Overview, hurdles, and future work in adaptive designs: perspectives from a National Institutes of Health-funded workshop

A Systematic Review of Adaptive Seamless Clinical Trials for Late-Phase Oncology Development

INTRODUCTION

Although oncology has seen large scientific and clinical advances over the last decade, it also has one of the lowest success rates for novel agents across therapeutic areas. Adaptive clinical trial design has been a popular option for increasing clinical trial efficiency and the chances of trial success. Seamless clinical trial design are studies in which two or more clinical trial phases are combined into a single study with a pre-specified transition between stages. This integration of phases may enhance efficiency.

METHODS

To understand the precedent for the use of seamless designs, this working group was formed to conduct a comprehensive literature search on seamless clinical trials conducted with confirmatory intent in oncology. Trial design features were extracted into a database and analyzed with descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

A literature search identified 68 clinical trials meeting inclusion and exclusion criteria. The most common design feature was a gate on treatment efficacy, where the trial would only proceed to the second stage if sufficient efficacy was observed in the first. The next most common feature was a selection of a dose or treatment regimen. Inferentially and operationally seamless designs were approximately equally represented.

DISCUSSION

Key statistical considerations for seamless phase II/III designs include optimizing design choices by evaluating and comparing operating characteristics across design alternatives as well as showing control of overall Type I error rates. Executing the transition between phases should be evaluated for issues related to accrual, drug production, and procedures to maintain trial integrity.

CONCLUSIONS

While there are unique statistical, regulatory, and operational considerations for seamless designs they are also uniquely suited to many development settings. These include, for example, addressing dose selection under FDA's Project Optimus and addressing the growing use of biomarkers and personalized medicine approaches in cancer treatment.

Use of Seamless Study Designs in Oncology Clinical Development- A Survey Conducted by IDSWG Oncology Sub-team

Seamless study designs have the potential to accelerate clinical development. The use of innovative seamless designs has been increasing in the oncology area; however, while the concept of seamless designs becomes more popular and accepted, many challenges remain in both the design and conduct of these trials. This may be especially true when seamless designs are used in late phase development supporting regulatory decision-making. The Innovative Design Scientific Working Group (IDSWG) Oncology team conducted a survey to understand the current use of seamless study designs for registration purposes in oncology clinical development. The survey was designed to provide insights into the benefits and to identify the roadblocks. A total of 16 questions were included in the survey that was distributed using the ASA Biopharmaceutical Section and IDSWG email listings from August to September 2022. A total of 51 responses were received, with 39 (76%) respondents indicating that their organizations had seamless oncology studies in planning or implementation for registration purposes. Detailed survey results are presented in the manuscript. Overall, while seamless designs offer advantages in terms of timeline reduction and cost saving, they also present challenges related to additional complexity and the need for efficient surrogate clinical endpoints in oncology drug development.

Towards achieving transnational research partnership equity: lessons from implementing adaptive platform trials in low- and middle-income countries

Background

Use of adaptive clinical trials, particularly adaptive platform trials, has grown exponentially in response to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Implementation of these trials in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) has been fostered through the formation or modification of transnational research partnerships, typically between research groups from LMICs and high-income countries (HICs). While these partnerships are important to promote collaboration and overcome the structural and economic disadvantages faced by LMIC health researchers, it is critical to focus attention on the multiple dimensions of partnership equity.

Methods

Based on informal literature reviews and a meeting with leaders of one of the multinational COVID-19 adaptive platform trials, we describe some important considerations about research partnership equity in this context.

Results

We organize these considerations into eight thematic categories: 1) epistemic structures, 2) funding, 3) ethics oversight, 4) regulatory oversight, 5) leadership, 6) post-trial access to interventions, data, and specimens, 7) knowledge translation and dissemination, and 8) research capacity strengthening and maintenance. Within each category we review normative claims that support its relevance to research partnership equity followed by discussion of how adaptive platform trials highlight new dimensions, considerations, or challenges.

Conclusion

In aggregate, these observations provide insight into procedural and substantive equity-building measures within transnational global health research partnerships more broadly.

