Increasing accrual time and/or follow-up time

Extending the follow-up time typically can increase the information content from a randomised trial and is particularly relevant for time-to-event data, where the sample size is determined by the number of events, rather than the number of patients.

Broadening eligibility criteria

Investigators should reconsider eligibility criteria, treatments etc. to see if more participants can be entered into the trial. If eligibility criteria can be broadened while retaining patient safety and applicability of the plausible effect, then doing so is a good step. The research question of the trial itself may be altered by doing so: the patient group for whom the RCT provides an internal result is broadened. This may impact in a number of ways on how the result generalises outside of a RCT.

Extending collaboration nationally and internationally

We propose thinking about extended collaboration in two steps. First, considering national collaboration, and second international collaboration. National collaboration may prove challenging owing to differences in opinion with other potential investigators, for example regarding the current standard care and research question. These are important to overcome, and the earlier the better. If a new intervention shows a benefit, these investigators may be the people who need to be persuaded to adopt it, so their involvement in the trial could be important. Such investigators will also provide a critical sounding board and may input to improve the design.

International collaboration can pose even more logistical difficulties, as funding and regulations governing research vary greatly across countries and continents. Further, conceptual difficulties may arise if the standard of care is different across countries, as this makes ‘control’ a difficult concept. This may alter the research question, from comparison with a specific and well-defined standard of care, to comparison with a broader and less well-defined group.

In some situations, this may be logistically complicated, leading to designing trials for a meta-analysis, such as MRC OV05 and EORTC 55955 [2], which were operationally separate trials but were analysed together as one throughout—including at interim analyses. We note that collaboration is still necessary, but slight differences to protocols may lead to more heterogeneity and so this should be considered a second option to collaboration under one protocol.

Some disease areas have acknowledged the difficulties with doing large-scale, high-quality academic and commercial randomised trials and have formed collaborative research networks. UK examples at the national level include the UK Dermatology Clinical Trials Network and the National Cancer Research Network; international examples are the Tuberculosis Trials Consortium, the International Rare Cancers Initiative [3] and the European Networks of Reference for Rare Diseases. These resources make it easier to approach collaborators and centres, which may increase recruitment.

Identifying a different experimental arm that differs from the control in more ways

The more similar the research and control treatments are, the less likely it is that the trial will show a difference in disease outcomes between arms. To quote from Peto et al. [4]: ‘Treatments must be sufficiently different from each other for it to be medically plausible that the death rate (or the rate of whatever type of event is of chief interest) on one could well be very substantially lower than on the other.’ If there are two or more candidate research treatments and only one can reasonably be tested, the treatment chosen for testing should be as different as possible to the standard to maximise the chance of showing a difference. Furthermore, it would be inefficient or even wasteful to spend time looking at small differences or non-inferiority questions in settings where there are very few opportunities to improve outcomes.

Changing the experimental arm in this way can mean that the research question is changed. This may be regarded as justifiable from a societal perspective when there is no commitment to a specific treatment; only a commitment to pursue the one which offers the best opportunity to improve outcomes.

When a candidate intervention is made up of multiple components and the context means a factorial design is infeasible, this advice suggests changing multiple components at once for the intervention arm. This, of course, carries a risk of being unable to identify which components are effective. However, failing to make the intervention arm different enough to the control—and thus failing to improve outcomes for patients—is arguably a bigger risk.

Changing the primary outcome to something more information heavy

Statistically speaking, the best primary outcome to use is the one with the greatest information content; that is, the one which minimises the variance of the treatment effect relative to the magnitude of the treatment effect. In terms of information content, there is generally a hierarchy for outcome measures with continuous outcomes tending to hold most information, followed by, in order, time-to-event, ordinal and finally binary outcome measures. From a statistical perspective, it is, thus, sensible to use the most information-rich primary outcome available. It is always costly in terms of sample size to split continuous or ordered outcome data into two categories.

Clearly the primary outcome measure must be important from the perspective of both patients and treating clinicians: the practical convenience of needing fewer patients should not determine the choice of outcome unless candidate outcome measures are considered relevant for decision-making for all interested parties, including patients, clinicians, relevant health authorities and, potentially, regulators.

