Adaptive trial designs: a review of barriers and opportunities

Trials

Keith E Muller³  Mitchell A Thomann²  Christopher S Coffey²  John A Kairalla¹ 

[1] Department of Biostatistics, University of Florida, PO Box 117450, Gainesville, FL, 32611-7450, USA;Department of Biostatistics, University of Iowa, 2400 University Capitol Centre, Iowa City, IA, 52240-4034, USA;Department of Health Outcomes and Policy, University of Florida, PO Box 100177, Gainesville, FL, 32610-0177, USA

关键词: Small clinical trials;    Comparative effectiveness research;    Sample size re-estimation;    Power;    Internal pilot;    Group sequential;    Flexible designs;    Adaptive designs;   

Others  :  1095385
DOI  :  10.1186/1745-6215-13-145

 received in 2012-02-16, accepted in 2012-08-08,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Adaptive designs allow planned modifications based on data accumulating within a study. The promise of greater flexibility and efficiency stimulates increasing interest in adaptive designs from clinical, academic, and regulatory parties. When adaptive designs are used properly, efficiencies can include a smaller sample size, a more efficient treatment development process, and an increased chance of correctly answering the clinical question of interest. However, improper adaptations can lead to biased studies. A broad definition of adaptive designs allows for countless variations, which creates confusion as to the statistical validity and practical feasibility of many designs. Determining properties of a particular adaptive design requires careful consideration of the scientific context and statistical assumptions. We first review several adaptive designs that garner the most current interest. We focus on the design principles and research issues that lead to particular designs being appealing or unappealing in particular applications. We separately discuss exploratory and confirmatory stage designs in order to account for the differences in regulatory concerns. We include adaptive seamless designs, which combine stages in a unified approach. We also highlight a number of applied areas, such as comparative effectiveness research, that would benefit from the use of adaptive designs. Finally, we describe a number of current barriers and provide initial suggestions for overcoming them in order to promote wider use of appropriate adaptive designs. Given the breadth of the coverage all mathematical and most implementation details are omitted for the sake of brevity. However, the interested reader will find that we provide current references to focused reviews and original theoretical sources which lead to details of the current state of the art in theory and practice.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Kairalla et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Chow S, Chang M: Adaptive design methods in clinical trials. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 2007.
• [2]Gallo P, Chuang-Stein C, Dragalin V, Gaydos B, Krams M, Pinheiro J: Adaptive designs in clinical drug development: an executive summary of the PhRMA working group. J Biopharm Stat 2006, 16:275-283.
• [3]U.S. Food and Drug Administration: Draft Guidance for Industry: adaptive design clinical trials for drugs and biologics. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/DrugsGuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM201790.pdf webcite
• [4]Coffey CS, Kairalla JA: Adaptive clinical trials: progress and challenges. Drugs R&D 2008, 9:229-242.
• [5]Chow SC, Corey R: Benefits, challenges and obstacles of adaptive clinical trial designs. Orph J Rare Dis 2011, 6:79. BioMed Central Full Text
• [6]Bretz F, Koenig F, Brannath W, Glimm E, Posch M: Adaptive designs for confirmatory clinical trials. Stat Med 2009, 28:1181-1217.
• [7]Emerson SS, Fleming TR: Adaptive Methods: Telling “The Rest of the Story”. J Biopharm Stat 2010, 20:1150-1165.
• [8]Coffey CS: Adaptive Design Across Stages of Therapeutic Development. In Clinical Trials in Neurology: Design, Conduct, & Analysis. Edited by Ravina B, Cummings J, McDermott M, Poole RM. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2012:91-100.
• [9]Brannath W, Koenig F, Bauer P: Multiplicity and flexibility in clinical trials. Pharm Stat 2007, 6:205-216.
• [10]Dragalin V: Adaptive designs: terminology and classification. Drug Inf J 2006, 40:425-435.
• [11]Burton A, Altman DG, Royston P, Holder RL: The design of simulation studies in medical statistics. Stat Med 2006, 24:4279-4292.
• [12]Storer BE: Design and Analysis of Phase I Clinical Trials. Biometrics 1989, 45:925-937.
