Advertisement

Statistics in Biosciences

, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 217–232 | Cite as

Efficient Two-Stage Designs and Proper Inference for Animal Studies

  • Chunyan CaiEmail author
  • Jin Piao
  • Jing Ning
  • Xuelin Huang
Article
  • 61 Downloads

Abstract

Cost-effective yet efficient designs are critical to the success of animal studies. We propose a two-stage design for cost-effectiveness animal studies with continuous outcomes. Given the data from the two-stage design, we derive the exact distribution of the test statistic under null hypothesis to appropriately adjust for the design’s adaptiveness. We further generalize the design and inferential procedure to the K-sample case with multiple comparison adjustment. We conduct simulation studies to evaluate the small sample behavior of the proposed design and test procedure. The results indicate that the proposed test procedure controls the type I error rate for the one-sample design and the family-wise error rate for K-sample design very well, whereas the naive approach that ignores the design’s adaptiveness due to the interim look severely inflates the type I error rate or family-wise error rate. Compared with the standard one-stage design, the proposed design generally requires a smaller sample size.

Keywords

Animal studies Cost effectiveness Family-wise error rate Two-stage designs 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the editor, the associate editor, and two reviewers for their constructive comments that have greatly improved the initial version of this paper. The work was supported in part by the U.S. National Institutes of Health Grants UL1 TR000371, CA193878, and CA016672.

Supplementary material

12561_2017_9212_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (38 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (pdf 38 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    Aban IB, George B (2015) Statistical considerations for preclinical studies. Exp Neurol 270:82–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abe K, Yamashita T, Takizawa S, Kuroda S, Kinouchi H, Kawahara N (2012) Stem cell therapy for cerebral ischemia: from basic science to clinical applications. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 32(7):1317–1331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berry SM, Carlin BP, Lee JJ, Muller P (2010) Bayesian adaptive methods for clinical trials. Chapman & Hall, LondonCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blakesley RE, Mazumdar S, Dew MA, Houck PR, Tang G, Reynolds CF III, Butters MA (2009) Comparisons of methods for multiple hypothesis testing in neuropsychological research. Neuropsychology 23(2):255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cai C, Ning J, Huang X (2016) A Bayesian multi-stage cost-effectiveness design for animal studies in stroke research. Stat Methods Med Res.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0962280216657853
  6. 6.
    Chen TT (1997) Optimal three-stage designs for phase II cancer clinical trials. Stat Med 16(23):2701–2711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chow SC, Chang M (2011) Adaptive design methods in clinical trials. Chapman & Hall, LondonzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chow SC, Chang M et al (2008) Adaptive design methods in clinical trials: a review. Orphanet J Rare Dis 3(11):169–190Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    de Aguilar-Nascimento JE (2005) Fundamental steps in experimental design for animal studies. Acta Cir Bras 20(1):2–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dunn OJ (1961) Multiple comparisons among means. J Am Stat Assoc 56(293):52–64MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Food and Drug Administration (2010) Guidance for industry: adaptive design clinical trials for drugs and biologics. Food and Drug Administration, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gallo P, Chuang-Stein C, Dragalin V, Gaydos B, Krams M, Pinheiro J (2006) Adaptive designs in clinical drug development—an executive summary of the PhRMA working group. J Biopharm Stat 16(3):275–283MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hackam DG (2007) Translating animal research into clinical benefit. BMJ 7586:163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Henderson VC, Kimmelman J, Fergusson D, Grimshaw JM, Hackam DG (2013) Threats to validity in the design and conduct of preclinical efficacy studies: a systematic review of guidelines for in vivo animal experiments. PLoS Med 10(7):e1001489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hess KR (2011) Statistical design considerations in animal studies published recently in cancer research. Cancer Res 71(2):625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hochberg Y (1988) A sharper Bonferroni procedure for multiple tests of significance. Biometrika 75(4):800–802MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Holm S (1979) A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand J Stat 6:65–70MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hommel G (1988) A stagewise rejective multiple test procedure based on a modified Bonferroni test. Biometrika 75(2):383–386CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jennison C, Turnbull BW (1999) Group sequential methods with applications to clinical trials. CRC Press, Boca RatonzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kilkenny C, Parsons N, Kadyszewski E, Festing MF, Cuthill IC, Fry D, Hutton J, Altman DG (2009) Survey of the quality of experimental design, statistical analysis and reporting of research using animals. PLoS ONE 4(11):e7824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lachin JM (2005) A review of methods for futility stopping based on conditional power. Stat Med 24(18):2747–2764MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Landis SC, Amara SG, Asadullah K, Austin CP, Blumenstein R, Bradley EW, Crystal RG, Darnell RB, Ferrante RJ, Fillit H et al (2012) A call for transparent reporting to optimize the predictive value of preclinical research. Nature 490(7419):187–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lewis RJ, Berry DA (1994) Group sequential clinical trials: a classical evaluation of Bayesian decision-theoretic designs. J Am Stat Assoc 89(428):1528–1534CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lin PE (1972) Some characterizations of the multivariate t distribution. J Multivar Anal 2(3):339–344MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lin SP, Chen TT (2000) Optimal two-stage designs for phase II clinical trials with differentiation of complete and partial responses. Commun Stat 29(5–6):923–940CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lu Y, Jin H, Lamborn KR (2005) A design of phase II cancer trials using total and complete response endpoints. Stat Med 24(20):3155–3170MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Macleod MR (2014) Preclinical research: design animal studies better. Nature 510(7503):35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Majid A, Bae ON, Redgrave J, Teare D, Ali A, Zemke D (2015) The potential of adaptive design in animal studies. Int J Mol Sci 16(10):24048–24058CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Perrin S (2014) Preclinical research: make mouse studies work. Nature 507(7493):423–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pocock SJ (1977) Group sequential methods in the design and analysis of clinical trials. Biometrika 64(2):191–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Simon R (1989) Optimal two-stage designs for phase II clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 10(1):1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Whitehead J (1997) The design and analysis of sequential clinical trials. Wiley, HobokenzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Chinese Statistical Association 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Biostatistics/Epidemiology/Research Design Core, Center for Clinical and Translational SciencesThe University of Texas Health Science Center at HoustonHoustonUSA
  2. 2.Keck School of MedicineThe University of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  3. 3.Department of BiostatisticsThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations