Selection and futility designs

Clinical Trials in Neurology: Design, Conduct, Analysis

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages 78-90

  Levin, Bruce ^a  

^a Department of Medicine   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84870889573     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139032445.009     Document Type: Chapter

References (34)

1. Palesch Y, Tilley BC, Sackett DL, et al. Applying a phase II futility study design to therapeutic stroke trials. Stroke 2005; 36: 2410–4.
2. Levin B.The utility of futility (editorial). Stroke 2005; 36: 2331–2.
3. Elm JJ, Goetz CG, Ravina B, et al. A responsive outcome for Parkinson’s disease neuroprotection futility studies. Ann Neurol 2005; 57: 197–203.
4. Tilley BC, Palesch YY, Kieburtz K, et al., on behalf of the NET-PD Investigators. Optimizing the ongoing search for new treatments for Parkinson’s disease: using futility designs. Neurology 2006; 66: 628–33.
5. The NINDS NET-PD Investigators. A randomized, double blinded, futility clinical trial of creatine and minocycline in early Parkinson’s disease. Neurology 2006; 66: 664–71.
6. The NINDS NET-PD Investigators. A randomized clinical trial of coenzyme Q10 and GPI-1485 in early Parkinson disease. Neurology 2007; 68: 20–8.
7. Tilley BC and Galpern WR. Screening potential therapies: Lessons learned from new paradigms used in Parkinson disease. Stroke 2007; 38: 800–3.
8. Levy G, Kaufmann P, Buchsbaum R, et al. A two-stage design for a phase II clinical trial of coenzyme Q10 in ALS. Neurology 2006; 66: 660–3.
9. Kaufmann, P, h ompson, JLP, Levy, G, et al., for the QALS Study Group. Phase II trial of CoQ10 for ALS finds insufficient evidence to justify phase III. Ann Neurol 2009; 66: 235–44.
10. Czaplinski A, Haverkamp LJ, Yen AA, et al. h e value of database controls in pilot or futility studies in ALS. Neurology 2006; 67: 1827–32.
11. Cudkowicz M, Katz J, Moore DH, et al. Toward more efficient clinical trials for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Amyotrophic Lateral Scler 2010; 11: 259–65.
12. The Huntington Study Group DOMINO Investigators. A futility study of minocycline in Huntington’s disease.Mov Disord 2010; 25: 2219–24.
13. Herson J and Carter SK. Calibrated phase II clinical trials in oncology. Stat Med 1986; 5: 441–7.
14. The Parkinson Study Group. Effect of deprenyl on the progression of disability in early Parkinson’s disease. New Engl J Med 1989; 321: 1364–71.
15. Bechhofer RE. A single-sample multiple decision procedure for ranking means of normal populations with known variances. Ann Math Stat 1954; 25: 16–39.
16. Gupta SS. On a decision rule for a problem in ranking means. Mimeograph Series 150, Institute of Statistics. Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina, 1956.
17. Gupta SS. On some multiple decision (selection and ranking) rules. Technometrics 1965; 7: 225–45.
18. Bechhofer RE, Kiefer J and Sobel M. Sequential Identication and Ranking Procedures. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1968.
19. Gibbons JD, Olkin I and Sobel M. Selecting and Ordering Populations: A New StatisticalMethodology. Wiley, Hoboken, 1977; corrected, unabridged version Society for Industrial & Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, 1999.
20. Simon R, Wittes RE and Ellenberg SS. Randomized phase II clinical trials. Cancer Treat Rep 1985; 69: 1375–81.
21. Thall PF, Simon R and Ellenberg SS. Two-stage selection and testing designs for comparative clinical trials. Biometrika 1988; 75: 303–10.
22. Schaid DJ, Wieand S and Therneau TM. Optimal two-stage screening designs for survival comparisons. Biometrika 1990; 77: 507–13.
23. Stallard N and Todd S. Sequential designs for phase III clinical trials incorporating treatment selection. Stat Med 2003; 22: 689–703.
24. Bischof W and Miller F. Adaptive two-stage test procedures to find the best treatment in clinical trials. Biometrika 2005; 92: 197–212.
25. Gordon PH, Cheung Y-K, Levin B, et al., for the Combination Drug Selection Trial Study Group. A novel, efficient, randomized selection trial comparing combinations of drug therapy for ALS. Amyotrophic Lateral Scler 2008; 9: 212–22.
26. Buringer H, Martin H and Schriever, KH. Nonparametric Sequential Selection Procedures Birkhauser, Boston: 1980.
27. Bechhofer RE, Santner TJ and Goldsman DM. Design and Analysis of Experiments for Statistical Selection, Screening, and Multiple Comparisons. Wiley, New York: 1995.
28. Levin B and Robbins H. Selecting the highest probability in binomial or multinomial trials. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1981; 78: 4663–6.
29. Leu CS, Levin B. On the probability of correct selection in the Levin-Robbins sequential elimination procedure. Stat Sinica 1999; 9: 879–91.
30. Leu CS and Levin B. Proof of a lower bound formula for the expected reward in the Levin-Robbins sequential elimination procedure. Sequent Anal 1999; 18: 81–105.
31. Leu CS and Levin B. A generalization of the Levin- Robbins procedure for binomial subset selection and recruitment problems. Stat Sinica 2008; 18: 203–18.
32. Leu CS and Levin B. On a conjecture of Bechhofer, Kiefer, and Sobel for the Levin-Robbins-Leu binomial subset selection procedures. Sequent Anal 2008; 27: 106–25.
33. Leu CS, Cheung YK and Levin B. Subset selection in comparative selection trials. In: Bhattacharjee M, Dhar SK, Subramanian S, eds. Recent Advances in Biostatistics, False Discovery, Survival Analysis and Other Topics. Series in Biostatistics, Volume 4. World Scientii c, 2011.
34. Haley EC, Thompson JLP, Grotta, JC, et al., for the Tenecteplase in Stroke Investigators. Phase IIB/III trial of tenecteplase in acute ischemic stroke: Results of a prematurely terminated randomized clinical trial. Stroke 2010; 41: 707–11.