Confirmatory seamless phase II/III clinical trials with hypotheses selection at interim: general concepts

Two-stage randomized clinical trials with a right-censored endpoint: Comparison of frequentist and Bayesian adaptive designs

Adaptive randomized clinical trials are of major interest when dealing with a time-to-event outcome in a prolonged observation window. No consensus exists either to define stopping boundaries or to combinep $$ p $$ values or test statistics in the terminal analysis in the case of a frequentist design and sample size adaptation. In a one-sided setting, we compared three frequentist approaches using stopping boundaries relying onα $$ \alpha $$ -spending functions and a Bayesian monitoring setting with boundaries based on the posterior distribution of the log-hazard ratio. All designs comprised a single interim analysis with an efficacy stopping rule and the possibility of sample size adaptation at this interim step. Three frequentist approaches were defined based on the terminal analysis: combination of stagewise statistics (Wassmer) or ofp $$ p $$ values (Desseaux), or on patientwise splitting (Jörgens), and we compared the results with those of the Bayesian monitoring approach (Freedman). These different approaches were evaluated in a simulation study and then illustrated on a real dataset from a randomized clinical trial conducted in elderly patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia. All approaches controlled for the type I error rate, except for the Bayesian monitoring approach, and yielded satisfactory power. It appears that the frequentist approaches are the best in underpowered trials. The power of all the approaches was affected by the violation of the proportional hazards (PH) assumption. For adaptive designs with a survival endpoint and a one-sided alternative hypothesis, the Wassmer and Jörgens approaches after sample size adaptation should be preferred, unless violation of PH is suspected.

Adding experimental treatment arms to multi-arm multi-stage platform trials in progress

Multi-arm multi-stage (MAMS) platform trials efficiently compare several treatments with a common control arm. Crucially MAMS designs allow for adjustment for multiplicity if required. If for example, the active treatment arms in a clinical trial relate to different dose levels or different routes of administration of a drug, the strict control of the family-wise error rate (FWER) is paramount. Suppose a further treatment becomes available, it is desirable to add this to the trial already in progress; to access both the practical and statistical benefits of the MAMS design. In any setting where control of the error rate is required, we must add corresponding hypotheses without compromising the validity of the testing procedure.To strongly control the FWER, MAMS designs use pre-planned decision rules that determine the recruitment of the next stage of the trial based on the available data. The addition of a treatment arm presents an unplanned change to the design that we must account for in the testing procedure. We demonstrate the use of the conditional error approach to add hypotheses to any testing procedure that strongly controls the FWER. We use this framework to add treatments to a MAMS trial in progress. Simulations illustrate the possible characteristics of such procedures.

Adaptive two-stage seamless sequential design for clinical trials

We propose an adaptive sequential testing procedure for the selection and testing of multiple treatment options, such as dose/regimen, different drugs, sub-populations, endpoints, or a mixture of them in a seamlessly combined phase II/III trial. The selection is to be made at the end of phase 2 stage. Unlike in many of the published literature, the selection rule is not required to be to "select the best", and does not need to be pre-specified, which provides flexibility and allows the trial investigators to use any efficacy and safety information/criteria, or surrogate or intermediate endpoint to make the selection. Sample size and power calculations are provided. The calculations have been confirmed to be accurate by simulations. Interim analysis can be performed after the selection, sample size can be modified if the observed efficacy deviates from the assumed. Inference after the trial, including p-value, median unbiased point estimate and confidence intervals, are provided. By applying a dominance theorem, the procedure can be applied to normal, binary, Poisson, negative binomial distributed endpoints and time-to-event endpoints, and a mixture of these distributions (in trials involving endpoint selection).

Adaptive Multiple Comparison Sequential Design (AMCSD) for clinical trials

We propose an adaptive sequential testing procedure for clinical trials that test the efficacy of multiple treatment options, such as dose/regimen, different drugs, sub-populations, endpoints, or a mixture of them in one trial. At any interim analyses, sample size re-estimation can be conducted, and any option can be dropped for lack of efficacy or unsatisfactory safety profile. Inference after the trial, including p-value, conservative point estimate and confidence intervals, are provided.

Optimal sample size division in two-stage seamless designs

Inferentially seamless 2/3 designs are increasingly popular in clinical trials. It is important to understand their relative advantages compared with separate phase 2 and phase 3 trials, and to understand the consequences of design choices such as the proportion of patients included in the phase 2 portion of the design. Extending previous work in this area, we perform a simulation study across multiple numbers of arms and efficacy response curves. We consider a design space crossing the choice of a separate versus seamless design with the choice of allocating 0%-100% of available patients in phase 2, with the remainder in phase 3. The seamless designs achieve greater power than their separate trial counterparts. Importantly, the optimal seamless design is more robust than the optimal separate program, meaning that one range of values for the proportion of patients used in phase 2 (30%-50% of the total phase 2/3 sample size) is nearly optimal for a wide range of response scenarios. In contrast, a percentage of patients used in phase 2 for separate trials may be optimal for some alternative scenarios but decidedly inferior for other alternative scenarios. When operationally and scientifically viable, seamless trials provide superior performance compared with separate phase 2 and phase 3 trials. The results also provide guidance for the implementation of these trials in practice.

Efficient testing of the biomarker positive and negative subgroups in a biomarker-stratified trial

In many randomized placebo-controlled trials with a biomarker defined subgroup, it is believed that this subgroup has the same or higher treatment effect compared with its complement. These subgroups are often referred to as the biomarker positive and negative subgroups. Most biomarker-stratified pivotal trials are aimed at demonstrating a significant treatment effect either in the biomarker positive subgroup or in the overall population. A major shortcoming of this approach is that the treatment can be declared effective in the overall population even though it has no effect in the biomarker negative subgroup. We use the isotonic assumption about the treatment effects in the two subgroups to construct an efficient way to test for a treatment effect in both the biomarker positive and negative subgroups. A substantial reduction in the required sample size for such a trial compared with existing methods makes evaluating the treatment effect in both the biomarker positive and negative subgroups feasible in pivotal trials especially when the prevalence of the biomarker positive subgroup is less than 0.5.

A diagnostic phase III/IV seamless design to investigate the diagnostic accuracy and clinical effectiveness using the example of HEDOS and HEDOS II

The development process of medical devices can be streamlined by combining different study phases. Here, for a diagnostic medical device, we present the combination of confirmation of diagnostic accuracy (phase III) and evaluation of clinical effectiveness regarding patient-relevant endpoints (phase IV) using a seamless design. This approach is used in the Thyroid HEmorrhage DetectOr Study (HEDOS & HEDOS II) investigating a post-operative hemorrhage detector named ISAR-M THYRO® in patients after thyroid surgery. Data from the phase III trial are reused as external controls in the control group of the phase IV trial. An unblinded interim analysis is planned between the two study stages which includes a recalculation of the sample size for the phase IV part after completion of the first stage of the seamless design. The study concept presented here is the first seamless design proposed in the field of diagnostic studies. Hence, the aim of this work is to emphasize the statistical methodology as well as feasibility of the proposed design in relation to the planning and implementation of the seamless design. Seamless designs can accelerate the overall trial duration and increase its efficiency in terms of sample size and recruitment. However, careful planning addressing numerous methodological and procedural challenges is necessary for successful implementation as well as agreement with regulatory bodies.