Optimizing clinical nutrition research: the role of adaptive and pragmatic trials

Evidence-based nutritional recommendations address the health impact of suboptimal nutritional status. Efficacy randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have traditionally been the preferred method for determining the effects of nutritional interventions on health outcomes. Nevertheless, obtaining a holistic understanding of intervention efficacy and effectiveness in real-world settings is stymied by inherent constraints of efficacy RCTs. These limitations are further compounded by the complexity of nutritional interventions and the intricacies of the clinical context. Herein, we explore the advantages and limitations of alternative study designs (e.g., adaptive and pragmatic trials), which can be incorporated into RCTs to optimize the efficacy or effectiveness of interventions in clinical nutrition research. Efficacy RCTs often lack external validity due to their fixed design and restrictive eligibility criteria, leading to efficacy-effectiveness and evidence-practice gaps. Adaptive trials improve the evaluation of nutritional intervention efficacy through planned study modifications, such as recalculating sample sizes or discontinuing a study arm. Pragmatic trials are embedded within clinical practice or conducted in settings that resemble standard of care, enabling a more comprehensive assessment of intervention effectiveness. Pragmatic trials often rely on patient-oriented primary outcomes, acquire outcome data from electronic health records, and employ broader eligibility criteria. Consequently, adaptive and pragmatic trials facilitate the prompt implementation of evidence-based nutritional recommendations into clinical practice. Recognizing the limitations of efficacy RCTs and the potential advantages of alternative trial designs is essential for bridging efficacy-effectiveness and evidence-practice gaps. Ultimately, this awareness will lead to a greater number of patients benefiting from evidence-based nutritional recommendations.

Research objectives and general considerations for pragmatic clinical trials of pain treatments: IMMPACT statement

ABSTRACT

Many questions regarding the clinical management of people experiencing pain and related health policy decision-making may best be answered by pragmatic controlled trials. To generate clinically relevant and widely applicable findings, such trials aim to reproduce elements of routine clinical care or are embedded within clinical workflows. In contrast with traditional efficacy trials, pragmatic trials are intended to address a broader set of external validity questions critical for stakeholders (clinicians, healthcare leaders, policymakers, insurers, and patients) in considering the adoption and use of evidence-based treatments in daily clinical care. This article summarizes methodological considerations for pragmatic trials, mainly concerning methods of fundamental importance to the internal validity of trials. The relationship between these methods and common pragmatic trials methods and goals is considered, recognizing that the resulting trial designs are highly dependent on the specific research question under investigation. The basis of this statement was an Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) systematic review of methods and a consensus meeting. The meeting was organized by the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION) public-private partnership. The consensus process was informed by expert presentations, panel and consensus discussions, and a preparatory systematic review. In the context of pragmatic trials of pain treatments, we present fundamental considerations for the planning phase of pragmatic trials, including the specification of trial objectives, the selection of adequate designs, and methods to enhance internal validity while maintaining the ability to answer pragmatic research questions.

Towards achieving transnational research partnership equity: lessons from implementing adaptive platform trials in low- and middle-income countries

Background: Use of adaptive clinical trials, particularly adaptive platform trials, has grown exponentially in response to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Implementation of these trials in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) has been fostered through the formation or modification of transnational research partnerships, typically between research groups from LMICs and high-income countries (HICs). While these partnerships are important to promote collaboration and overcome the structural and economic disadvantages faced by LMIC health researchers, it is critical to focus attention on the multiple dimensions of partnership equity. Methods: Based on informal literature reviews and meetings with leaders of one of the multinational COVID-19 adaptive platform trials, we describe what can be learned about research partnership equity from these experiences. Results: We organize these considerations into eight thematic categories: 1) epistemic structures, 2) funding, 3) ethics oversight, 4) regulatory oversight, 5) leadership, 6) post-trial access to interventions, data, and specimens, 7) knowledge translation, and 8) research capacity strengthening and maintenance. Within each category we review the normative claims that support its relevance to research partnership equity followed by discussion of how adaptive platform trials highlight new dimensions, considerations, or challenges. Conclusion: These observations provide insight into procedural and substantive equity-building measures within transnational global health research partnerships more broadly.

Factors influencing the statistical planning, design, conduct, analysis and reporting of trials in health care: A systematic review

Background

Trials in health care are prospective human research studies designed to test the effectiveness and safety of health care interventions, such as medications, surgeries, medical devices and other treatment or prevention interventions. Statistics is an important and powerful tool in trials. Inappropriately designed trials and/or inappropriate statistical analysis produce unreliable results and a lack of transparency when reported, with limited clinical use.

