessed if all pre-requisites were met. This direct applicability using the actual study design was firstly assessed. Secondary, applicability and added value were explored allowing changes to study objectives and design, but without deviating from the context of the drug development plan. We evaluated whether differences in applicability and added value could be observed between the six predefined condition clusters.Results and discussionDirect applicability of novel methods appeared to be limited to specific selected cases. The applicability and added value of novel methods increased substantially when changes to the study setting within the context of drug development were allowed. In this setting, novel methods for extrapolation, sample size re-assessment, multi-armed trials, optimal sequential design for small sample sizes, Bayesian sample size re-estimation, dynamic borrowing through power priors and fall-back tests for co-primary endpoints showed most promise - applicable in more than 40% of evaluated EPARs in all clusters. Most of the novel methods were applicable to conditions in the cluster of chronic and progressive conditions, involving multiple systems/organs. Relatively fewer methods were applicable to acute conditions with single episodes. For the chronic clusters, Goal Attainment Scaling was found to be particularly applicable as opposed to other (non-chronic) clusters.ConclusionNovel methods as developed in ASTERIX can improve drug development programs. Achieving optimal added value of these novel methods often requires consideration of the entire drug development program, rather than reconsideration of methods for a specific trial. The novel methods tested were mostly applicable in chronic conditions, and acute conditions with recurrent episodes.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13023-018-0925-0) contains...

Multi‐arm group sequential clinical trials are efficient designs to compare multiple treatments to a control. They allow one to test for treatment effects already in interim analyses and can have a lower average sample number than fixed sample designs. Their operating characteristics depend on the stopping rule: We consider simultaneous stopping, where the whole trial is stopped as soon as for any of the arms the null hypothesis of no treatment effect can be rejected, and separate stopping, where only recruitment to arms for which a significant treatment effect could be demonstrated is stopped, but the other arms are continued. For both stopping rules, the family‐wise error rate can be controlled by the closed testing procedure applied to group sequential tests of intersection and elementary hypotheses. The group sequential boundaries for the separate stopping rule also control the family‐wise error rate if the simultaneous stopping rule is applied. However, we show that for the simultaneous stopping rule, one can apply improved, less conservative stopping boundaries for local tests of elementary hypotheses. We derive corresponding improved Pocock and O'Brien type boundaries as well as optimized boundaries to maximize the power or average sample number and investigate the operating characteristics and small sample properties of the resulting designs. To control the power to reject at least one null hypothesis, the simultaneous stopping rule requires a lower average sample number than the separate stopping rule. This comes at the cost of a lower power to reject all null hypotheses. Some of this loss in power can be regained by applying the improved stopping boundaries for the simultaneous stopping rule. The procedures are illustrated with clinical trials in systemic sclerosis and narcolepsy. © 2016 The Authors. Statistics in Medicine Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.