Seamless phase 2/3 design for trials with multiple co-primary endpoints using Bayesian predictive power

Seamless phase 2/3 design has become increasingly popular in clinical trials with a single endpoint. Trials that define success based on the achievement of all co-primary endpoints (CPEs) encounter the challenge of inflated type 2 error rates, often leading to an overly large sample size. To tackle this challenge, we introduced a seamless phase 2/3 design strategy that employs Bayesian predictive power (BPP) for futility monitoring and sample size re-estimation at interim analysis. The correlations among multiple CPEs are incorporated using a Dirichlet-multinomial distribution. An alternative approach based on conditional power (CP) was also discussed for comparison. A seamless phase 2/3 vaccine trial employing four binary endpoints under the non-inferior hypothesis serves as an example. Our results spotlight that, in scenarios with relatively small phase 2 sample sizes (e.g., 50 or 100 subjects), the BPP approach either outperforms or matches the CP approach in terms of overall power. Particularly, with n1 = 50 and ρ = 0, BPP showcases an overall power advantage over CP by as much as 8.54%. Furthermore, when the phase 2 stage enrolled more subjects (e.g., 150 or 200), especially with a phase 2 sample size of 200 and ρ = 0, the BPP approach evidences a peak difference of 5.76% in early stop probability over the CP approach, emphasizing its better efficiency in terminating futile trials. It's noteworthy that both BPP and CP methodologies maintained type 1 error rates under 2.5%. In conclusion, the integration of the Dirichlet-Multinominal model with the BPP approach offers improvement in certain scenarios over the CP approach for seamless phase 2/3 trials with multiple CPEs.

An Overview of Adaptive Designs and Some of Their Challenges, Benefits, and Innovative Applications

Adaptive designs are increasingly developed and used to improve all phases of clinical trials and in biomedical studies in various ways to address different statistical issues. We first present an overview of adaptive designs and note their numerous advantages over traditional clinical trials. In particular, we provide a concrete demonstration that shows how recent adaptive design strategies can further improve an adaptive trial implemented 13 years ago. Despite their usefulness, adaptive designs are still not widely implemented in clinical trials. We offer a few possible reasons and propose some ways to use them more broadly in practice, which include greater availability of software tools and interactive websites to generate optimal adaptive trials freely and effectively, including the use of metaheuristics to facilitate the search for an efficient trial design. To this end, we present several web-based tools for finding various adaptive and nonadaptive optimal designs and discuss nature-inspired metaheuristics. Metaheuristics are assumptions-free general purpose optimization algorithms widely used in computer science and engineering to tackle all kinds of challenging optimization problems, and their use in designing clinical trials is just emerging. We describe a few recent such applications and some of their capabilities for designing various complex trials. Particle swarm optimization is an exemplary nature-inspired algorithm, and similar to others, it has a simple definition but many moving parts, making it hard to study its properties analytically. We investigated one of its hitherto unstudied issues on how to bring back out-of-range candidates during the search for the optimum of the search domain and show that different strategies can impact the success and time of the search. We conclude with a few caveats on the use of metaheuristics for a successful search.

Blinded sample size recalculation in multiple composite population designs with normal data and baseline adjustments

The increasing interest in subpopulation analysis has led to the development of various new trial designs and analysis methods in the fields of personalized medicine and targeted therapies. In this paper, subpopulations are defined in terms of an accumulation of disjoint population subsets and will therefore be called composite populations. The proposed trial design is applicable to any set of composite populations, considering normally distributed endpoints and random baseline covariates. Treatment effects for composite populations are tested by combining p-values, calculated on the subset levels, using the inverse normal combination function to generate test statistics for those composite populations while the closed testing procedure accounts for multiple testing. Critical boundaries for intersection hypothesis tests are derived using multivariate normal distributions, reflecting the joint distribution of composite population test statistics given no treatment effect exists. For sample size calculation and sample size, recalculation multivariate normal distributions are derived which describe the joint distribution of composite population test statistics under an assumed alternative hypothesis. Simulations demonstrate the absence of any practical relevant inflation of the type I error rate. The target power after sample size recalculation is typically met or close to being met.

Seamless phase II/III design: a useful strategy to reduce the sample size for dose optimization

BACKGROUND

The traditional more-is-better dose selection paradigm, originally developed for cytotoxic chemotherapeutics, can be problematic when applied to the development of novel molecularly targeted agents. Recognizing this issue, the US Food and Drug Administration initiated Project Optimus to reform the dose optimization and selection paradigm in oncology drug development, emphasizing the need for greater attention to benefit-risk considerations.

METHODS

We identify different types of phase II/III dose-optimization designs, classified according to trial objectives and endpoint types. Through computer simulations, we examine their operating characteristics and discuss the relevant statistical and design considerations for effective dose optimization.

RESULTS

Phase II/III dose-optimization designs are capable of controlling family-wise type I error rates and achieving appropriate statistical power with substantially smaller sample sizes than the conventional approach while also reducing the number of patients who experience toxicity. Depending on the design and scenario, the sample size savings range from 16.6% to 27.3%, with a mean savings of 22.1%.

CONCLUSIONS

Phase II/III dose-optimization designs offer an efficient way to reduce sample sizes for dose optimization and accelerate the development of targeted agents. However, because of interim dose selection, the phase II/III dose-optimization design presents logistical and operational challenges and requires careful planning and implementation to ensure trial integrity.

Evolution of Phase II Oncology Trial Design: from Single Arm to Master Protocol

The recent development of novel anticancer treatments with diverse mechanisms of action has accelerated the detection of treatment candidates tremendously. The rapidly changing drug development landscapes and the high failure rates in Phase III trials both underscore the importance of more efficient and robust phase II designs. The goals of phase II oncology studies are to explore the preliminary efficacy and toxicity of the investigational product and to inform future drug development strategies such as go/no-go decisions for phase III development, or dose/indication selection. These complex purposes of phase II oncology designs call for efficient, flexible, and easy-to-implement clinical trial designs. Therefore, innovative adaptive study designs with the potential of improving the efficiency of the study, protecting patients, and improving the quality of information gained from trials have been commonly used in Phase II oncology studies. Although the value of adaptive clinical trial methods in early phase drug development is generally well accepted, there is no comprehensive review and guidance on adaptive design methods and their best practice for phase II oncology trials. In this paper, we review the recent development and evolution of phase II oncology design, including frequentist multistage design, Bayesian continuous monitoring, master protocol design, and innovative design methods for randomized phase II studies. The practical considerations and the implementation of these complex design methods are also discussed.

