A Multi‐Stage Drop‐the‐Loser Design With Superiority Boundaries

Multi-arm multi-stage (MAMS) trials have gained popularity, due to their improved efficiency in evaluating multiple treatments. A traditional MAMS trial often decreases the expected sample size of the trial compared with just running a multi-arm approach, but with the drawback of an increase in maximum sample size. For academic led trials, this poses a particular challenge, as funding is typically based on the maximum required sample size. To address this, drop-the-loser designs were introduced, where a fixed number of treatments are dropped at each interim stage, thereby reducing the maximum sample size. In this work, we propose an enhanced multi-stage drop-the-loser design that also allows for early stopping of the entire trial for superiority. This approach aims to retain the benefits of a reduced maximum sample size while also lowering the expected sample size. The proposed design is motivated by a trial in atrial fibrillation. We derive analytical expressions for the type I error rate, power, and expected sample size, and compare the proposed design's performance to alternative methods. We outline the key requirements for implementing the proposed design and discuss the contexts in which it should be considered. For the motivating example, the results show that the proposed design substantially reduces the expected sample size compared to a standard drop-the-loser design, while lowering the maximum sample size relative to running a traditional MAMS trial or multiple separate trials.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Statistics in Medicine
Published
2026-06-24
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.70642
Primary Topic
Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

A Multi‐Stage Drop‐the‐Loser Design With Superiority Boundaries

T M Ramsay, Salmaan Kanji, S Sibley, Andrew Seely et al.
Statistics in Medicine
Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
article

A Multi‐Stage Drop‐the‐Loser Design With Superiority Boundaries

T M Ramsay, Salmaan Kanji, S Sibley, Andrew Seely, Peter Greenstreet, Manel Khan, Pouya Motazedian
article en

Abstract

Multi-arm multi-stage (MAMS) trials have gained popularity, due to their improved efficiency in evaluating multiple treatments. A traditional MAMS trial often decreases the expected sample size of the trial compared with just running a multi-arm approach, but with the drawback of an increase in maximum sample size. For academic led trials, this poses a particular challenge, as funding is typically based on the maximum required sample size. To address this, drop-the-loser designs were introduced, where a fixed number of treatments are dropped at each interim stage, thereby reducing the maximum sample size. In this work, we propose an enhanced multi-stage drop-the-loser design that also allows for early stopping of the entire trial for superiority. This approach aims to retain the benefits of a reduced maximum sample size while also lowering the expected sample size. The proposed design is motivated by a trial in atrial fibrillation. We derive analytical expressions for the type I error rate, power, and expected sample size, and compare the proposed design's performance to alternative methods. We outline the key requirements for implementing the proposed design and discuss the contexts in which it should be considered. For the motivating example, the results show that the proposed design substantially reduces the expected sample size compared to a standard drop-the-loser design, while lowering the maximum sample size relative to running a traditional MAMS trial or multiple separate trials.

Statistics in MedicineVol. 45(15-17)
University of Ottawa (CA), Queen's University (CA), Ottawa Hospital (CA), Ottawa Public Health (CA)
Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Openalex Percentile: Top 5%
Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.