Critical concepts in adaptive clinical trials

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Adaptive clinical trials are an innovative trial design aimed at reducing resources, decreasing time to completion and number of patients exposed to inferior interventions, and improving the likelihood of detecting treatment effects. The last decade has seen an increasing use of adaptive designs, particularly in drug development. They frequently differ importantly from conventional clinical trials as they allow modifications to key trial design components during the trial, as data is being collected, using preplanned decision rules. Adaptive designs have increased likelihood of complexity and also potential bias, so it is important to understand the common types of adaptive designs. Many clinicians and investigators may be unfamiliar with the design considerations for adaptive designs. Given their complexities, adaptive trials require an understanding of design features and sources of bias. Herein, we introduce some common adaptive design elements and biases and specifically address response adaptive randomization, sample size reassessment, Bayesian methods for adaptive trials, seamless trials, and adaptive enrichment using real examples.

Related collections

Most cited references 18

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

The BATTLE trial: personalizing therapy for lung cancer.

Edward S. Kim, Roy S. Herbst, Ignacio I. Wistuba … (2011)

The Biomarker-integrated Approaches of Targeted Therapy for Lung Cancer Elimination (BATTLE) trial represents the first completed prospective, biopsy-mandated, biomarker-based, adaptively randomized study in 255 pretreated lung cancer patients. Following an initial equal randomization period, chemorefractory non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients were adaptively randomized to erlotinib, vandetanib, erlotinib plus bexarotene, or sorafenib, based on relevant molecular biomarkers analyzed in fresh core needle biopsy specimens. Overall results include a 46% 8-week disease control rate (primary end point), confirm prespecified hypotheses, and show an impressive benefit from sorafenib among mutant-KRAS patients. BATTLE establishes the feasibility of a new paradigm for a personalized approach to lung cancer clinical trials. The BATTLE study is the first completed prospective, adaptively randomized study in heavily pretreated NSCLC patients that mandated tumor profiling with "real-time" biopsies, taking a substantial step toward realizing personalized lung cancer therapy by integrating real-time molecular laboratory findings in delineating specific patient populations for individualized treatment.

0 comments Cited 211 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Safety and efficacy of minimally invasive surgery plus recombinant tissue plasminogen activator in intracerebral haemorrhage evacuation (MISTIE): a randomised, phase 2 trial

Daniel Hanley, Richard Thompson, John Muschelli … (2016)

SUMMARY Background Craniotomy, when evaluated in trials, does not improve outcome after intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH). Whether minimally invasive catheter evacuation followed by thrombolysis is safe and can achieve a good functional outcome by removing clot is unknown. We investigated safety and efficacy of alteplase with minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in patients with intracerebral haemorrhage. Methods MISTIE was an international, randomized, open-label study and was done in 26 hospitals in the USA, Canada, the UK, and Germany. Patients (aged 18–80 years), with non-traumatic (spontaneous) ICH ≥20 mL were randomly allocated, centrally, to medical care or image-guided MIS plus rt-PA (0.3 mg or 1.0 mg every 8 hours for up to 9 doses) to remove clot using surgical aspiration followed with alteplase clot irrigation. The primary efficacy outcome was the adjusted dichotomized modified Rankin Scale (mRS) 0–3 vs 4–6 assessed at day 180 after symptom onset. Analysis was by intention to treat. (ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT00224770). Findings Between February 2, 2006 and April 8, 2013, 96 subjects were randomized and completed follow-up: 54 received treatment and 42 medical care. Primary safety outcomes: mortality, symptomatic bleeding, brain infections, as well as withdrawal of care, did not differ between groups. Asymptomatic hemorrhages were more common in the surgical group (3 (7%) vs. 12 (22%) p= 0.05) producing a difference of 15.1% (95% CI: 1.5% to 28.6%). The estimated absolute benefit, i.e., the unadjusted difference in observed proportions of all subjects with mRS 0–3 (33% vs 21%) at 180 days comparing MISPA vs. medical control, is 0.109 [95%CI: −0.088, 0.294; p=0.26], and is 0.162 [95%CI: 0.003, 0.323; p=0.05] after adjustment for potential imbalances in baseline severity between study arms (primary efficacy outcome). Interpretation MIS+rt-PA appears safe with an apparent advantage of better functional outcome at 180 days. Increased asymptomatic bleeding is a major cautionary finding. The MISTIE trial results, if replicable, could produce a meaningful functional benefit adding surgical management as a therapeutic strategy for ICH. Funding National Institute of Neurologic Disorders and Stroke, Genentech, and Codman.