Point estimation for adaptive trial designs II: Practical considerations and guidance

In adaptive clinical trials, the conventional end-of-trial point estimate of a treatment effect is prone to bias, that is, a systematic tendency to deviate from its true value. As stated in recent FDA guidance on adaptive designs, it is desirable to report estimates of treatment effects that reduce or remove this bias. However, it may be unclear which of the available estimators are preferable, and their use remains rare in practice. This article is the second in a two-part series that studies the issue of bias in point estimation for adaptive trials. Part I provided a methodological review of approaches to remove or reduce the potential bias in point estimation for adaptive designs. In part II, we discuss how bias can affect standard estimators and assess the negative impact this can have. We review current practice for reporting point estimates and illustrate the computation of different estimators using a real adaptive trial example (including code), which we use as a basis for a simulation study. We show that while on average the values of these estimators can be similar, for a particular trial realization they can give noticeably different values for the estimated treatment effect. Finally, we propose guidelines for researchers around the choice of estimators and the reporting of estimates following an adaptive design. The issue of bias should be considered throughout the whole lifecycle of an adaptive design, with the estimation strategy prespecified in the statistical analysis plan. When available, unbiased or bias-reduced estimates are to be preferred.

Using dichotomized survival data to construct a prior distribution for a Bayesian seamless Phase II/III clinical trial

Master protocol designs allow for simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments or disease subgroups. Master protocols can also be designed as seamless studies, in which two or more clinical phases are considered within the same trial. They can be divided into two categories: operationally seamless, in which the two phases are separated into two independent studies, and inferentially seamless, in which the interim analysis is considered an adaptation of the study. Bayesian designs are scarcely studied. Our aim is to propose and compare Bayesian operationally seamless Phase II/III designs using a binary endpoint for the first stage and a time-to-event endpoint for the second stage. At the end of Phase II, arm selection is based on posterior (futility) and predictive (selection) probabilities. The results of the first phase are then incorporated into prior distributions of a time-to-event model. Simulation studies showed that Bayesian operationally seamless designs can approach the inferentially seamless counterpart, allowing for an increasing simulated power with respect to the operationally frequentist design.

Blinded sample size recalculation in adaptive enrichment designs

In the precision medicine era, (prespecified) subgroup analyses are an integral part of clinical trials. Incorporating multiple populations and hypotheses in the design and analysis plan, adaptive designs promise flexibility and efficiency in such trials. Adaptations include (unblinded) interim analyses (IAs) or blinded sample size reviews. An IA offers the possibility to select promising subgroups and reallocate sample size in further stages. Trials with these features are known as adaptive enrichment designs. Such complex designs comprise many nuisance parameters, such as prevalences of the subgroups and variances of the outcomes in the subgroups. Additionally, a number of design options including the timepoint of the sample size review and timepoint of the IA have to be selected. Here, for normally distributed endpoints, we propose a strategy combining blinded sample size recalculation and adaptive enrichment at an IA, that is, at an early timepoint nuisance parameters are reestimated and the sample size is adjusted while subgroup selection and enrichment is performed later. We discuss implications of different scenarios concerning the variances as well as the timepoints of blinded review and IA and investigate the design characteristics in simulations. The proposed method maintains the desired power if planning assumptions were inaccurate and reduces the sample size and variability of the final sample size when an enrichment is performed. Having two separate timepoints for blinded sample size review and IA improves the timing of the latter and increases the probability to correctly enrich a subgroup.

Adjusting for treatment selection in phase II/III clinical trials with time to event data

Phase II/III clinical trials are efficient two-stage designs that test multiple experimental treatments. In stage 1, patients are allocated to the control and all experimental treatments, with the data collected from them used to select experimental treatments to continue to stage 2. Patients recruited in stage 2 are allocated to the selected treatments and the control. Combined data of stage 1 and stage 2 are used for a confirmatory phase III analysis. Appropriate analysis needs to adjust for selection bias of the stage 1 data. Point estimators exist for normally distributed outcome data. Extending these estimators to time to event data is not straightforward because treatment selection is based on correlated treatment effects and stage 1 patients who do not get events in stage 1 are followed-up in stage 2. We have derived an approximately uniformly minimum variance conditional unbiased estimator (UMVCUE) and compared its biases and mean squared errors to existing bias adjusted estimators. In simulations, one existing bias adjusted estimator has similar properties as the practically unbiased UMVCUE while the others can have noticeable biases but they are less variable than the UMVCUE. For confirmatory phase II/III clinical trials where unbiased estimators are desired, we recommend the UMVCUE or the existing estimator with which it has similar properties.

A gated group sequential design for seamless Phase II/III trial with subpopulation selection

BACKGROUND

Due to the high cost and high failure rate of Phase III trials where a classical group sequential design (GSD) is usually used, seamless Phase II/III designs are more and more popular to improve trial efficiency. A potential attraction of Phase II/III design is to allow a randomized proof-of-concept stage prior to committing to the full cost of a Phase III trial. Population selection during the trial allows a trial to adapt and focus investment where it is most likely to provide patient benefit. Previous methods have been developed for this problem when there is a single primary endpoint and two possible populations.

METHODS

To find the population that potentially benefits with one or two primary endpoints (e.g., progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS)), we propose a gated group sequential design for a seamless Phase II/III trial design with adaptive population selection.

RESULTS

The investigated design controls the familywise error rate and allows multiple interim analyses to enable early stopping for efficacy or futility. Simulations and an illustrative example suggest that the proposed gated group sequential design has more power and requires less time and resources compared to the group sequential design and adaptive design.

CONCLUSIONS

Combining the group sequential design and adaptive design, the gated group sequential design has more power and higher efficiency while controlling for the familywise error rate. It has the potential to save drug development cost and more quickly fulfill unmet medical needs.

The benefits of covariate adjustment for adaptive multi-arm designs

Covariate adjustment via a regression approach is known to increase the precision of statistical inference when fixed trial designs are employed in randomized controlled studies. When an adaptive multi-arm design is employed with the ability to select treatments, it is unclear how covariate adjustment affects various aspects of the study. Consider the design framework that relies on pre-specified treatment selection rule(s) and a combination test approach for hypothesis testing. It is our primary goal to evaluate the impact of covariate adjustment on adaptive multi-arm designs with treatment selection. Our secondary goal is to show how the Uniformly Minimum Variance Conditionally Unbiased Estimator can be extended to account for covariate adjustment analytically. We find that adjustment with different sets of covariates can lead to different treatment selection outcomes and hence probabilities of rejecting hypotheses. Nevertheless, we do not see any negative impact on the control of the familywise error rate when covariates are included in the analysis model. When adjusting for covariates that are moderately or highly correlated with the outcome, we see various benefits to the analysis of the design. Conversely, there is negligible impact when including covariates that are uncorrelated with the outcome. Overall, pre-specification of covariate adjustment is recommended for the analysis of adaptive multi-arm design with treatment selection. Having the statistical analysis plan in place prior to the interim and final analyses is crucial, especially when a non-collapsible measure of treatment effect is considered in the trial.