• [13]Tourneau CL, Lee JJ, Siu LL: Dose Escalation Methods in Phase I Cancer Clinical Trials. J Natl Cancer I 2009, 101:708-720.
• [14]O’Quigley J, Pepe M, Fisher L: Continual reassessment method: a practical design for phase I clinical trials in cancer. Biometrics 1990, 46:33-48.
• [15]Cheung K, Kaufmann P: Efficiency perspectives on adaptive designs in stroke clinical trials. Stroke 2011, 42:2990-2994.
• [16]Garrett-Mayer E: The continual reassessment method for dose-finding studies: a tutorial. Clin Trials 2006, 3:57-71.
• [17]Tevaarwerk A, Wilding G, Eickhoff J, Chappell R, Sidor C, Arnott J, Bailey H, Schelman W, Liu G: Phase I study of continuous MKC-1 in patients with advanced or metastatic solid malignancies using the modified Time-to-Event Continual Reassessment Method (TITE-CRM) dose escalation design. Invest New Drugs 2011, 30:1039-1045.
• [18]Elkind MSV, Sacco RL, MacArthur RB, Peerschke E, Neils G, Andrews H, Stillman J, Corporan T, Leifer D, Liu R, Cheung K: High-dose Lovastatin for acute ischemic stroke: Results of the phase I dose escalation neuroprotection with statin therapy for acute recovery trial (NeuSTART). Cerebrovasc Dis 2009, 28:266-275.
• [19]Selim M, Yeatts S, Goldstein JN, Gomes J, Greenberg S, Morgenstern LB, Schlaug G, Torbey M, Waldman B, Xi G, Palesch Y: Safety and tolerability of Deferoxamine Mesylate in patients with acute intracerebral hemorrhage. Stroke 2011, 42:3067-3074.
• [20]Bornkamp B, Bretz F, Dmitrienko A, Enas G, Gaydos B, Hsu C, Konig F, Krams M, Liu Q, Neuenschwander B, Parke T, Pinheiro J, Roy A, Sax R, Shen F: Innovative approaches for designing and analyzing adaptive dose-ranging trials. J Biopharm Stat 2007, 17:965-995.
• [21]Berry DA, Mueller P, Grieve AP, Smith M: Bayesian designs for dose-ranging drug trials. In Case studies in Bayesian statistics, Vol. 5. Edited by Gatsonis C, Kass RE, Carlin B, Carriquiry A, Gelman A, Verdinelli I, West M. New York: Springer; 2002:99-181.
• [22]Krams M, Lees KR, Hacke W, Grieve AP, Orgogozo J, Ford GA: ASTIN: an adaptive dose -response study of UK-279,276 in acute ischemic stroke. Stroke 2003, 34:2543-2549.
• [23]Jennison C, Turnbull BW: Group Sequential Methods. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 2000.
• [24]Zhang L, Rosenburger W: Adaptive randomization in clinical trials. In Design and Analysis of Experiments, Special Designs and Applications. Volume 3. Edited by Hinkelmann K. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons; 2012:251-282.
• [25]Rosenberger WF, Sverdlov O, Hu F: Adaptive Randomization for Clinical Trials. J Biopharm Stat 2012, 22:719-736.
• [26]Rosenberger WF, Sverdlov O: Handling covariates in the design of clinical trials. Stat Sci 2008, 23:404-419.
• [27]Antognini AB, Zagoraiou M: The covariate-adaptive biased coin design for balancing clinical trials in the presence of prognostic factors. Biometrika 2011, 98:519-535.
• [28]Jensen RK, Leboeuf-Yde C, Wedderkopp N, Sorensen JS, Minniche C: Rest versus exercise as treatment for patients with low back pain and Modic changes. A randomized controlled trial. BMC Med 2012, 10:22-35. BioMed Central Full Text
• [29]Bartlett RH, Roloff DW, Cornell RG, Andrews AF, Dillon PW, Zwischenberger JB: Extracorporeal circulation in neonatal respiratory failure: a prospective randomized study. Pediatrics 1985, 76:479-487.
• [30]Eitner F, Ackermann D, Hilgers RD, Floege J: Supportive versus immunosuppressive therapy of progressive IgA Nephropathy (STOP) IgAN trial: rationale and study protocol. J Nephrol 2008, 21:284-289.
