Abstract
The draft adaptive design guidance released by FDA in 2010 included references to adaptive study designs that were described as “less well-understood.” At that time, there was relatively little regulatory experience with such designs, and their properties were felt to be insufficiently understood. In order to promote greater use of adaptive designs, especially those categorized as less well-understood, the Best Practice Subteam of the DIA Adaptive Designs Scientific Working Group (ADSWG) has worked on describing and characterizing these designs, identifying challenges associated with them and suggesting improvements to design or study conduct aspects that might make them more acceptable. This paper summarizes the work from the subteam.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
US FDA. Adaptive design clinical trials for drug and biologics draft guidance. www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM201790.pdf. Published 2010.
Miller E, Gallo P, He W, Kammerman L, et al. Best practices case studies for “less well-understood” adaptive designs. Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science. In press.
US FDA. Guidance for clinical trial sponsors on the establishment and operation of clinical trial data monitoring committees. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm127073.pdf. Published 2006.
Husten L. Orexigen released interim data without approval of trial leaders. Forbes. 2015, March. http://www.forbes.com/sites/larryhusten/2015/03/03/orexigen-released-interim-data-without-approval-of-trial-leaders/
Jennison C, Turnbull B. Mid-course sample size modification in clinical trials based on the observed treatment effect. Stat Med. 2003;22:971–993.
Pitt B, Pfeffer M, Assmann S, et al. Spironolactone for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. N Engl J Med. 2011;370:1453–1454.
Maca J, Gallo P, Krams M, Dragalin V, Bhattacharya S. Adaptive seamless phase II/II designs—background, operational aspects, and examples. Drug Inf J. 2006;40:463–475.
Cui L, Hung HM, Wang SJ. Modification of sample size in group sequential clinical trials. Biometrics. 1999;55:853–857.
Wassmer G, Dragalin V. Designing issues in confirmatory adaptive population enrichment trials. J Biopharm Stat. 2015;25:651–669.
Chen YH, DeMets DL, Lan KK. Increasing the sample size when the unblinded interim result is promising. Stat Med. 2004;23:1023–1038.
Schmidli H, Bretz F, Racine A, Maurer W. Confirmatory seamless phase II/III clinical trials with hypothesis selection at interim: applications and practical considerations. Biom J. 2006;48:635–643.
Gallo P, DeMets DL, LaVange L. Considerations for interim analyses in adaptive trials, and perspectives on the use of DMCs. In: He W, Pinheiro J, Kuznetsova OM, eds. Practical Considerations for Adaptive Trial Design and Implementation. New York: Springer; 2014:259–272.
Whitehead J. On the bias of maximum likelihood estimation following a sequential test. Biometrika. 1986;73:573–581.
Emerson S. Computation of the uniform minimum variance unbiased estimator of a normal mean following a group sequential test. Comput Biomed Res. 1993;26:69–73.
Kim K. Point estimation following group sequential tests. Biometrics. 1989;45:613–617.
Hughes MD, Pocock SJ. Stopping rules and estimation problems in clinical trials. Stat Med. 1989;7:1231–1242.
Fan X, DeMets DL, Lan KKG. Conditional bias of point estimates following a group sequential test. J Biopharm Stat. 2004;14:505–530.
Bauer P, Koenig F, Brannath W, Posch M. Selection and bias—two hostile brothers. Stat Med. 2010;29:1–13.
Sampson A, Sill M. Drop-the-losers design: normal case. Biom J. 2005;3:257–268.
Bowden J, Glimm E. Unbiased estimation of selected treatment means in two-stage trials. Biom J. 2008;50:515–527.
Wu S, Wang W, Yang M. Interval estimation for drop-the-losers designs. Biometrika 2010;97:405–418.
Bebu I, Dragalin V, Luta G. Confidence intervals for confirmatory adaptive two-stage designs with treatment selection. Biom J. 2013;55:294–309.
Thall P. A review of phase 2–3 clinical trial designs. Lifetime Data Anal 2008;14:37–53.
David FS, Bobulsky S, Schulz K, Patel N. Creating value with financially adaptive clinical trials. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2015;14:523–524.
Anderson K. Timing and frequency of interim analyses in confirmatory trials. In: He W, Pinheiro J, Kuznetsova OM, eds. Practical Considerations for Adaptive Trial Design and Implementation. New York: Springer; 2014:115–123.
Burnham N, Quinlan J, He W, et al. Effective drug supply for adaptive clinical trials: recommendations by the DIA Adaptive Designs Scientific Working Group Drug Supply Subteam. Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science. 2015;49:100–107.
Patel N, Ankolekar S, Senchaudhuri P. Approaches for clinical supply modelling and simulation. In: He W, Pinheiro J, Kuznetsova O, ed. Practical Considerations for Adaptive Trial Design and Implementation. New York: Springer; 2014:273–297.
Anisimov VV, Fedorov VV. Modelling, prediction and adaptive adjustment of recruitment in multicentre trials. Stat Med. 2007;26:4958–4975.
Anisimov VV. Predictive event modelling in multicentre clinical trials with waiting time to response. Pharm Stat. 2011;10:517–522.
Gallo P. Confidentiality and trial integrity issues for adaptive designs. Drug Inf J. 2006;40:445–450.
Sanchez-Kam M, Gallo P, Loewy J, et al. A practical guide to data monitoring committees in adaptive trials. Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science. 2014;48:316–326.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
He, W., Gallo, P., Miller, E. et al. Addressing Challenges and Opportunities of “Less Well-Understood” Adaptive Designs. Ther Innov Regul Sci 51, 60–68 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479016663265
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479016663265