Statistical tests for two-stage adaptive seamless design using short- and long-term binary outcomes

The adaptive seamless design combining phases II and III into a single trial has been shown growing interest for improving the efficiency of drug development, becoming the most frequent adaptive design type. It typically consists of two stages, the trial objectives being often different in each stage. The primary objectives are to select optimal experimental treatment group(s) in the first stage and compare the efficacy between the selected treatment and control groups in the second stage. In this article, we focus on a two-stage adaptive seamless design, for which treatment selection is based on the short-term binary endpoint and treatment comparison is based on the long-term binary endpoint. We thus propose an exact conditional test as a final analysis, based on the bivariate binomial distribution and given the selected treatment with the most promising short-term endpoint response rate from an interim analysis. Additionally, the mid- p $$ p $$ approach is incorporated to improve conservativeness for an exact test. Simulation studies were conducted to compare the proposed methods with a method based on the combination test. The proposed exact method controlled for type I error rate at the nominal level, regardless of the number of initial treatments or the correlation between short- and long-term endpoints. In terms of the treatment comparison power, the proposed methods are more powerful than that based on the combination test in the scenarios, with only one treatment being effective.

Planning for the Next Pandemic: Ethics and Innovation Today for Improved Clinical Trials Tomorrow

The coronavirus pandemic has brought public attention to the steps required to produce valid scientific clinical research in drug development. Traditional ethical principles that guide clinical research remain the guiding compass for physicians, patients, public health officials, investigators, drug developers and the public. Accelerating the process of delivering safe and effective treatments and vaccines against COVID-19 is a moral imperative. The apparent clash between the regulated system of phased randomized clinical trials and urgent public health need requires leveraging innovation with ethical scientific rigor. We reflect on the Belmont principles of autonomy, beneficence and justice as the pandemic unfolds, and illustrate the role of innovative clinical trial designs in alleviating pandemic challenges. Our discussion highlights selected types of innovative trial design and correlates them with ethical parameters and public health benefits. Details are provided for platform trials and other innovative designs such as basket and umbrella trials, designs leveraging external data sources, multi-stage seamless trials, preplanned control arm data sharing between larger trials, and higher order systems of linked trials coordinated more broadly between individual trials and phases of development, recently introduced conceptually as "PIPELINEs."

Adaptive enrichment trials: What are the benefits?

When planning a Phase III clinical trial, suppose a certain subset of patients is expected to respond particularly well to the new treatment. Adaptive enrichment designs make use of interim data in selecting the target population for the remainder of the trial, either continuing with the full population or restricting recruitment to the subset of patients. We define a multiple testing procedure that maintains strong control of the familywise error rate, while allowing for the adaptive sampling procedure. We derive the Bayes optimal rule for deciding whether or not to restrict recruitment to the subset after the interim analysis and present an efficient algorithm to facilitate simulation-based optimisation, enabling the construction of Bayes optimal rules in a wide variety of problem formulations. We compare adaptive enrichment designs with traditional nonadaptive designs in a broad range of examples and draw clear conclusions about the potential benefits of adaptive enrichment.

A Bayesian response-adaptive dose-finding and comparative effectiveness trial

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Combinations of treatments that have already received regulatory approval can offer additional benefit over Each of the treatments individually. However, trials of these combinations are lower priority than those that develop novel therapies, which can restrict funding, timelines and patient availability. This article develops a novel trial design to facilitate the evaluation of New combination therapies. This trial design combines elements of phase II and phase III trials to reduce the burden of evaluating combination therapies, while also maintaining a feasible sample size. This design was developed for a randomised trial that compares the properties of three combination doses of ketamine and dexmedetomidine, given intranasally, to ketamine delivered intravenously for children undergoing a closed reduction for a fracture or dislocation.

METHODS

This trial design uses response-adaptive randomisation to evaluate different dose combinations and increase the information collected for successful novel drug combinations. The design then uses Bayesian dose-response modelling to undertake a comparative effectiveness analysis for the most successful dose combination against a relevant comparator. We used simulation methods determine the thresholds for adapting the trial and making conclusions. We also used simulations to evaluate the probability of selecting the dose combination with the highest true effectiveness the operating characteristics of the design and its Bayesian predictive power.

RESULTS

With 410 participants, five interim updates of the randomisation ratio and a probability of effectiveness of 0.93, 0.88 and 0.83 for the three dose combinations, we have an 83% chance of randomising the largest number of patients to the drug with the highest probability of effectiveness. Based on this adaptive randomisation procedure, the comparative effectiveness analysis has a type I error of less than 5% and a 93% chance of correcting concluding non-inferiority, when the probability of effectiveness for the optimal combination therapy is 0.9. In this case, the trial has a greater than 77% chance of meeting its dual aims of dose-finding and comparative effectiveness. Finally, the Bayesian predictive power of the trial is over 90%.

CONCLUSIONS

By simultaneously determining the optimal dose and collecting data on the relative effectiveness of an intervention, we can minimise administrative burden and recruitment time for a trial. This will minimise the time required to get effective, safe combination therapies to patients quickly. The proposed trial has high potential to meet the dual study objectives within a feasible overall sample size.

Adding flexibility to clinical trial designs: an example-based guide to the practical use of adaptive designs

Adaptive designs for clinical trials permit alterations to a study in response to accumulating data in order to make trials more flexible, ethical, and efficient. These benefits are achieved while preserving the integrity and validity of the trial, through the pre-specification and proper adjustment for the possible alterations during the course of the trial. Despite much research in the statistical literature highlighting the potential advantages of adaptive designs over traditional fixed designs, the uptake of such methods in clinical research has been slow. One major reason for this is that different adaptations to trial designs, as well as their advantages and limitations, remain unfamiliar to large parts of the clinical community. The aim of this paper is to clarify where adaptive designs can be used to address specific questions of scientific interest; we introduce the main features of adaptive designs and commonly used terminology, highlighting their utility and pitfalls, and illustrate their use through case studies of adaptive trials ranging from early-phase dose escalation to confirmatory phase III studies.