• [31]Fiore LD, Brophy M, Ferguson RE, D’Avolio L, Hermos JA, Lew RA, Doros G, Conrad CH, O’Neil JA Jr, Sabin TP, Kaufman J, Swartz SL, Lawler E, Liang MH, Gaziano JM, Lavori PW: A point-of-care clinical trial comparing insulin administered using a sliding scale versus a weight-based regimen. Clin Trials 2011, 8:183-195.
• [32]Yuan Y, Huang X, Liu S: A Bayesian response-adaptive covariate-balanced randomization design with application to a leukemia clinical trial. Stat Med 2011, 30:1218-1229.
• [33]Fardipour P, Littman G, Burns DD, Dragalin V, Padmanabhan SK, Parke T, Perevozskaya I, Reinold K, Sharma A, Krams M: Planning and executing response-adaptive learn-phase clinical trials: 1. The process. Drug Inf J 2009, 43:713-723.
• [34]Gu X, Lee JJ: A simulation study for comparing testing statistics in response-adaptive randomization. BMC Med Res Methodol 2010, 10:48-62. BioMed Central Full Text
• [35]Wang SJ: The bias issue under the complete null with response adaptive randomization: Commentary on “Adaptive and model-based dose-ranging trials: Quantitative evaluation and recommendation”. Stat Biopharm Res 2012, 2:458-461.
• [36]Korn EL, Freidlin B: Outcome-adaptive randomization: is it useful? J Clin Oncol 2011, 29:771-776.
• [37]Temple R: Enrichment of clinical study populations. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2010, 88:774-778.
• [38]Freidlin B, Simon R: Evaluation of randomized discontinuation design. J Clin Oncol 2005, 23:5094-5098.
• [39]Wang SJ, Hung HMJ, O’Neill RT: Adaptive patient enrichment designs in therapeutic trials. Biometrical J 2009, 51:358-374.
• [40]Van der Baan FH, Knol MJ, Klungel OH, Egberts ACG, Grobbee DE, Roes KCB: Potential of adaptive clinical trial designs in pharmacogenetic research. Pharmacogenomics 2012, 13:571-578.
• [41]Ho TW, Pearlman E, Lewis D, Hamalainen M, Connor K, Michelson D, Zhang Y, Assaid C, Mozley LH, Strickler N, Bachman R, Mahoney E, Lines C, Hewitt DJ: Efficacy and tolerability of rizatriptan in pediatric migraineurs: Results from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial using a novel adaptive enrichment design. Cephalalgia 2012, 32:760-765.
• [42]Proschan MA: Sample size re-estimation in clinical trials. Biometrical J 2009, 51:348-357.
• [43]Cui L, Hung HMJ, Wang S: Modification of sample size in group sequential clinical trials. Biometrics 1999, 55:853-857.
• [44]Tsiatis AA, Mehta C: On the inefficiency of the adaptive design for monitoring clinical trials. Biometrika 2003, 90:367-378.
• [45]Jennison C, Turnbull BW: Adaptive and nonadaptive group sequential tests. Stat Med 2006, 25:917-932.
• [46]Mehta C, Pocock SJ: Adaptive increase in sample size when interim results are promising: A practical guide with examples. Stat Med 2011, 30:3267-3284.
• [47]Wittes J, Brittain E: The role of internal pilot studies in increasing the efficiency of clinical trials. Stat Med 1990, 9:65-72.
• [48]Proschan MA: Two-stage sample size re-estimation based on a nuisance parameter: a review. J Biopharm Stat 2005, 15:559-574.
• [49]Friede T, Kieser M: Sample size recalculation in internal pilot study designs: a review. Biometrical J 2006, 4:537-555.
• [50]Kieser M, Friede T: Re-calculating the sample size in internal pilot study designs with control of the type I error rate. Stat Med 2000, 19:901-911.
• [51]Coffey CS, Muller KE: Controlling test size while gaining the benefits of an internal pilot design. Biometrics 2001, 57:625-631.
• [52]Coffey CS, Kairalla JA, Muller KE: Practical methods for bounding type I error rate with an internal pilot design. Comm Stat Theory Methods 2007, 36:2143-2157.
• [53]Gould AL, Shih W: Sample size re-estimation without unblinding for normally distributed outcomes with unknown variance. Comm Stat Theory Methods 1992, 21:2833-2853.