It is also important to consider any other studies in the field or closely related areas, so that common outcome measures might be measured in all studies to facilitate the synthesis of evidence.

Defining a target difference that is realistic and worthwhile

The target difference between groups is often selected as being both (1) realistic and (2) large enough that it is to be likely to be important to the patient and the clinician. If such a target difference cannot be agreed upon, then the value of the research treatment as a trial candidate should be questioned.

Earlier phase trials need more care, as they often include continuous outcome measures that can be assessed quickly but in most diseases these measures may have less direct relevance to the long-term outcomes. Additional information is then needed on the association between this early-phase outcome and the proposed outcome for the trial at hand to identify plausible target differences for the proposed outcome.

It is possible to reduce the required sample size by increasing the targeted treatment effect and sometimes this process leads to targeting an effect that can be detected given the numbers that can be recruited [6]. An increased targeted treatment difference must have plausibility and, if possible, a clinical evidence base. If there is no such basis, designers should be aware that the power to detect a more realistic effect that might still be deemed worthwhile is low and unclear (although it should always be explicitly calculated). Specifying a large, unrealistic difference is effectively low power for a realistic difference in disguise.

Relaxing power by a small amount to the lower end of traditional values

Researchers should consider the question: ‘What are the consequences of [erroneously] deciding not to use a new treatment that is truly better?’

For some treatments and diseases, the cost (not just economic) of missing a good treatment may be quite high. We will argue that answers may be rather different in smaller population settings, compared to very common diseases.

To understand our arguments, consider the societal perspective when we are looking for a randomised trial to improve outcomes. Whether or not this is through the specific intervention under study in a given trial or some other intervention is of little interest. When a disease is experienced by very many patients, there may be many trials evaluating many different interventions. However, in diseases affecting smaller populations, from which it is hard to recruit patients, although there may be many new interventions appearing, opportunities to evaluate all, or indeed many, will not be possible.

To illustrate this point, we searched through PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov (the search was made on 10 December 2015) for registered trials in arbitrarily chosen diseases with many potential patients for trials (breast, lung and colorectal cancers, and asthma), and in diseases we would expect to have a shortage of available patients for trials at any one time (osteosarcoma and muscular dystrophy). The search was for phase III RCTs added (clinicaltrials.gov) or published (PubMed) after 1 January 2015. The specific search terms and results are included as supplementary material.

Consider the societal perspective relating to studies in a particular disease. The chance of improving outcomes for future patients increases quickly when there are more trials running. If three trials each achieve just 50 % power to detect a difference when testing truly effective interventions, the power to detect a difference in one or more of these trials (and thus achieve the societal aim of improving future patients’ outcomes) is 87.5 %. If three trials each have 80 % power individually, the joint power becomes 99.2 %. However, with just one trial with 80 % power, this represents all the power to improve outcomes in an area.

When the trial being designed may be the only chance of improving outcomes in 5 or 10 years, a single trial may form most or all of the evidence base. It is paradoxically more important to have good power in this individual trial in a smaller population than in conditions where multiple randomised trials can be run simultaneously. The opportunity cost of a false negative is greater because the opportunity to interested parties is more precious. We advise researchers to avoid compromising on power in these smaller population settings, because other trials that can improve outcomes for this patient group are unlikely to emerge.

Step 3: Relaxing α by a small amount, beyond traditional values

The much-criticised 5 % significance level is used widely in much applied scientific research, but is an arbitrary figure. It is extremely rare for clinical trials to use any other level. It may be argued that this convention has been adopted as a compromise between erroneously concluding a new treatment is more efficacious and undertaking a trial of an achievable size and length. Settings where traditionally sized trials are not possible may be just the area where researchers start to break this convention, for good reason.

In considering the type I error, it is critical to consider the question: ‘What are the consequences of erroneously deciding to use a new treatment routinely if it is truly not better?’