Data monitoring committees for clinical trials evaluating treatments of COVID-19

The first cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were reported in December 2019 and the outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 was declared a pandemic in March 2020 by the World Health Organization. This sparked a plethora of investigations into diagnostics and vaccination for SARS-CoV-2, as well as treatments for COVID-19. Since COVID-19 is a severe disease associated with a high mortality, clinical trials in this disease should be monitored by a data monitoring committee (DMC), also known as data safety monitoring board (DSMB). DMCs in this indication face a number of challenges including fast recruitment requiring an unusually high frequency of safety reviews, more frequent use of complex designs and virtually no prior experience with the disease. In this paper, we provide a perspective on the work of DMCs for clinical trials of treatments for COVID-19. More specifically, we discuss organizational aspects of setting up and running DMCs for COVID-19 trials, in particular for trials with more complex designs such as platform trials or adaptive designs. Furthermore, statistical aspects of monitoring clinical trials of treatments for COVID-19 are considered. Some recommendations are made regarding the presentation of the data, stopping rules for safety monitoring and the use of external data. The proposed stopping boundaries are assessed in a simulation study motivated by clinical trials in COVID-19.

A potential for seamless designs in diagnostic research could be identified

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

New diagnostic tests to identify a well-established disease state must undergo a series of scientific studies from test construction to finally demonstrating a societal impact. Traditionally, these studies are performed with substantial time gaps in between, resulting in a long time period from the initial idea to roll out in clinical practice including reimbursement. Seamless designs allowing us to combine a sequence of studies in one protocol may hence accelerate this process. Currently, a systematic investigation of the potential of seamless designs in diagnostic research is lacking.

METHODS

We identify major study types in diagnostic research and their basic characteristics with respect to the application of seamless designs. This information is used to identify major hurdles and opportunities for seamless designs.

RESULTS

The following major study types were identified: Variable construction studies, cut point finding studies, variable value studies, single-arm accuracy studies, comparative accuracy studies, change-in-management studies, observational discordant pair studies, randomized discordant pair studies, and randomized diagnostic studies. The following characteristics were identified: Type of recruitment (case-control vs. population-based), application of a reference standard, inclusion of a comparator, paired or unpaired application of a comparator, assessment of patient-relevant outcomes, and possibility for blinding of test results. Two basic hurdles could be identified: 1) Accuracy studies are hard to combine with postaccuracy studies in a seamless design for the following reasons. First, because the former are required to justify the latter and application of a reference test in outcome studies may be a threat to the integrity of the study. 2) Randomized diagnostic studies are probably best placed as singular studies at the end of the process, as all other questions should be clarified before performing such a study. However, otherwise there is a substantial potential for seamless designs. All steps from the construction to the comparison with the comparator can be combined in one protocol. This may include a switch from case-control to population-based recruitment as well as a switch from a single-arm study to a comparative accuracy study. In addition, change-in-management studies can be combined with an outcome study in discordant pairs.

CONCLUSION

There is a potential for seamless designs in diagnostic research. It is wise to have the whole sequence of necessary studies in mind and to plan a full programme than rather individual studies one by one.

Clinical Trials Impacted by the COVID-19 Pandemic: Adaptive Designs to the Rescue?

Very recently the new pathogen severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was identified and the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization. The pandemic has a number of consequences for ongoing clinical trials in non-COVID-19 conditions. Motivated by four current clinical trials in a variety of disease areas we illustrate the challenges faced by the pandemic and sketch out possible solutions including adaptive designs. Guidance is provided on (i) where blinded adaptations can help; (ii) how to achieve Type I error rate control, if required; (iii) how to deal with potential treatment effect heterogeneity; (iv) how to use early read-outs; and (v) how to use Bayesian techniques. In more detail approaches to resizing a trial affected by the pandemic are developed including considerations to stop a trial early, the use of group-sequential designs or sample size adjustment. All methods considered are implemented in a freely available R shiny app. Furthermore, regulatory and operational issues including the role of data monitoring committees are discussed.

Adaptive design implementation in confirmatory trials: methods, practical considerations and case studies

The rapidly changing drug development landscapes have brought unique challenges to sponsors in designing clinical trials in a faster and more efficient way. With the ability to accelerate development timeline, reduce redundant sample size, and select the right dose and patient population during the clinical trial, adaptive designs help to increase the probability of success of clinical trials and eventually contribute to bringing the promising drugs to patients earlier and fulfilling their unmet medical needs. Although extensive adaptive design methods have been proposed in recent years, a comprehensive review of how to implement adaptive design in the practical confirmatory trials is still lacking. In this paper, we will review the evolving history of adaptive designs, updates of newly released regulatory guidance and emerging practical adaptive designs, including but not limited to sample size re-estimation, seamless design and surrogate endpoint used in the interim analysis. Furthermore, we will discuss the current practice of adaptive design implementation by demonstrating a complex oncology seamless phase 2/3 adaptive design case study. Through this example, we will introduce the critical roles of each cross disciplinary function, communication process and important documents when adaptive designs are implemented in real-world setting.

The adaptive designs CONSORT extension (ACE) statement: a checklist with explanation and elaboration guideline for reporting randomised trials that use an adaptive design

Adaptive designs (ADs) allow pre-planned changes to an ongoing trial without compromising the validity of conclusions and it is essential to distinguish pre-planned from unplanned changes that may also occur. The reporting of ADs in randomised trials is inconsistent and needs improving. Incompletely reported AD randomised trials are difficult to reproduce and are hard to interpret and synthesise. This consequently hampers their ability to inform practice as well as future research and contributes to research waste. Better transparency and adequate reporting will enable the potential benefits of ADs to be realised.This extension to the Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statement was developed to enhance the reporting of randomised AD clinical trials. We developed an Adaptive designs CONSORT Extension (ACE) guideline through a two-stage Delphi process with input from multidisciplinary key stakeholders in clinical trials research in the public and private sectors from 21 countries, followed by a consensus meeting. Members of the CONSORT Group were involved during the development process.The paper presents the ACE checklists for AD randomised trial reports and abstracts, as well as an explanation with examples to aid the application of the guideline. The ACE checklist comprises seven new items, nine modified items, six unchanged items for which additional explanatory text clarifies further considerations for ADs, and 20 unchanged items not requiring further explanatory text. The ACE abstract checklist has one new item, one modified item, one unchanged item with additional explanatory text for ADs, and 15 unchanged items not requiring further explanatory text.The intention is to enhance transparency and improve reporting of AD randomised trials to improve the interpretability of their results and reproducibility of their methods, results and inference. We also hope indirectly to facilitate the much-needed knowledge transfer of innovative trial designs to maximise their potential benefits. In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on the BMJ and Trials journal websites."To maximise the benefit to society, you need to not just do research but do it well" Douglas G Altman.

