Abstract
The determination of the sample size required by a crossover trial typically depends on the specification of one or more variance components. Uncertainty about the value of these parameters at the design stage means that there is often a risk a trial may be under‐ or overpowered. For many study designs, this problem has been addressed by considering adaptive design methodology that allows for the re‐estimation of the required sample size during a trial. Here, we propose and compare several approaches for this in multitreatment crossover trials. Specifically, regulators favor reestimation procedures to maintain the blinding of the treatment allocations. We therefore develop blinded estimators for the within and between person variances, following simple or block randomization. We demonstrate that, provided an equal number of patients are allocated to sequences that are balanced for period, the proposed estimators following block randomization are unbiased. We further provide a formula for the bias of the estimators following simple randomization. The performance of these procedures, along with that of an unblinded approach, is then examined utilizing three motivating examples, including one based on a recently completed four‐treatment four‐period crossover trial. Simulation results show that the performance of the proposed blinded procedures is in many cases similar to that of the unblinded approach, and thus they are an attractive alternative.
Highlights
Crossover trials, in which participants are randomly allocated to receive a sequence of treatments across a series of time periods, are an extremely useful tool in clinical research
We present results for three motivating examples based on real crossover trials
We have developed and explored several methods for the interim re-assessment of the sample size required by a multitreatment crossover trial
Summary
In which participants are randomly allocated to receive a sequence of treatments across a series of time periods, are an extremely useful tool in clinical research. The consequences of this could be far reaching: a wrong decision may lead to the halting of the development of a therapy, which could deprive future patients of a valuable treatment option To address this problem in a parallel group setting with normally distributed outcome variables, Wittes and Brittain (1990), building upon previous work by Stein (1945), proposed the internal pilot study design. In their approach, at an interim time period the accrued data is unblinded, the within-group variance computed, and the trial's required sample size adjusted if necessary.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.