IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v42y2022i4p461-473.html

Expected Value of Sample Information to Guide the Design of Group Sequential Clinical Trials

Author

Listed:
  • Laura Flight

    (School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK)

  • Steven Julious

    (School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK)

  • Alan Brennan

    (School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK)

  • Susan Todd

    (Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Reading, Reading, UK)

Abstract

Introduction Adaptive designs allow changes to an ongoing trial based on prespecified early examinations of accrued data. Opportunities are potentially being missed to incorporate health economic considerations into the design of these studies. Methods We describe how to estimate the expected value of sample information for group sequential design adaptive trials. We operationalize this approach in a hypothetical case study using data from a pilot trial. We report the expected value of sample information and expected net benefit of sampling results for 5 design options for the future full-scale trial including the fixed-sample-size design and the group sequential design using either the Pocock stopping rule or the O’Brien-Fleming stopping rule with 2 or 5 analyses. We considered 2 scenarios relating to 1) using the cost-effectiveness model with a traditional approach to the health economic analysis and 2) adjusting the cost-effectiveness analysis to incorporate the bias-adjusted maximum likelihood estimates of trial outcomes to account for the bias that can be generated in adaptive trials. Results The case study demonstrated that the methods developed could be successfully applied in practice. The results showed that the O’Brien-Fleming stopping rule with 2 analyses was the most efficient design with the highest expected net benefit of sampling in the case study. Conclusions Cost-effectiveness considerations are unavoidable in budget-constrained, publicly funded health care systems, and adaptive designs can provide an alternative to costly fixed-sample-size designs. We recommend that when planning a clinical trial, expected value of sample information methods be used to compare possible adaptive and nonadaptive trial designs, with appropriate adjustment, to help justify the choice of design characteristics and ensure the cost-effective use of research funding. Highlights Opportunities are potentially being missed to incorporate health economic considerations into the design of adaptive clinical trials. Existing expected value of sample information analysis methods can be extended to compare possible group sequential and nonadaptive trial designs when planning a clinical trial. We recommend that adjusted analyses be presented to control for the potential impact of the adaptive designs and to maintain the accuracy of the calculations. This approach can help to justify the choice of design characteristics and ensure the cost-effective use of limited research funding.