The Adaptive designs CONSORT Extension (ACE) statement: a checklist with explanation and elaboration guideline for reporting randomised trials that use an adaptive design

Adaptive designs (ADs) allow pre-planned changes to an ongoing trial without compromising the validity of conclusions and it is essential to distinguish pre-planned from unplanned changes that may also occur. The reporting of ADs in randomised trials is inconsistent and needs improving. Incompletely reported AD randomised trials are difficult to reproduce and are hard to interpret and synthesise. This consequently hampers their ability to inform practice as well as future research and contributes to research waste. Better transparency and adequate reporting will enable the potential benefits of ADs to be realised.This extension to the Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statement was developed to enhance the reporting of randomised AD clinical trials. We developed an Adaptive designs CONSORT Extension (ACE) guideline through a two-stage Delphi process with input from multidisciplinary key stakeholders in clinical trials research in the public and private sectors from 21 countries, followed by a consensus meeting. Members of the CONSORT Group were involved during the development process.The paper presents the ACE checklists for AD randomised trial reports and abstracts, as well as an explanation with examples to aid the application of the guideline. The ACE checklist comprises seven new items, nine modified items, six unchanged items for which additional explanatory text clarifies further considerations for ADs, and 20 unchanged items not requiring further explanatory text. The ACE abstract checklist has one new item, one modified item, one unchanged item with additional explanatory text for ADs, and 15 unchanged items not requiring further explanatory text.The intention is to enhance transparency and improve reporting of AD randomised trials to improve the interpretability of their results and reproducibility of their methods, results and inference. We also hope indirectly to facilitate the much-needed knowledge transfer of innovative trial designs to maximise their potential benefits.

A model-based approach for simulating adaptive clinical studies with surrogate endpoints used for interim decision-making

In clinical trials, when exploring multiple dose groups to establish efficacy and safety on one or more selected doses, adaptive designs with interim dose selection are often used for dropping less effective dose groups. When it takes a long time to observe primary outcomes, utilizing information on a surrogate endpoint available at an earlier interim may be preferred for selecting which dose to continue. We propose a Bayesian model-based approach where historical data can be leveraged to incorporate a correlation model for investigating the design's operating characteristics. Simulation studies were conducted and the method can be readily applied for power and sample size calculations.

Adding dose modifications into Phase II and Phase II/III seamless trials

We present a technique for adding dose modifications into seamless Phase II and Phase II/III trials featuring dose selection at an interim analysis. The method is convenient to apply and can be used either in a fully prespecified, structured way or as a response to new considerations that emerge at interim. Strong control of the familywise error rate regarding false declarations of efficacy versus control is maintained. Two examples are given. One illustrates how the method could potentially "save" a trial performed in a Phase II context. The other is a seamless Phase II/III trial that uses an adaptive exploration strategy for an assumed nonmonotonic dose-response curve. It can result in greatly improved efficiency over a standard "promote the winner" rule.

Seamless phase 2/3 oncology trial design with flexible sample size determination

Conventional seamless phase 2/3 design with fixed sample size determination (SSD) has gained its popularity in oncology drug development due to attractive features such as significantly shortening the development timeline, minimizing sample size, as well as early decision making. However, this design is not immune to inaccurate treatment effect assumption when only limited efficacy data are available at study design stage. We propose an innovative seamless phase 2/3 study design with flexible SSD for oncology trials, in which the trial is designed under a distribution of treatment effect instead of one single assumption due to huge uncertainty of treatment effect at design stage and the sample size for end of phase 3 analysis is not predetermined at design stage, but rather dynamically determined based on observed treatment effect at phase 2 portion. Some practical sample size determination rules for end of phase 3 analysis will be discussed. The proposed design can lead to reduced sample size or/and improved power compared with conventional seamless phase 2/3 design with fixed SSD. This innovative study design can be especially useful for programs with aggressive development strategy to expedite the process in delivering efficacious treatment to patients.

Adaptive seamless clinical trials using early outcomes for treatment or subgroup selection: Methods, simulation model and their implementation in R

Adaptive seamless designs combine confirmatory testing, a domain of phase III trials, with features such as treatment or subgroup selection, typically associated with phase II trials. They promise to increase the efficiency of development programmes of new drugs, for example, in terms of sample size and/or development time. It is well acknowledged that adaptive designs are more involved from a logistical perspective and require more upfront planning, often in the form of extensive simulation studies, than conventional approaches. Here, we present a framework for adaptive treatment and subgroup selection using the same notation, which links the somewhat disparate literature on treatment selection on one side and on subgroup selection on the other. Furthermore, we introduce a flexible and efficient simulation model that serves both designs. As primary endpoints often take a long time to observe, interim analyses are frequently informed by early outcomes. Therefore, all methods presented accommodate interim analyses informed by either the primary outcome or an early outcome. The R package asd, previously developed to simulate designs with treatment selection, was extended to include subgroup selection (so‐called adaptive enrichment designs). Here, we describe the functionality of the R package asd and use it to present some worked‐up examples motivated by clinical trials in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and oncology. The examples both illustrate various features of the R package and provide insights into the operating characteristics of adaptive seamless studies.

Adaptive trial designs in diagnostic accuracy research

The aim of diagnostic accuracy studies is to evaluate how accurately a diagnostic test can distinguish diseased from nondiseased individuals. Depending on the research question, different study designs and accuracy measures are appropriate. As the prior knowledge in the planning phase is often very limited, modifications of design aspects such as the sample size during the ongoing trial could increase the efficiency of diagnostic trials. In intervention studies, group sequential and adaptive designs are well established. Such designs are characterized by preplanned interim analyses, giving the opportunity to stop early for efficacy or futility or to modify elements of the study design. In contrast, in diagnostic accuracy studies, such flexible designs are less common, even if they are as important as for intervention studies. However, diagnostic accuracy studies have specific features, which may require adaptations of the statistical methods or may lead to specific advantages or limitations of sequential and adaptive designs. In this article, we summarize the current status of methodological research and applications of flexible designs in diagnostic accuracy research. Furthermore, we indicate and advocate future development of adaptive design methodology and their use in diagnostic accuracy trials from an interdisciplinary viewpoint. The term "interdisciplinary viewpoint" describes the collaboration of experts of the academic and nonacademic research.

The future of clinical trials in urological oncology

Well-designed clinical trials in urological oncology help to guide treatment decisions and aid in counselling patients, ultimately serving to improve outcomes. Since the term evidence-based medicine was first used by Gordon Guyatt in 1991, a renewed emphasis on methodology, transparent trial design and study reporting has helped to improve clinical research and in turn, the landscape of medical literature. Novel clinical trial designs (including multi-arm, multistage trials, basket and umbrella studies and research from big data sources, such as electronic health records, administrative claims databases and quality monitoring registries) are well suited to advance innovation in urological oncology. Existing urological clinical trials are often limited by small numbers, are statistically underpowered and many face difficulties with accrual. Thus, efforts to improve trial design are of considerable importance. The development and use of standard outcome sets and adherence to reporting guidelines offer researchers the opportunity to guide value-oriented care, minimize research waste and efficiently identify solutions to the unanswered questions in urology cancer care.