Aim

This systematic literature review aimed to identify, describe and synthesise factors contributing to or influencing the statistical planning, design, conduct, analysis and reporting of trials.

Methods

Information sources were retrieved from the following electronic citation databases: PubMed, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and CINAHL and the grey literature repository: OpenGrey. 90 articles and guidelines were included in this review. A narrative, thematic synthesis identified the key factors influencing the statistical planning, design, conduct, analysis and reporting of trials in health care.

Findings and conclusion

We identified three analytical themes within which factors are grouped. These are: “what makes a statistician?“, “the need for dynamic statistical involvement and collaboration throughout a trial – it's not just about the numbers”, “and the “accountability of statisticians in ensuring the safety of trial participants and the integrity of trial data”. While important insights emerged about the qualifications, training, roles, and responsibilities of statisticians and their collaboration with other team members in a trial, further empirical research is warranted to elicit the perceptions of trial team members at the centre of statistics in trials.

Using numerical modeling and simulation to assess the ethical burden in clinical trials and how it relates to the proportion of responders in a trial sample

In order to propose a more precise definition and explore how to reduce ethical losses in randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs), we set out to identify trial participants who do not contribute to demonstrating that the treatment in the experimental arm is superior to that in the control arm. RCTs emerged mid-last century as the gold standard for assessing efficacy, becoming the cornerstone of the value of new therapies, yet their ethical grounds are a matter of debate. We introduce the concept of unnecessary participants in RCTs, the sum of non-informative participants and non-responders. The non-informative participants are considered not informative with respect to the efficacy measured in the trial in contrast to responders who carry all the information required to conclude on the treatment's efficacy. The non-responders present the event whether or not they are treated with the experimental treatment. The unnecessary participants carry the burden of having to participate in a clinical trial without benefiting from it, which might include experiencing side effects. Thus, these unnecessary participants carry the ethical loss that is inherent to the RCT methodology. On the contrary, responders to the experimental treatment bear its entire efficacy in the RCT. Starting from the proportions observed in a real placebo-controlled trial from the literature, we carried out simulations of RCTs progressively increasing the proportion of responders up to 100%. We show that the number of unnecessary participants decreases steadily until the RCT's ethical loss reaches a minimum. In parallel, the trial sample size decreases (presumably its cost as well), although the trial's statistical power increases as shown by the increase of the chi-square comparing the event rates between the two arms. Thus, we expect that increasing the proportion of responders in RCTs would contribute to making them more ethically acceptable, with less false negative outcomes.

Essential statistical principles of clinical trials of pain treatments

This article presents an overview of fundamental statistical principles of clinical trials of pain treatments. Statistical considerations relevant to phase 2 proof of concept and phase 3 confirmatory randomized trials investigating efficacy and safety are discussed, including (1) research design; (2) endpoints and analyses; (3) sample size determination and statistical power; (4) missing data and trial estimands; (5) data monitoring and interim analyses; and (6) interpretation of results. Although clinical trials of pharmacologic treatments are emphasized, the key issues raised by these trials are also directly applicable to clinical trials of other types of treatments, including biologics, devices, nonpharmacologic therapies (eg, physical therapy and cognitive-behavior therapy), and complementary and integrative health interventions.

An iterative method to protect the type I error rate in bioequivalence studies under two-stage adaptive 2×2 crossover designs

Bioequivalence studies are the pivotal clinical trials submitted to regulatory agencies to support the marketing applications of generic drug products. Average bioequivalence (ABE) is used to determine whether the mean values for the pharmacokinetic measures determined after administration of the test and reference products are comparable. Two-stage 2×2 crossover adaptive designs (TSDs) are becoming increasingly popular because they allow making assumptions on the clinically meaningful treatment effect and a reliable guess for the unknown within-subject variability. At an interim look, if ABE is not declared with an initial sample size, they allow to increase it depending on the estimated variability and to enroll additional subjects at a second stage, or to stop for futility in case of poor likelihood of bioequivalence. This is crucial because both parameters must clearly be prespecified in protocols, and the strategy agreed with regulatory agencies in advance with emphasis on controlling the overall type I error. We present an iterative method to adjust the significance levels at each stage which preserves the overall type I error for a wide set of scenarios which should include the true unknown variability value. Simulations showed adjusted significance levels higher than 0.0300 in most cases with type I error always below 5%, and with a power of at least 80%. TSDs work particularly well for coefficients of variation below 0.3 which are especially useful due to the balance between the power and the percentage of studies proceeding to stage 2. Our approach might support discussions with regulatory agencies.