Taking the societal perspective as before, we might consider the probability of making a type I error, thus erroneously burdening patients with treatments that do not improve outcomes, or even worsen them, while potentially imposing unnecessary toxicity.

First, for conditions where there are only enough patients available to run one modestly sized randomised trial in a reasonable time frame, research progress will be relatively slow, and making a type I error may be less of a concern than a type II error. In contrast, making several type I errors in a common disease could lead in practice to patients taking several ineffective treatments; for a disease area where only one trial can run at any given time, the overall burden on patients is potentially taking one ineffective treatment that does not work.

Thus, if we take the societal perspective with the trials in Table 1 then, if each trial was analysed with α=0.05 and we see (hypothetically) 40 % positive results [8], then the expected number of false positive trials is given in the final column. We also assumed 10 % and 70 % positive results, with qualitatively similar conclusions.

It is worth viewing this as a consideration of the joint type I error rate of these trials. If there are t trials published claiming a positive result, each specifying α=0.05, then the chance that a type I error will be made equals 1−(1−0.05) ^t . If t=1 as we are considering, the type I error rate equals 5 %. This increases to 14.3 % if three trials return a positive result. From a societal perspective, such an error rate may be more important than the 5 % levels specified in individual trials, a rarely acknowledged consideration.

When a new intervention has some toxicity, this argument requires even greater consideration. Assume the intervention is in truth not better (possibly worse) than the control arm and returns a high but tolerable level of toxicity. If it is falsely judged to be superior in a trial (i.e. a type I error is made), there are implications for future research. Patients will already be experiencing some ln, narrowing the path for future treatment options, particularly if a future RCT is one of adding a treatment rather than substituting: any further toxicity may make the total toxicity unacceptable. In this case, significance levels (and target differences) should be chosen with a clear consideration of the likely toxicity.

We note recent work that highlights the importance of considering long-term aims or research in context [9]. Rather than simply setting error rates for a single trial, one might consider a long-term horizon and the aims by that point. For example, running several smaller trials with relaxed α levels may lead to improved expected survival in the long term vs. fewer large trials with more stringent α, though more type I errors will be made (see [9] for details).

Moving from two- to one-sided significance tests

Two-sided tests look for a difference between groups, but are technically agnostic about the direction of this difference. So-called superiority randomised trials aim to show that one treatment is superior to another on major disease outcomes. Two-sided testing is a ritual that involves careful neglect of the substantive hypothesis and it could be argued that it should be abandoned in most superiority RCTs [10].

In a trial looking to detect superiority of one treatment over another, a two-sided hypothesis test says we will reject H₀: difference = zero if the new treatment is better or worse. However, if a two-sided test returns a p value of 0.0001 and the new treatment is worse, the decision would be not to use that treatment. The same decision would be made if the p value were 1 and the difference between treatments 0. There is, thus, a disconnect between the statistical hypothesis tests and the operational hypothesis interpretation. Note that a trial that finishes with a highly statistically significant value against the research arm is wasteful and harmful; pre-planned interim analyses should have been used to get out early, and to focus the limited resources into a randomised trial that tested something that might make a difference. Operationally, for superiority trials, both the hypothesis we are primarily interested in and its interpretation are very one-sided (‘harm’ and ‘no-effect’ lead to one decision, while ‘benefit’ leads to another). Researchers using a nominally two-sided, 5 % significance level are effectively using a one-sided, 2.5 % significance level. To improve efficiency, the statistical design could better reflect this behaviour, and employ one-sided testing procedures and intervals.

In many sequential or adaptive designs, it is already common to design and analyse with one-sided significance levels because decisions may otherwise be nonsensical, for example in designs that aim to stop for futility [11].

Note that this argument is not related to the societal perspective adopted in arguing for high power and higher type I error rates than conventionally used.

Figure 2 shows how the target number of patients for EURAMOS-1 depends on the sidedness of tests and on the significance level chosen, with all other design parameters held constant.

Including covariate information in design

Covariates are patient characteristics measured at baseline. In observational studies, adjusting for covariates can reduce bias due to confounding. In randomised trials, accounting for covariates has a different aim: to increase precision, and thus gain power [12, 13].

