Abstract

Objectives

Value-based trials aim to maximize the expected net benefit by balancing technology adoption decisions and clinical trial costs. Adaptive trials offer additional efficiency. This article provides guidance on determining whether a value-based sequential design is the best option for an adaptive 2-arm trial, illustrated through a case study.

Methods

We outlined 4 steps for the value-based sequential approach. The case study re-evaluates the Big CACTUS trial design using pilot trial data and a model-based health economic analysis. Expected net benefit is computed for (1) original fixed design, (2) value-based design with fixed sample size, and (3) optimal value-based sequential design with adaptive stopping. We compare pretrial modeling with the actual Big CACTUS trial results.

Results

Over 10 years, the adoption decision would affect approximately 215 378 patients. Pretrial modeling shows that the expected net benefit minus costs are (1) £102 million for the original fixed design, (2) £107 million (+5.3% higher) for the value-based design with optimal fixed sample size, and (3) £109 million (+6.7% higher) for the optimal value-based sequential design with maximum sample size of 435 per arm. Post hoc analysis using actual Big CACTUS trial data indicates that the value-adaptive trial with a maximum sample size of 95 participant pairs would not have stopped early. Bootstrap simulations reveal a 9.76% probability of early completion with n = 95 pairs compared with 31.50% with n = 435 pairs.

Conclusions

The 4-step approach to value-based sequential 2-arm design with adaptive stopping was successfully implemented. Further application of value-based adaptive approaches could be useful to assess the efficiency of alternative study designs.