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.

Stakeholder perspectives on adaptive clinical trials: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Adaptive clinical trials (ACTs) represent an emerging approach to trial design where accumulating data are used to make decisions about future conduct. Adaptations can include comparisons of multiple dose tiers, response-adaptive randomization, sample size re-estimation, and efficacy/futility stopping rules. The objective of this scoping review is to assess stakeholder attitudes, perspectives, and understanding of adaptive trials.

METHODS

We conducted a review of articles examining stakeholders encompassing the broad medical trial community's perspectives of adaptive designs (ADs). A computerized search was conducted of four electronic databases with relevant search terms. Following screening of articles, the primary findings of each included article were coded for study design, population studied, purpose, and primary implications.

RESULTS

Our team retrieved 167 peer-reviewed titles in total from the database search and 5 additional titles through searching web-based search engines for gray literature. Of those 172 titles, 152 were non-duplicate citations. Of these, 119 were not given full-text reviews, as their titles and abstracts indicated that they did not meet the inclusion criteria. Thirty-three articles were carefully examined for relevance, and of those, 18 were chosen to be part of the analysis; the other 15 were excluded, as they were not relevant upon closer inspection. Perceived advantages to ADs included limiting ineffective treatments and efficiency in answering the research question; -perceived barriers included insufficient sample size for secondary outcomes, challenges of consent, potential for bias, risk of type 1 error, cost and time to adaptively design trials, unclear rationales for using Ads, and, most importantly, a lack of education regarding ADs among stakeholders within the clinical trial community. Perceptions among different types of stakeholders varied from sector to sector, with patient perspectives being noticeably absent from the literature.

CONCLUSION

There are diverse perceptions regarding ADs among stakeholders. Further training, guidelines, and toolkits on the proper use of ADs are needed at all levels to overcome many of these perceived barriers. While education for principal investigators is important, it is also crucial to educate other groups in the community, such as patients, as well as clinicians and staff involved in their daily implementation.

A review of available software for adaptive clinical trial design

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The increasing cost of the drug development process has seen interest in the use of adaptive trial designs grow substantially. Accordingly, much research has been conducted to identify barriers to increasing the use of adaptive designs in practice. Several articles have argued that the availability of user-friendly software will be an important step in making adaptive designs easier to implement. Therefore, we present a review of the current state of software availability for adaptive trial design.

METHODS

We review articles from 31 journals published in 2013-2017 that relate to methodology for adaptive trials to assess how often code and software for implementing novel adaptive designs is made available at the time of publication. We contrast our findings against these journals' policies on code distribution. We also search popular code repositories, such as Comprehensive R Archive Network and GitHub, to identify further existing user-contributed software for adaptive designs. From this, we are able to direct interested parties toward solutions for their problem of interest.

RESULTS

Only 30% of included articles made their code available in some form. In many instances, articles published in journals that had mandatory requirements on code provision still did not make code available. There are several areas in which available software is currently limited or saturated. In particular, many packages are available to address group sequential design, but comparatively little code is present in the public domain to determine biomarker-guided adaptive designs.

CONCLUSIONS

There is much room for improvement in the provision of software alongside adaptive design publications. In addition, while progress has been made, well-established software for various types of trial adaptation remains sparsely available.

Optimising trial designs to identify appropriate antibiotic treatment durations

BACKGROUND

For many infectious conditions, the optimal antibiotic course length remains unclear. The estimation of course length must consider the important trade-off between maximising short- and long-term efficacy and minimising antibiotic resistance and toxicity.