Exercise or manual physiotherapy compared with a single session of physiotherapy for osteoporotic vertebral fracture: three-arm PROVE RCT

BACKGROUND

A total of 25,000 people in the UK have osteoporotic vertebral fracture (OVF). Evidence suggests that physiotherapy may have an important treatment role.

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two different physiotherapy programmes for people with OVF compared with a single physiotherapy session.

DESIGN

This was a prospective, adaptive, multicentre, assessor-blinded randomised controlled trial (RCT) with nested qualitative and health economic studies.

SETTING

This trial was based in 21 NHS physiotherapy departments.

PARTICIPANTS

The participants were people with symptomatic OVF.

INTERVENTIONS

Seven sessions of either manual outpatient physiotherapy or exercise outpatient physiotherapy compared with the best practice of a 1-hour single session of physiotherapy (SSPT).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Outcomes were measured at 4 and 12 months. The primary outcomes were quality of life and muscle endurance, which were measured by the disease-specific QUALEFFO-41 (Quality of Life Questionnaire of the European Foundation for Osteoporosis - 41 items) and timed loaded standing (TLS) test, respectively. Secondary outcomes were (1) thoracic kyphosis angle, (2) balance, evaluated via the functional reach test (FRT), and (3) physical function, assessed via the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB), 6-minute walk test (6MWT), Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly, a health resource use and falls diary, and the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version.

RESULTS

A total of 615 participants were enrolled, with 216, 203 and 196 randomised by a computer-generated program to exercise therapy, manual therapy and a SSPT, respectively. Baseline data were available for 613 participants, 531 (86.6%) of whom were women; the mean age of these participants was 72.14 years (standard deviation 9.09 years). Primary outcome data were obtained for 69% of participants (429/615) at 12 months: 175 in the exercise therapy arm, 181 in the manual therapy arm and 173 in the SSPT arm. Interim analysis met the criteria for all arms to remain in the study. For the primary outcomes at 12 months, there were no significant benefits over SSPT of exercise [QUALEFFO-41, difference -0.23 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.20 to 1.59 points; p = 1.000; and TLS test, difference 5.77 seconds, 95% CI -4.85 to 20.46 seconds; p = 0.437] or of manual therapy (QUALEFFO-41, difference 1.35 points, 95% CI -1.76 to 2.93 points; p = 0.744; TLS test, difference 9.69 seconds (95% CI 0.09 to 24.86 seconds; p = 0.335). At 4 months, there were significant gains for both manual therapy and exercise therapy over SSPT in the TLS test in participants aged < 70 years. Exercise therapy was superior to a SSPT at 4 months in the SPPB, FRT and 6MWT and manual therapy was superior to a SSPT at 4 months in the TLS test and FRT. Neither manual therapy nor exercise therapy was cost-effective relative to a SSPT using the threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. There were no treatment-related serious adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the largest RCT to date assessing physiotherapy in participants with OVFs. At 1 year, neither treatment intervention conferred more benefit than a single 1-hour physiotherapy advice session. The focus of future work should be on the intensity and duration of interventions to determine if changes to these would demonstrate more sustained effects.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN49117867.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 44. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Response adaptive randomization procedures in seamless phase II/III clinical trials

It is desirable to work efficiently and cost effectively to evaluate new therapies in a time-sensitive and ethical manner without compromising the integrity and validity of the development process. The seamless phase II/III clinical trial has been proposed to meet this need, and its efficient, ethical and economic advantages can be strengthened by its combination with innovative response adaptive randomization (RAR) procedures. In particular, well-designed frequentist RAR procedures can target theoretically optimal allocation proportions, and there are explicit asymptotic results. However, there has been little research into seamless phase II/III clinical trials with frequentist RAR because of the difficulty in performing valid statistical inference and controlling the type I error rate. In this paper, we propose the framework for a family of frequentist RAR designs for seamless phase II/III trials, derive the asymptotic distribution of the parameter estimators using martingale processes and offer solutions to control the type I error rate. The numerical studies demonstrate our theoretical findings and the advantages of the proposed methods.

A conditional error function approach for adaptive enrichment designs with continuous endpoints

Adaptive enrichment designs offer an efficient and flexible way to demonstrate the efficacy of a treatment in a clinically defined full population or in, eg, biomarker-defined subpopulations while controlling the family-wise Type I error rate in the strong sense. Frequently used testing strategies in designs with two or more stages include the combination test and the conditional error function approach. Here, we focus on the latter and present some extensions. In contrast to previous work, we allow for multiple subgroups rather than one subgroup only. For nested as well as nonoverlapping subgroups with normally distributed endpoints, we explore the effect of estimating the variances in the subpopulations. Instead of using a normal approximation, we derive new t-distribution-based methods for two different scenarios. First, in the case of equal variances across the subpopulations, we present exact results using a multivariate t-distribution. Second, in the case of potentially varying variances across subgroups, we provide some improved approximations compared to the normal approximation. The performance of the proposed conditional error function approaches is assessed and compared to the combination test in a simulation study. The proposed methods are motivated by an example in pulmonary arterial hypertension.

Group sequential adaptive designs in series of time-to-event randomised trials in rare diseases: A simulation study

In rare diseases, fully powered large trials may not be doable in a reasonable time frame even with international collaborations. In a previous work, we proposed an approach based on a series of smaller parallel group two-arm randomised controlled trials (RCT) performed over a long research horizon. Within the series of trials, the treatment selected after each trial becomes the control treatment of the next one. We concluded that running more trials with smaller sample sizes and relaxed α-levels leads in the long term and under reasonable assumptions to larger survival benefits with a moderate increase of risk as compared to traditional designs based on larger but fewer trials designed to meet stringent evidence criteria. We now extend this quantitative framework with more 'flexible' designs including interim analyses for futility and/or efficacy, and three-arm adaptive designs with treatment selection at interim. In the simulation study, we considered different disease severities, accrual rates, and hypotheses of how treatments improve over time. For each design, we estimated the long-term survival benefit as the relative difference in hazard rates between the end and the start of the research horizon, and the risk defined as the probability of selecting at the end of the research horizon a treatment inferior to the initial control. We assessed the impact of the α-level and the choice of the stopping rule on the operating characteristics. We also compared the performance of series based on two- vs. three-arm trials. We show that relaxing α-levels within the limit of 0.1 is associated with larger survival gains and moderate increase of risk which remains within acceptable ranges. Including an interim analysis with a futility rule is associated with an additional survival gain and a better risk control as compared to series with no interim analysis, when the α-level is below or equal to 0.1, whereas the benefit of including an interim analysis is rather small for higher α-levels. Including an interim analysis for efficacy yields almost no additional gain. Series based on three-arm trials are associated with a systematic improvement in terms of survival gain and risk control as compared to series of two-arm trials.