Adjusting the treatment effect estimate for covariates that affect the outcome measure has been shown to lead to substantial increases in power [14]; adjusting for covariates that do not affect the outcome measure leads to a slight loss, but this is very small [14]. There are several alternative methods of accounting for covariates [13, 15, 16].

When trying to compute sample size requirements, it is possible in principle to allow for covariates. For continuous outcome measures, this may be through reducing the standard deviation in sample size calculations (because covariate effects will explain some of the variation away). However, it is not clear how best to approach this for categorical or time-to-event outcome measures, and is an area worthy of methodological research.

Previous work based on 12 different outcomes taken from eight studies demonstrated that the effects of covariates seen in real trials could increase power from 80 % without covariate adjustment to between 81 and 99 % with planned covariate adjustment [14]. Without formally incorporating covariate effects in the sample size calculations, planning to adjust the analysis may be viewed as a method of reclaiming some power. Compared to the sample size calculations, we may expect this to be in the region of about 5 % (and hope it is more). This may be a way of strengthening the design if power has been relaxed further than we would wish.

Re-randomising patients

Historically, the only context in which patients are permitted to participate in the same trial more than once is in crossover designs, which involve patients being randomly assigned to a sequence of treatments and having outcomes measured after each period, with some or all patients receiving different treatments in different periods (crossing over) [17]. A predefined number of treatment periods is set out for each patient.

However, re-randomising patients who have completed their predefined follow-up from a previous randomisation in the trial and who continue to meet the trial’s eligibility criteria an arbitrary number of times can still result in valid statistical inference about treatment effectiveness [18]. Unlike crossover trials, patients do not have a predefined number of treatment periods and the treatment assignments in the sequence do not depend on previous or subsequent assignments.

The design will be suitable for diseases for which treatments are given repeatedly and follow-up is not long term. For example, it has been used for the treatment of febrile neutropenia and sickle-cell crises. It will be unsuitable in some settings: where long-term follow-up is required (particularly for economic evaluations), where the effectiveness of treatment depends on whether and how much it has previously been received (such as where the intervention is educational) or where a period of treatment and follow-up would mean patients are no longer eligible (for example where the primary outcome measure represents a move into a different disease state). Re-randomisation would be unsuitable for treatment of cancers when prolonged follow-up is required or when a procedure can only occur once, such as appendicectomy.

When patients require regular repeated treatments and outcomes are relatively short term, re-randomisation may inject extra numbers without having to compromise on other aspects of the design. If the majority of patients are randomised on multiple occasions then the analysis can be based on within-patient comparisons, potentially gaining much efficiency [18].

Using external information

A treatment that works in one category of a broadly defined disease may work in related categories. That is, it is plausible that a treatment that works well in one specific disease category would have similar effects in another, even if it is unlikely that the effect will be exactly the same. Chemoradiotherapy is effective in three squamous cell carcinomas: head and neck, cervical and anal. It is therefore plausible that it would be effective in penile and vulval cancer, which are also squamous cell cancers but have far smaller patient populations. This may bolster the choice to relax α in that there is a precedent for the treatment working in closely related conditions, as it would be unlikely to have seen false positives in head and neck, cervical and anal cancer.

The notion of borrowed external information is particularly relevant for considering adverse events that are rare or only appear in the long term. Trials are rarely sized to specifically assess adverse events but it is critical that they are considered. If a treatment is indicated for other conditions then its adverse effects may already be reasonable well characterised, unless there are expected interactions with this specific patient group or another treatment with which the treatment under scrutiny has not previously been combined. In such a setting, a trial may be regarded as verifying the adverse-effect profile of treatment rather than demonstrating them for the first time.

External information on covariate effects can be particularly useful if the sample size will be calculated allowing for covariate effects.

Using external information does not impact on the research question, rather the information that will be brought to bear on that question. We do not aim here to prescribe how external information should be borrowed. However, Bayesian approaches lend themselves naturally to this problem and have been well explored [19]; formal frequentist approaches have been less well explored.