MAIN BODY

Evidence on optimal treatment durations should come from randomised controlled trials. However, most antibiotic randomised controlled trials compare two arbitrarily chosen durations. We argue that alternative trial designs, which allow allocation of patients to multiple different treatment durations, are needed to better identify optimal antibiotic durations. There are important considerations when deciding which design is most useful in identifying optimal treatment durations, including the ability to model the duration-response relationship (or duration-response 'curve'), the risk of allocation concealment bias, statistical efficiency, the possibility to rapidly drop arms that are clearly inferior, and the possibility of modelling the trade-off between multiple competing outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Multi-arm designs modelling duration-response curves with the possibility to drop inferior arms during the trial could provide more information about the optimal duration of antibiotic therapies than traditional head-to-head comparisons of limited numbers of durations, while minimising the probability of assigning trial participants to an ineffective treatment regimen.

Designing and conducting proof-of-concept chronic pain analgesic clinical trials

Introduction:

The evolution of pain treatment is dependent on successful development and testing of interventions. Proof-of-concept (POC) studies bridge the gap between identification of a novel target and evaluation of the candidate intervention's efficacy within a pain model or the intended clinical pain population.

Methods:

This narrative review describes and evaluates clinical trial phases, specific POC pain trials, and approaches to patient profiling.

Results:

We describe common POC trial designs and their value and challenges, a mechanism-based approach, and statistical issues for consideration.

Conclusion:

Proof-of-concept trials provide initial evidence for target use in a specific population, the most appropriate dosing strategy, and duration of treatment. A significant goal in designing an informative and efficient POC study is to ensure that the study is safe and sufficiently sensitive to detect a preliminary efficacy signal (ie, a potentially valuable therapy). Proof-of-concept studies help avoid resources wasted on targets/molecules that are not likely to succeed. As such, the design of a successful POC trial requires careful consideration of the research objective, patient population, the particular intervention, and outcome(s) of interest. These trials provide the basis for future, larger-scale studies confirming efficacy, tolerability, side effects, and other associated risks.

Development process of a consensus-driven CONSORT extension for randomised trials using an adaptive design

BACKGROUND

Adequate reporting of adaptive designs (ADs) maximises their potential benefits in the conduct of clinical trials. Transparent reporting can help address some obstacles and concerns relating to the use of ADs. Currently, there are deficiencies in the reporting of AD trials. To overcome this, we have developed a consensus-driven extension to the CONSORT statement for randomised trials using an AD. This paper describes the processes and methods used to develop this extension rather than detailed explanation of the guideline.

METHODS

We developed the guideline in seven overlapping stages: 1) Building on prior research to inform the need for a guideline; 2) A scoping literature review to inform future stages; 3) Drafting the first checklist version involving an External Expert Panel; 4) A two-round Delphi process involving international, multidisciplinary, and cross-sector key stakeholders; 5) A consensus meeting to advise which reporting items to retain through voting, and to discuss the structure of what to include in the supporting explanation and elaboration (E&E) document; 6) Refining and finalising the checklist; and 7) Writing-up and dissemination of the E&E document. The CONSORT Executive Group oversaw the entire development process.

RESULTS

Delphi survey response rates were 94/143 (66%), 114/156 (73%), and 79/143 (55%) in rounds 1, 2, and across both rounds, respectively. Twenty-seven delegates from Europe, the USA, and Asia attended the consensus meeting. The main checklist has seven new and nine modified items and six unchanged items with expanded E&E text to clarify further considerations for ADs. The abstract checklist has one new and one modified item together with an unchanged item with expanded E&E text. The E&E document will describe the scope of the guideline, the definition of an AD, and some types of ADs and trial adaptations and explain each reporting item in detail including case studies.

CONCLUSIONS

We hope that making the development processes, methods, and all supporting information that aided decision-making transparent will enhance the acceptability and quick uptake of the guideline. This will also help other groups when developing similar CONSORT extensions. The guideline is applicable to all randomised trials with an AD and contains minimum reporting requirements.

Adaptive Designs for Clinical Trials: Application to Healthcare Epidemiology Research

Clinical trials with adaptive designs use data that accumulate during the course of the study to modify study elements in a prespecified manner. The goal is to provide flexibility such that a trial can serve as a definitive test of its primary hypothesis, preferably in a shorter time period, involving fewer human subjects, and at lower cost. Elements that may be modified include the sample size, end points, eligible population, randomization ratio, and interventions. Accumulating data used to drive these modifications include the outcomes, subject enrollment (including factors associated with the outcomes), and information about the application of the interventions. This review discusses the types of adaptive designs for clinical trials, emphasizing their advantages and limitations in comparison with conventional designs, and opportunities for applying these designs to healthcare epidemiology research, including studies of interventions to prevent healthcare-associated infections, combat antimicrobial resistance, and improve antimicrobial stewardship.