• [54]Friede T, Kieser M: Blinded sample size recalculation for clinical trials with normal data and baseline adjusted analysis. Pharm Stat 2011, 10:8-13.
• [55]Maca J, Bhattacharya S, Dragalin V, Gallo P, Krams M: Adaptive seamless phase II/III designs: background operational aspects and examples. Drug Inf J 2006, 40:463-473.
• [56]Stallard N, Todd S: Seamless phase II/III designs. Stat Methods Med Res 2010, 20:623-634.
• [57]Korn EL, Freidlin B, Abrams JS, Halabi S: Design issues in randomized phase II/III trials. J Clin Oncol 2012, 30:667-671.
• [58]Conroy T, Desseigne F, Ychou M, Bouche O, Guimbaud R, Becouarn Y, Adenis A, Raoul J, Gourgou-Bourgade S, Fouchardiere C, Bennouna J, Bachet J, Khemissa-Akouz F, Pere-Verge D, Delbaldo C, Assenat E, Chauffert B, Michel R, Montot-Grillot C, Ducreux M: FOLFIRINOX versus Gemcitabine for metastatic pancreatic cancer. N Engl J Med 2011, 364:1817-1825.
• [59]Kaufmann P, Thompson JLP, Levy G, Buchsbaum R, Shefner J, Krivickas LS, Katz J, Rollins Y, Barohn RJ, Jackson CE, Tiryaki E, Lomen-Hoerth C, Armon C, Tandan R, Rudnicki SA, Rezania K, Sufit R, Pestronk A, Novella SP, Heiman-Patterson T, Kasarskis EJ, Pioro EP, Montes J, Arbing R, Vecchio D, Barsdorf A, Mitsumoto H, Levin B: Phase II trial of CoQ10 for ALS finds insufficient evidence to justify phase III. Ann Neurol 2009, 66:235-244.
• [60]Levin B: Selection and Futility Designs. In Clinical Trials in Neurology: Design, Conduct, & Analysis. Edited by Ravina B, Cummings J, McDermott M, Poole RM. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2012:78-90.
• [61]Ravina B, Palesch Y: The phase II futility clinical trial design. Prog Neurother Neuropsych 2007, 2:27-38.
• [62]Levy G, Kaufmann P, Buchsbaum R, Montes J, Barsdorf A, Arbing R, Battista V, Zhou X, Mitsumoto H, Levin B, Thompson JLP: A two-stage design for a phase II clinical trial of coenzyme Q10 in ALS. Neurology 2006, 66:660-663.
• [63]Tsiatis AA: Information based monitoring of clinical trials. Stat Med 2006, 25:3236-3244.
• [64]Kairalla JA, Muller KE, Coffey CS: Combining an internal pilot with an interim analysis for single degree of freedom tests. Comm Stat Theory Methods 2010, 39:3717-3738.
• [65]Kairalla JA, Coffey CS, Muller KE: Achieving the benefits of both an internal pilot and interim analysis in large and small samples. JSM Proceedings 2010, 5239-5252.
• [66]Tunis SR, Benner J, McClellan M: Comparative effectiveness research: Policy context, methods development and research infrastructure. Stat Med 2010, 29:1963-1976.
• [67]Gurka MJ, Coffey CS, Gurka KK: Internal pilots for observational studies. Biometrical J 2010, 5:590-603.
• [68]Scientific Advances in Adaptive Clinical Trial Designs Workshop Planning Committee: Scientific Advances in Adaptive Clinical Trial Designs Workshop Summary. 2010. www.palladianpartners.com/adaptivedesigns/summary webcite
• [69]Accelerating Drug and Device Evaluation through Innovative Clinical Trial Design http://www2.med.umich.edu/prmc/media/newsroom/details.cfm?ID=1753 webcite
• [70]Neurological Emergencies Treatment Trials http://www.nett.umich.edu webcite
• [71]The Lancet Neurology: NeuroNEXT: accelerating drug development in neurology. Lancet Neurol 2012, 11:119.
• [72]Vandemeulebroeke M: Group sequential and adaptive designs-a review of basic concepts and points of discussion. Biometrical J 2008, 50:541-557.