Pragmatic trials offer practical means of obtaining real-world evidence to help improve decision-making in comparative effectiveness settings. Unfortunately, incomplete adherence is a common problem in pragmatic trials. The commonly used methods in randomized control trials often cannot handle the added complexity imposed by incomplete adherence, resulting in biased estimates. Several naive methods and advanced causal inference methods (e.g., inverse probability weighting and instrumental variable-based approaches) have been used in the literature to deal with incomplete adherence. Practitioners and applied researchers are often confused about which method to consider under a given setting. This current work is aimed to review commonly used statistical methods to deal with non-adherence along with their key assumptions, advantages, and limitations, with a particular focus on pragmatic trials. We have listed the applicable settings for these methods and provided a summary of available software. All methods were applied to two hypothetical datasets to demonstrate how these methods perform in a given scenario, along with the R codes. The key considerations include the type of intervention strategy (point treatment settings, where treatment is administered only once versus sustained treatment settings, where treatment has to be continued over time) and availability of data (e.g., the extent of measured or unmeasured covariates that are associated with adherence, dependent confounding impacted by past treatment, and potential violation of assumptions). This study will guide practitioners and applied researchers to use the appropriate statistical method to address incomplete adherence in pragmatic trial settings for both the point and sustained treatment strategies.

Recurrent event and terminal event data commonly arise in clinical and observational studies. To evaluate the efficacy of a treatment effect for both types of events, a composite endpoint has been used as a possible assessment, particularly when faced with high costs and a longer follow-up study. To model recurrent event processes complicated by the existence of a terminal event, joint frailty modeling has been typically employed. In this study, the objective was to develop some target-driven response adaptive randomization strategies using a composite endpoint based on joint frailty modeling. We first implemented a balanced randomized design and then investigated the response adaptive randomization. The former is intuitively first adopted while the latter is expected to be desirable and ethical in terms of allocating more subjects to the more effective treatment. The results show that the proposed procedures using a composite endpoint are capable of reducing the number of trial participants who receive inferior treatment while simultaneously reaching a desired optimal target as compared to a balanced randomized design. The R shiny application for calculating the sample size and allocation probabilities is also available. Finally, two clinical trials were used as pilot datasets to introduce the proposed procedures.

Throughout his career, Andy Grieve has developed and implemented many novel methods and has been involved in trial design and analysis for many trials that have broken new ground in the statistics field. His record of innovation is clear, but it is the way that he also applies these innovations in practice, reaches pragmatic solutions to problems and then shares and disseminates those findings that mark him out as a true leader in the statistical field. In this short article, I will discuss my own views of Andy's innovation, pragmatism and influence and how it has left its mark in my own career.

In industry, successful innovation involves not only developing new statistical methodology, but also ensuring that this methodology is implemented successfully. This includes enabling applied statisticians to understand the method, its benefits and limitations and empowering them to implement the new method. This will include advocacy, influencing in-house and external stakeholders, such that these stakeholders are receptive to the new methodology. In this paper, we describe some industry successes and focus on our colleague, Andy Grieve's role in these.

While a number of phase I dose-finding designs in oncology exist, the commonly used ones are either algorithmic or empirical model-based. We propose a new framework for modeling the dose-response relationship, by systematically incorporating the pharmacokinetic (PK) data collected in the trial and the hypothesized mechanisms of the drug effects, via dynamic PK/PD modeling, as well as modeling of the relationship between a latent cumulative pharmacologic effect and a binary toxicity outcome. This modeling framework naturally incorporates the information on the impact of dose, schedule and method of administration (e.g., drug formulation and route of administration) on toxicity. The resulting design is an extension of existing designs that make use of pre-specified summary PK information (such as the area under the concentration-time curve [AUC] or maximum serum concentration [Cmax ]). Our simulation studies show, with moderate departure from the hypothesized mechanisms of the drug action, that the performance of the proposed design on average improves upon those of the common designs, including the continual reassessment method (CRM), Bayesian optimal interval (BOIN) design, modified toxicity probability interval (mTPI) method, and a design called PKLOGIT that models the effect of the AUC on toxicity. In case of considerable departure from the underlying drug effect mechanism, the performance of the design is shown to be comparable with that of the other designs. We illustrate the proposed design by applying it to the setting of a phase I trial of a γ-secretase inhibitor in metastatic or locally advanced solid tumors. We also provide R code to implement the proposed design.