0 comments Cited 97 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Twenty‐five years of confirmatory adaptive designs: opportunities and pitfalls

Peter Bauer, Frank Bretz, Vladimir Dragalin … (2015)

‘Multistage testing with adaptive designs’ was the title of an article by Peter Bauer that appeared 1989 in the German journal Biometrie und Informatik in Medizin und Biologie. The journal does not exist anymore but the methodology found widespread interest in the scientific community over the past 25 years. The use of such multistage adaptive designs raised many controversial discussions from the beginning on, especially after the publication by Bauer and Köhne 1994 in Biometrics: Broad enthusiasm about potential applications of such designs faced critical positions regarding their statistical efficiency. Despite, or possibly because of, this controversy, the methodology and its areas of applications grew steadily over the years, with significant contributions from statisticians working in academia, industry and agencies around the world. In the meantime, such type of adaptive designs have become the subject of two major regulatory guidance documents in the US and Europe and the field is still evolving. Developments are particularly noteworthy in the most important applications of adaptive designs, including sample size reassessment, treatment selection procedures, and population enrichment designs. In this article, we summarize the developments over the past 25 years from different perspectives. We provide a historical overview of the early days, review the key methodological concepts and summarize regulatory and industry perspectives on such designs. Then, we illustrate the application of adaptive designs with three case studies, including unblinded sample size reassessment, adaptive treatment selection, and adaptive endpoint selection. We also discuss the availability of software for evaluating and performing such designs. We conclude with a critical review of how expectations from the beginning were fulfilled, and – if not – discuss potential reasons why this did not happen. © 2015 The Authors. Statistics in Medicine Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

0 comments Cited 68 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): Clin Epidemiol

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Clin Epidemiol

Journal ID (publisher-id): Clinical Epidemiology

Title: Clinical Epidemiology

Publisher: Dove Medical Press

ISSN (Electronic): 1179-1349

Publication date Collection: 2018

Publication date (Electronic): 23 March 2018

Volume: 10

Pages: 343-351

Affiliations

[1 ]Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada

[2 ]Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (HEI), McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

[3 ]The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Seattle, WA, USA

Author notes

Correspondence: Edward J Mills, Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (HEI), McMaster University, 1280 Main Street W, Hamilton, L8S 4L8 ON, Canada, Tel +1 604 294 3823, Fax +1 604 806 9044, Email millsej@ 123456mcmaster.ca

Article

Publisher ID: clep-10-343

DOI: 10.2147/CLEP.S156708

PMC ID: 5868584

PubMed ID: 29606891

SO-VID: a50a8b06-cfee-44be-abf2-91875ecb1ad4

License:

The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed.

Critical concepts in adaptive clinical trials

Read this article at

Abstract

Related collections

Global Health Next Generation Network

Most cited references 18

The BATTLE trial: personalizing therapy for lung cancer.

Safety and efficacy of minimally invasive surgery plus recombinant tissue plasminogen activator in intracerebral haemorrhage evacuation (MISTIE): a randomised, phase 2 trial

Twenty‐five years of confirmatory adaptive designs: opportunities and pitfalls

Author and article information

Journal

Affiliations

Author notes

Article

History

Categories

Comments

Comment on this article

Similar content 245

Cited by 35

Most referenced authors 374