Exploring the benefits of adaptive sequential designs in time-to-event endpoint settings

Evaluating group-sequential non-inferiority clinical trials following interim stopping: The HIV Prevention Trials Network 083 trial

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The HIV Prevention Trials Network 083 trial was a group-sequential non-inferiority trial designed to compare HIV incidence under a novel experimental regimen for HIV prevention, long-acting injectable cabotegravir, with an active-control regimen of daily oral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine (brand name Truvada). In March of 2020, just as the trial had completed enrollment, the COVID-19 pandemic threatened to prevent trial participants from attending study visits and obtaining study medication, motivating the study team to update the interim monitoring plan. The Data and Safety Monitoring Board subsequently stopped the trial at the first interim review due to strong early evidence of efficacy.

METHODS

Here we describe some unique aspects of the trial's design, monitoring, analysis, and interpretation. We illustrate the importance of computing point estimates, confidence intervals, and p values based on the sampling distribution induced by sequential monitoring.

RESULTS

Accurate analysis, decision-making and interpretation of trial results rely on pre-specification of a stopping boundary, including the scale on which the stopping rule will be implemented, the specific test statistics to be calculated, and how the boundary will be adjusted if the available information fraction at interim review is different from planned. After appropriate adjustment for the sampling distribution and overrun, the HIV Prevention Trials Network 083 trial provided strong evidence that the experimental regimen was superior to the active control.

CONCLUSIONS

For the HIV Prevention Trials Network 083 trial, the difference between corrected inferential statistics and naive results was quite small-as will often be the case-nevertheless, it is appropriate to report and publish the most accurate and unbiased statistical results.

Practical guidance for planning resources required to support publicly-funded adaptive clinical trials

Adaptive designs are a class of methods for improving efficiency and patient benefit of clinical trials. Although their use has increased in recent years, research suggests they are not used in many situations where they have potential to bring benefit. One barrier to their more widespread use is a lack of understanding about how the choice to use an adaptive design, rather than a traditional design, affects resources (staff and non-staff) required to set-up, conduct and report a trial. The Costing Adaptive Trials project investigated this issue using quantitative and qualitative research amongst UK Clinical Trials Units. Here, we present guidance that is informed by our research, on considering the appropriate resourcing of adaptive trials. We outline a five-step process to estimate the resources required and provide an accompanying costing tool. The process involves understanding the tasks required to undertake a trial, and how the adaptive design affects them. We identify barriers in the publicly funded landscape and provide recommendations to trial funders that would address them. Although our guidance and recommendations are most relevant to UK non-commercial trials, many aspects are relevant more widely.

Adaptive design clinical trials: a review of the literature and ClinicalTrials.gov

OBJECTIVES

This review investigates characteristics of implemented adaptive design clinical trials and provides examples of regulatory experience with such trials.

DESIGN

Review of adaptive design clinical trials in EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Registry of Controlled Clinical Trials, Web of Science and ClinicalTrials.gov. Phase I and seamless Phase I/II trials were excluded. Variables extracted from trials included basic study characteristics, adaptive design features, size and use of independent data monitoring committees (DMCs) and blinded interim analyses. We also examined use of the adaptive trials in new drug submissions to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) and recorded regulators' experiences with adaptive designs.

RESULTS

142 studies met inclusion criteria. There has been a recent growth in publicly reported use of adaptive designs among researchers around the world. The most frequently appearing types of adaptations were seamless Phase II/III (57%), group sequential (21%), biomarker adaptive (20%), and adaptive dose-finding designs (16%). About one-third (32%) of trials reported an independent DMC, while 6% reported blinded interim analysis. We found that 9% of adaptive trials were used for FDA product approval consideration, and 12% were used for EMA product approval consideration. International regulators had mixed experiences with adaptive trials. Many product applications with adaptive trials had extensive correspondence between drug sponsors and regulators regarding the adaptive designs, in some cases with regulators requiring revisions or alterations to research designs.

CONCLUSIONS

Wider use of adaptive designs will necessitate new drug application sponsors to engage with regulatory scientists during planning and conduct of the trials. Investigators need to more consistently report protections intended to preserve confidentiality and minimise potential operational bias during interim analysis.

Biomarker-Guided Adaptive Trial Designs in Phase II and Phase III: A Methodological Review

BACKGROUND

Personalized medicine is a growing area of research which aims to tailor the treatment given to a patient according to one or more personal characteristics. These characteristics can be demographic such as age or gender, or biological such as a genetic or other biomarker. Prior to utilizing a patient's biomarker information in clinical practice, robust testing in terms of analytical validity, clinical validity and clinical utility is necessary. A number of clinical trial designs have been proposed for testing a biomarker's clinical utility, including Phase II and Phase III clinical trials which aim to test the effectiveness of a biomarker-guided approach to treatment; these designs can be broadly classified into adaptive and non-adaptive. While adaptive designs allow planned modifications based on accumulating information during a trial, non-adaptive designs are typically simpler but less flexible.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We have undertaken a comprehensive review of biomarker-guided adaptive trial designs proposed in the past decade. We have identified eight distinct biomarker-guided adaptive designs and nine variations from 107 studies. Substantial variability has been observed in terms of how trial designs are described and particularly in the terminology used by different authors. We have graphically displayed the current biomarker-guided adaptive trial designs and summarised the characteristics of each design.

CONCLUSIONS

Our in-depth overview provides future researchers with clarity in definition, methodology and terminology for biomarker-guided adaptive trial designs.