Optimizing drug development in oncology by clinical trial simulation: Why and how?

In therapeutic research, the safety and efficacy of pharmaceutical products are necessarily tested on humans via clinical trials after an extensive and expensive preclinical development period. Methodologies such as computer modeling and clinical trial simulation (CTS) might represent a valuable option to reduce animal and human assays. The relevance of these methods is well recognized in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics from the preclinical phase to postmarketing. However, they are barely used and are poorly regarded for drug approval, despite Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency recommendations. The generalization of CTS could be greatly facilitated by the availability of software for modeling biological systems, by clinical trial studies and hospital databases. Data sharing and data merging raise legal, policy and technical issues that will need to be addressed. Development of future molecules will have to use CTS for faster development and thus enable better patient management. Drug activity modeling coupled with disease modeling, optimal use of medical data and increased computing speed should allow this leap forward. The realization of CTS requires not only bioinformatics tools to allow interconnection and global integration of all clinical data but also a universal legal framework to protect the privacy of every patient. While recognizing that CTS can never replace 'real-life' trials, they should be implemented in future drug development schemes to provide quantitative support for decision-making. This in silico medicine opens the way to the P4 medicine: predictive, preventive, personalized and participatory.

Phase II Trials in Drug Development and Adaptive Trial Design

Phase II clinical studies represent a critical point in determining drug costs, and phase II is a poor predictor of drug success: >30% of drugs entering phase II studies fail to progress, and >58% of drugs go on to fail in phase III. Adaptive clinical trial design has been proposed as a way to reduce the costs of phase II testing by providing earlier determination of futility and prediction of phase III success, reducing overall phase II and III trial sizes, and shortening overall drug development time. This review examines issues in phase II testing and adaptive trial design.

Using Bayesian modeling in frequentist adaptive enrichment designs

Our increased understanding of the mechanistic heterogeneity of diseases has pushed the development of targeted therapeutics. We do not expect all patients with a given disease to benefit from a targeted drug; only those in the target population. That is, those with sufficient dysregulation in the biomolecular pathway targeted by treatment. However, due to complexity of the pathway, and/or technical issues with our characterizing assay, it is often hard to characterize the target population until well into large-scale clinical trials. This has stimulated the development of adaptive enrichment trials; clinical trials in which the target population is adaptively learned; and enrollment criteria are adaptively updated to reflect this growing understanding. This paper proposes a framework for group-sequential adaptive enrichment trials. Building on the work of Simon & Simon (2013). Adaptive enrichment designs for clinical trials. Biostatistics 14(4), 613-625), it includes a frequentist hypothesis test at the end of the trial. However, it uses Bayesian methods to optimize the decisions required during the trial (regarding how to restrict enrollment) and Bayesian methods to estimate effect size, and characterize the target population at the end of the trial. This joint frequentist/Bayesian design combines the power of Bayesian methods for decision making with the use of a formal hypothesis test at the end of the trial to preserve the studywise probability of a type I error.

Clinical trial design and new therapies for pulmonary arterial hypertension

Until 20 years ago the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) was based on case reports and small series, and was largely ineffectual. As a deeper understanding of the pathogenesis and pathophysiology of PAH evolved over the subsequent two decades, coupled with epidemiological studies defining the clinical and demographic characteristics of the condition, a renewed interest in treatment development emerged through collaborations between international experts, industry and regulatory agencies. These efforts led to the performance of robust, high-quality clinical trials of novel therapies that targeted putative pathogenic pathways, leading to the approval of more than 10 novel therapies that have beneficially impacted both the quality and duration of life. However, our understanding of PAH remains incomplete and there is no cure. Accordingly, efforts are now focused on identifying novel pathogenic pathways that may be targeted, and applying more rigorous clinical trial designs to better define the efficacy of these new potential treatments and their role in the management scheme. This article, prepared by a Task Force comprised of expert clinicians, trialists and regulators, summarises the current state of the art, and provides insight into the opportunities and challenges for identifying and assessing the efficacy and safety of new treatments for this challenging condition.

State of the art and research perspectives in clinical trial design and new therapies for pulmonary arterial hypertensionhttp://ow.ly/VHQ030mfRxc

Adaptive designs in clinical trials: from scientific advice to marketing authorisation to the European Medicine Agency

Background

In recent years, experience on the application of adaptive designs in confirmatory clinical trials has accumulated. Although planning such trials comes at the cost of additional operational complexity, adaptive designs offer the benefit of flexibility to update trial design and objectives as data accrue. In 2007, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) provided guidance on confirmatory clinical trials with adaptive (or flexible) designs. In order to better understand how adaptive trials are implemented in practice and how they may impact medicine approval within the EMA centralised procedure, we followed on 59 medicines for which an adaptive clinical trial had been submitted to the EMA Scientific Advice (SA) and analysed previously in a dedicated EMA survey of scientific advice letters. We scrutinized in particular the submission of the corresponding medicines for a marketing authorisation application (MAA). We also discuss the current regulatory perspective as regards the implementation of adaptive designs in confirmatory clinical trials.

Methods

Using the internal EMA MAA database, the AdisInsight database and related trial registries, we analysed how many of these 59 trials actually started, the completion status, results, the time to trial start, the adaptive elements finally implemented after SA, their possible influence on the success of the trial and corresponding product approval.

Results

Overall 31 trials out of 59 (53%) were retrieved. Thirty of them (97%) have been started and 23 (74%) concluded. Nine of these trials (39% out of 23) demonstrated a significant treatment effect on their primary endpoint and 4 (17% out of 23) supported a marketing authorisation (MA). An additional two trials were stopped using pre-defined criteria for futility, efficiently identifying trials on which further resources should not be spent. Median time to trial start after SA letter was given by EMA was 5 months. In the investigated trial registries, at least 18 trial (58% of 31 retrieved trials) designs were implemented with adaptive elements, which were predominantly dose selection, sample size reassessment (SSR) and stopping for futility (SFF). Among the 11 completed trials including adaptive elements, 6 demonstrated a significant treatment effect on their primary endpoint (55%).

Conclusions

Adaptive designs are now well established in the drug development landscape. If properly pre-planned, adaptations can play a key role in the success of some of these trials, for example to help successfully select the most promising dose regimens for phase II/III trials. Interim analyses can also enable stopping of trials for futility when they do not hold their promises. Type I error rate control, trial integrity and results consistency between the different stages of the analyses are fundamental aspects to be discussed thoroughly. Engaging early dialogue with regulators and implementing the scientific advice received is strongly recommended, since much experience in discussing adaptive designs and assessing their results has been accumulated.