Suggested Citation

  • Laura Flight & Steven Julious & Alan Brennan & Susan Todd, 2022. "Expected Value of Sample Information to Guide the Design of Group Sequential Clinical Trials," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(4), pages 461-473, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:42:y:2022:i:4:p:461-473
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X211045036
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X211045036
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X211045036?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Simon Eckermann & Andrew R. Willan, 2009. "Globally optimal trial design for local decision making," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(2), pages 203-216, February.
    2. Anna Heath & Natalia Kunst & Christopher Jackson & Mark Strong & Fernando Alarid-Escudero & Jeremy D. Goldhaber-Fiebert & Gianluca Baio & Nicolas A. Menzies & Hawre Jalal, 2020. "Calculating the Expected Value of Sample Information in Practice: Considerations from 3 Case Studies," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(3), pages 314-326, April.
    3. Hawre Jalal & Jeremy D. Goldhaber-Fiebert & Karen M. Kuntz, 2015. "Computing Expected Value of Partial Sample Information from Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis Using Linear Regression Metamodeling," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(5), pages 584-595, July.
    4. A. E. Ades & G. Lu & K. Claxton, 2004. "Expected Value of Sample Information Calculations in Medical Decision Modeling," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 24(2), pages 207-227, March.
    5. Anna Heath & Ioanna Manolopoulou & Gianluca Baio, 2018. "Efficient Monte Carlo Estimation of the Expected Value of Sample Information Using Moment Matching," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(2), pages 163-173, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Anna Heath, 2022. "Calculating Expected Value of Sample Information Adjusting for Imperfect Implementation," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(5), pages 626-636, July.
    2. Wei Fang & Zhenru Wang & Michael B. Giles & Chris H. Jackson & Nicky J. Welton & Christophe Andrieu & Howard Thom, 2022. "Multilevel and Quasi Monte Carlo Methods for the Calculation of the Expected Value of Partial Perfect Information," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(2), pages 168-181, February.
    3. Linke Li & Hawre Jalal & Anna Heath, 2024. "Accurate EVSI Estimation for Nonlinear Models Using the Gaussian Approximation Method," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 44(7), pages 787-801, October.
    4. Mathyn Vervaart & Mark Strong & Karl P. Claxton & Nicky J. Welton & Torbjørn Wisløff & Eline Aas, 2022. "An Efficient Method for Computing Expected Value of Sample Information for Survival Data from an Ongoing Trial," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(5), pages 612-625, July.
    5. Anna Heath & Gianluca Baio & Ioanna Manolopoulou & Nicky J. Welton, 2024. "Value of Information for Clinical Trial Design: The Importance of Considering All Relevant Comparators," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 42(5), pages 479-486, May.
    6. Mathyn Vervaart & Eline Aas & Karl P. Claxton & Mark Strong & Nicky J. Welton & Torbjørn Wisløff & Anna Heath, 2023. "General-Purpose Methods for Simulating Survival Data for Expected Value of Sample Information Calculations," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(5), pages 595-609, July.
    7. Anna Heath & Mark Strong & David Glynn & Natalia Kunst & Nicky J. Welton & Jeremy D. Goldhaber-Fiebert, 2022. "Simulating Study Data to Support Expected Value of Sample Information Calculations: A Tutorial," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(2), pages 143-155, February.
    8. Andrew Willan & Simon Eckermann, 2012. "Value of Information and Pricing New Healthcare Interventions," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(6), pages 447-459, June.
    9. Susan C. Griffin & Karl P. Claxton & Stephen J. Palmer & Mark J. Sculpher, 2011. "Dangerous omissions: the consequences of ignoring decision uncertainty," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(2), pages 212-224, February.
    10. Andrew R. Willan & Simon Eckermann, 2012. "Accounting For Between‐Study Variation In Incremental Net Benefit In Value Of Information Methodology," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(10), pages 1183-1195, October.
    11. Xiaoyi Liu & Jonghyun Lee & Peter Kitanidis & Jack Parker & Ungtae Kim, 2012. "Value of Information as a Context-Specific Measure of Uncertainty in Groundwater Remediation," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 26(6), pages 1513-1535, April.
    12. Edward C. F. Wilson & Miranda Mugford & Garry Barton & Lee Shepstone, 2016. "Efficient Research Design," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(3), pages 335-348, April.
    13. Wang, Yi & Rattanavipapong, Waranya & Teerawattananon, Yot, 2021. "Using health technology assessment to set priority, inform target product profiles, and design clinical study for health innovation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    14. David O. Meltzer & Ties Hoomans & Jeanette W. Chung & Anirban Basu, 2011. "Minimal Modeling Approaches to Value of Information Analysis for Health Research," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(6), pages 1-22, November.
    15. Fernando Alarid-Escudero & Eline Krijkamp & Eva A. Enns & Alan Yang & M. G. Myriam Hunink & Petros Pechlivanoglou & Hawre Jalal, 2023. "A Tutorial on Time-Dependent Cohort State-Transition Models in R Using a Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Example," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(1), pages 21-41, January.
    16. Bergemann, Dirk & Ottaviani, Marco, 2021. "Information Markets and Nonmarkets," CEPR Discussion Papers 16459, Centre for Economic Policy Research.
    17. Mohsen Sadatsafavi & Andrew J. Vickers & Tae Yoon Lee & Paul Gustafson & Laure Wynants, 2025. "Expected Value of Sample Information Calculations for Risk Prediction Model Validation," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 45(3), pages 232-244, April.
    18. McKenna, Claire & Chalabi, Zaid & Epstein, David & Claxton, Karl, 2010. "Budgetary policies and available actions: A generalisation of decision rules for allocation and research decisions," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 170-181, January.
    19. Jeremy D. Goldhaber-Fiebert & Hawre Jalal & Fernando Alarid-Escudero, 2025. "Microsimulation Estimates of Decision Uncertainty and Value of Information Are Biased but Consistent," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 45(2), pages 127-142, February.
    20. Martin Henriksson & Fredrik Lundgren & Per Carlsson, 2006. "Informing the efficient use of health care and health care research resources ‐ the case of screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm in Sweden," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(12), pages 1311-1322, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:42:y:2022:i:4:p:461-473. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.