Skip to Content
Interactive Textbook on Clinical Symptom Research Logo

Home Button

Hot Flashes Study Sections
 Author Bio
Introduction 
Commentator Bio
Protocol Schema
Protocol Background
Protocol Goals
Patient Eligibility
Test Schedule
Stratification Factors
Registration/Randomization
Protocol Treatment
Dosage Modification
Ancillary Treatment
Toxicity Monitoring
Treatment Evaluation
Descriptive Factors
Treatment/Follow-up
Pharmacologic Studies
Drug Information
Currently selected section: Statistical Considerations
Pathology Considerations
Records/Data Collection Procedures
Budget
Appendices

 

Chapter 2B: Development of a Clinical Trial for Hot Flash Protocol: Statistical Considerations and Methodology
 

Microphone Image

16.1 Study design: This study consists of two sequential trials: (a) a randomized two-arm, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover phase III trial to assess the effectiveness and toxicity of SOYEST as a treatment for hot flashes, and (b) an observational continuation trial to obtain longer term information about the effects of SOYEST for the management of hot flashes.

As we have done in three previous studies (Loprinzi et al., 1994; Barton et al., 1998), we will use a one-week period to get baseline hot-flash data. We will then use a classical two-treatment, two-period crossover design wherein we will follow patients for a four-week treatment period on placebo/SOYEST with a crossover to the alternative substance for the subsequent four-week treatment period. We will not use a washout period, understanding that there may be a delayed washout effect during the second randomized study period. In our previous three studies, this worked well for us and the presence of a carryover effect has not posed a problem to the analysis, power, or interpretation of the results.

16.2 Randomization: Following stratification, the treatment assignment will be calculated using a dynamic allocation procedure (Pocock et al., 1975) which balances the marginal distributions of the stratification factors between the two treatment sequences. The factors defined in Section 5.0, together with institution, will be used as stratification factors. Patients will be allocated equally between the two treatment sequences. This stratification process should prevent a "lead time" bias in either of the two treatment arms.

16.3 Analysis plans (double-blind trial): The efficacy of SOYEST during each treatment period will be compared between the two treatment sequences using the following measures: (1) mean daily hot flash frequency during the last week of each treatment period; (2) mean hot flash severity during the last week of each treatment period; and (3) mean daily hot flash score calculated for each patient during each treatment period by adding up all the hot flash severity scores recorded by the patient during each treatment period and dividing that sum by the total number of days on which the patient recorded hot flash data during that period. The toxicity of SOYEST during each treatment period will be compared using the following measures: (4) the incidence of each toxicity, (5) the maximum severity of each toxicity, and (6) the distribution of the overall toxicity score calculated for each patient during each treatment period by adding up the maximum toxicity grade for each of the toxicities recorded by the patient during the period.

Since this is a crossover study, the therapeutic effects of SOYEST and placebo can be compared in two different ways for each efficacy and toxicity variable: (1) subtract the value in the first treatment period from the value in the second treatment period, and compare these differences between the two treatment sequences; or (2) ignore the values recorded in the second period, and compare between the two treatment sequences only the values recorded in the first period. The first analysis method (i.e. the classic crossover analysis) is, of course, more powerful than the second, but both types of analysis may be required in case one or both of the following two events occur: (1) evaluation data are missing for many patients at one or more of the three-key evaluation times, i.e. at baseline and at the end of each four-week treatment period, or (2) there is evidence of unequal carryover effects.

16.31 Treatment effectiveness will be assessed in phases as described below in order to deal with several issues observed in previous studies or expected in this population, i.e. (1) the average number of hot flashes per day may range from 2 to 15 or more; (2) the frequency and severity of hot flashes are highly correlated; (3) the side effects from other medication or diseases may be "blamed" on the SOYEST/placebo; (4) the length of time before any SOYEST effect is detectable is unknown; and (5) the length of the time before hot flashing intensity and frequency return to baseline levels following discontinuation of therapy (i.e. washout period) is unknown.

16.311 The data for the seven-day baseline period will be used to assess:

  • the initial comparability of the two treatment sequence groups, and
  • the accuracy of the estimated flashing frequency and severity rates supplied by the patient for use as stratification factors at the time of study entry.

16.312 Plots of the daily incidence counts and severity scores for flashes over the seven days of baseline measurement and 56 days of double-blinded medication will be generated for all randomized patients (including those who terminated therapy early for any reason) and will be examined for information regarding:

  • length of time to detectable treatment effect, and
  • length of washout period

Page 23 of 29