Dose-finding trials play a key role in the entire drug development process to determine optimal doses for regulatory approval. We address confirmatory efficacy testing for individual dose-placebo comparisons in the context of a dose-finding trial designed with multiple comparison procedures-modeling (MCP-Mod). An extension of the MCP-Mod, called closed MCP-Mod, has been proposed to carry out the MCP-Mod in conjunction with pairwise dose-placebo comparisons; however, an issue associated with the misspecification of candidate dose-response models remains. We consider another way to combine the MCP-Mod and the individual dose-placebo comparisons using serial gatekeeping procedures with fixed sequence, Holm, Hochberg, and step-down Dunnett procedure. The method controls the family-wise error rate in the strong sense and is simple enough to be implemented by existing software. Simulation studies suggested that the serial gatekeeping procedure was comparable with the closed MCP-Mod in terms of statistical power to detect the efficacy of at least one dose, and both methods were capable of pursuing the efficacy claim rather than just establishing the dose-response signal with less than a 20% increase in sample size when assuming monotonic dose-response shapes. The serial gatekeeping procedure would have advantages in the simplicity of implementation and ease of interpretation. The dose-finding trials aiming to declare the dose-response signal, as well as the efficacy of individual doses, would be worth considering as an option to accelerate the drug development program in certain situations.

This article describes a novel mixed-scaling testing strategy, in combination with an adaptive parallel-groups bioequivalence trial, to test pharmacokinetic equivalence of two formulations of a drug with highly variable pharmacokinetics. The methodology was applied to the Phase 2 APLIOS study in relapsing multiple sclerosis patients, where the bioequivalence of subcutaneous ofatumumab 20 mg administered via an autoinjector pen (test formulation) versus prefilled syringe (reference formulation) in the abdomen has been studied. Due to a high coefficient of variation (CV) of the relevant pharmacokinetic metrics (AUCtau and Cmax ) for the reference formulation (>30%), a reference-Scaled bioequivalence (RSABE) approach was applied but modified for a parallel-groups design. In the absence of regulatory guidance for applying RSABE in parallel-group designs, and in contrast to the available regulatory guidance for RSABE in cross-over trials, the suggested testing strategy uses the between-subject variability of the reference drug instead of the corresponding within-subject variability that would be available if a standard cross-over bioequivalence trial had been possible. Moreover, due to high uncertainty in the initial CV estimate for the sample size determination, a two-stage adaptive design was used, allowing for a sample size adjustment based on the pharmacokinetic variability observed at an interim analysis. The interim analysis timing was pre-specified based on simulations which included re-estimation of the final sample size at the end of the first stage to ensure sufficient power of the RSABE test at the end of the second stage. Using this approach, bioequivalence was shown between the test and reference formulations. The APLIOS trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03560739.

For phase I trials, the subgroup-specific time-to-event (Sub-TITE) design identifies the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) separately in 2+ heterogeneous patient subgroups. Sub-TITE allows borrowing strength and dynamic clustering across subgroups from the trial's start, but delaying the initiation of borrowing and clustering may improve trial accuracy. We propose the 2-stage Sub-TITE (2S-Sub-TITE) design in which the trial starts by estimating separate models per subgroup, and then initiates the Sub-TITE design at some pre-specified point of patient accrual. We evaluate the operating characteristics of the 2S-Sub-TITE design using simulations. Nine configurations of the 2S-Sub-TITE design (varying in timing of initiation of borrowing/clustering and prior probability of subgroup heterogeneity, p_hetero) and three control methods were compared across 1000 randomly-generated true toxicity probability scenarios. Effects of priors, sample size, escalation rules, target toxicity probability, accrual rate, and number of subgroups were evaluated. Metrics included: proportion of correct selection (PCS) of the true MTD, and average number of toxicities incurred. Among the 5 2S-Sub-TITE configurations (out of 9 total) with the highest PCS (45%) when the subgroup heterogeneity assumption is correct (all of which out-perform the control methods by 2%-6%), the configuration which enables borrowing and clustering allowance with p_hetero= 0.7 starting at 75% patient accrual best minimizes toxicities as well as losses in accuracy if the heterogeneity assumption is incorrect. For trials with high confidence in subgroup heterogeneity, the 2S-Sub-TITE configuration enabling borrowing/clustering with p_hetero= 0.7 starting at 75% patient accrual exhibits superior dose-finding accuracy compared to existing methods.

In this paper, we consider randomized controlled clinical trials comparing two treatments in efficacy assessment using a time to event outcome. We assume a relatively small number of candidate biomarkers available in the beginning of the trial, which may help define an efficacy subgroup which shows differential treatment effect. The efficacy subgroup is to be defined by one or two biomarkers and cut-offs that are unknown to the investigator and must be learned from the data. We propose a two-stage adaptive design with a pre-planned interim analysis and a final analysis. At the interim, several subgroup-finding algorithms are evaluated to search for a subgroup with enhanced survival for treated versus placebo. Conditional powers computed based on the subgroup and the overall population are used to make decision at the interim to terminate the study for futility, continue the study as planned, or conduct sample size recalculation for the subgroup or the overall population. At the final analysis, combination tests together with closed testing procedures are used to determine efficacy in the subgroup or the overall population. We conducted simulation studies to compare our proposed procedures with several subgroup-identification methods in terms of a novel utility function and several other measures. This research demonstrated the benefit of incorporating data-driven subgroup selection into adaptive clinical trial designs.