The Potential of Adaptive Design in Animal Studies

Clinical trials are the backbone of medical research, and are often the last step in the development of new therapies for use in patients. Prior to human testing, however, preclinical studies using animal subjects are usually performed in order to provide initial data on the safety and effectiveness of prospective treatments. These studies can be costly and time consuming, and may also raise concerns about the ethical treatment of animals when potentially harmful procedures are involved. Adaptive design is a process by which the methods used in a study may be altered while it is being conducted in response to preliminary data or other new information. Adaptive design has been shown to be useful in reducing the time and costs associated with clinical trials, and may provide similar benefits in preclinical animal studies. The purpose of this review is to summarize various aspects of adaptive design and evaluate its potential for use in preclinical research.

Adaptive clinical trial designs with pre-specified rules for modifying the sample size: understanding efficient types of adaptation

Adaptive clinical trial design has been proposed as a promising new approach that may improve the drug discovery process. Proponents of adaptive sample size re-estimation promote its ability to avoid 'up-front' commitment of resources, better address the complicated decisions faced by data monitoring committees, and minimize accrual to studies having delayed ascertainment of outcomes. We investigate aspects of adaptation rules, such as timing of the adaptation analysis and magnitude of sample size adjustment, that lead to greater or lesser statistical efficiency. Owing in part to the recent Food and Drug Administration guidance that promotes the use of pre-specified sampling plans, we evaluate alternative approaches in the context of well-defined, pre-specified adaptation. We quantify the relative costs and benefits of fixed sample, group sequential, and pre-specified adaptive designs with respect to standard operating characteristics such as type I error, maximal sample size, power, and expected sample size under a range of alternatives. Our results build on others' prior research by demonstrating in realistic settings that simple and easily implemented pre-specified adaptive designs provide only very small efficiency gains over group sequential designs with the same number of analyses. In addition, we describe optimal rules for modifying the sample size, providing efficient adaptation boundaries on a variety of scales for the interim test statistic for adaptation analyses occurring at several different stages of the trial. We thus provide insight into what are good and bad choices of adaptive sampling plans when the added flexibility of adaptive designs is desired.

Design of clinical trials in AKI: a report from an NIDDK workshop. Trials of patients with sepsis and in selected hospital settings

AKI remains an important clinical problem, with a high mortality rate, increasing incidence, and no Food and Drug Administration-approved therapeutics. Advances in addressing this clinical need require approaches for rapid diagnosis and stratification of injury, development of therapeutic agents based on precise understanding of key pathophysiological events, and implementation of well designed clinical trials. In the near future, AKI biomarkers may facilitate trial design. To address these issues, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases sponsored a meeting, "Clinical Trials in Acute Kidney Injury: Current Opportunities and Barriers," in December of 2010 that brought together academic investigators, industry partners, and representatives from the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration. Important issues in the design of clinical trials for interventions in AKI in patients with sepsis or AKI in the setting of critical illness after surgery or trauma were discussed. The sepsis working group discussed use of severity of illness scores and focus on patients with specific etiologies to enhance homogeneity of trial participants. The group also discussed endpoints congruent with those endpoints used in critical care studies. The second workgroup emphasized difficulties in obtaining consent before admission and collaboration among interdisciplinary healthcare groups. Despite the difficult trial design issues, these clinical situations represent a clinical opportunity because of the high event rates, severity of AKI, and poor outcomes. The groups considered trial design issues and discussed advantages and disadvantages of several short- and long-term primary endpoints in these patients.

Design of clinical trials in acute kidney injury: a report from an NIDDK workshop--prevention trials

AKI is an important clinical problem that has become increasingly more common. Mortality rates associated with AKI remain high despite advances in supportive care. Patients surviving AKI have increased long-term mortality and appear to be at increased risk of developing CKD and progressing to ESRD. No proven effective pharmacologic therapies are currently available for the prevention or treatment of AKI. Advances in addressing this unmet need will require the development of novel therapeutic agents based on precise understanding of key pathophysiological events and the implementation of well designed clinical trials. To address this need, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases sponsored the "Clinical Trials in Acute Kidney Injury: Current Opportunities and Barriers" workshop in December 2010. The event brought together representatives from academia, industry, the National Institutes of Health, and the US Food and Drug Administration. We report the discussions of workgroups that developed outlines of clinical trials for the prevention of AKI in two patient populations: patients undergoing elective surgery who are at risk for or who develop AKI, and patients who are at risk for contrast-induced AKI. In both of these populations, primary prevention or secondary therapy can be delivered at an optimal time relative to kidney injury. The workgroups detailed primary and secondary endpoints for studies in these groups, and explored the use of adaptive clinical trial designs for trials of novel preventive strategies to improve outcomes of patients with AKI.

Design of clinical trials in acute kidney injury: report from an NIDDK workshop on trial methodology

Acute kidney injury (AKI) remains a complex clinical problem associated with significant short-term morbidity and mortality and lacking effective pharmacologic interventions. Patients with AKI experience longer-term risks for progressive chronic ESRD, which diminish patients' health-related quality of life and create a larger burden on the healthcare system. Although experimental models have yielded numerous promising agents, translation into clinical practice has been unsuccessful, possibly because of issues in clinical trial design, such as delayed drug administration, masking of therapeutic benefit by adverse events, and inadequate sample size. To address issues of clinical trial design, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases sponsored a workshop titled "Clinical Trials in Acute Kidney Injury: Current Opportunities and Barriers" in December 2010. Workshop participants included representatives from academia, industry, and government agencies whose areas of expertise spanned basic science, clinical nephrology, critical care medicine, biostatistics, pharmacology, and drug development. This document summarizes the discussions of collaborative workgroups that addressed issues related to patient selection, study endpoints, the role of novel biomarkers, sample size and power calculations, and adverse events and pilot/feasibility studies in prevention and treatment of AKI. Companion articles outline the discussions of workgroups for model trials related to prevention or treatment of established AKI in different clinical settings, such as in patients with sepsis.