Ten Essential Practices for Developing or Reforming a Biostatistics Core for a NCI Designated Cancer Center

There are 69 National Cancer Institute (NCI) designated Cancer Centers (CCs) in the United States. Biostatistical collaboration is pivotal in cancer research, and support for a cancer biostatistics shared resource facility (C-BSRF) is included in the award. Although the services and staff needed in a C-BSRF have been outlined in general terms and best practices for biostatistical consultations and collaboration in an academic health center have been agreed upon, implementing these practices in the demanding setting of cancer centers interested in pursuing or maintaining NCI designation remains challenging. We surveyed all C-BSRF websites to assess their organizational charts, governance, size, services provided, and financial models and have identified 10 essential practices for the development of a successful C-BSRF. Here, we share our success with, and barriers to, implementation of these practices. Showcasing development plans for these essential practices resulted in an NCI score of "Excellent to Outstanding" for our C-BSRF in 2015, and performance metrics in 2016-2017 demonstrated notable improvement since our original Cancer Center Support Grant (CCSG) application in 2014. We believe that the essential practices described here can be adapted and adjusted, as needed, for CCs of various sizes and with different types of cancer research programs.

Perioperative THR-184 and AKI after Cardiac Surgery

AKI after cardiac surgery is associated with mortality, prolonged hospital length of stay, use of dialysis, and subsequent CKD. We evaluated the effects of THR-184, a bone morphogenetic protein-7 agonist, in patients at high risk for AKI after cardiac surgery. We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multidose comparison of the safety and efficacy of perioperative THR-184 using a two-stage seamless adaptive design in 452 patients between 18 and 85 years of age who were scheduled for nonemergent cardiac surgery requiring cardiopulmonary bypass and had recognized risk factors for AKI. The primary efficacy end point was the proportion of patients who developed AKI according to Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) criteria. The proportion of patients who developed AKI within 7 days of surgery was similar in THR-184 treatment groups and placebo groups (range, 74%-79%; P=0.43). Prespecified secondary end point analysis did not show significant differences in the severity of AKI stage (P=0.53) or the total duration of AKI (P=0.44). A composite of death, dialysis, or sustained impaired renal function by day 30 after surgery did not differ between groups (range, 11%-20%; P=0.46). Safety-related outcomes were similar across all treatment groups. In conclusion, compared with placebo, administration of perioperative THR-184 through a range of dose exposures failed to reduce the incidence, severity, or duration of AKI after cardiac surgery in high-risk patients.

Practical characteristics of adaptive design in phase 2 and 3 clinical trials

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Adaptive design methods are expected to be ethical, reflect real medical practice, increase the likelihood of research and development success and reduce the allocation of patients into ineffective treatment groups by the early termination of clinical trials. However, the comprehensive details regarding which types of clinical trials will include adaptive designs remain unclear. We examined the practical characteristics of adaptive design used in clinical trials.

METHODS

We conducted a literature search of adaptive design clinical trials published from 2012 to 2015 using PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, with common search terms related to adaptive design. We systematically assessed the types and characteristics of adaptive designs and disease areas employed in the adaptive design trials.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Our survey identified 245 adaptive design clinical trials. The number of trials by the publication year increased from 2012 to 2013 and did not greatly change afterwards. The most frequently used adaptive design was group sequential design (n = 222, 90.6%), especially for neoplasm or cardiovascular disease trials. Among the other types of adaptive design, adaptive dose/treatment group selection (n = 21, 8.6%) and adaptive sample-size adjustment (n = 19, 7.8%) were frequently used. The adaptive randomization (n = 8, 3.3%) and adaptive seamless design (n = 6, 2.4%) were less frequent. Adaptive dose/treatment group selection and adaptive sample-size adjustment were frequently used (up to 23%) in "certain infectious and parasitic diseases," "diseases of nervous system," and "mental and behavioural disorders" in comparison with "neoplasms" (<6.6%). For "mental and behavioural disorders," adaptive randomization was used in two trials of eight trials in total (25%). Group sequential design and adaptive sample-size adjustment were used frequently in phase 3 trials or in trials where study phase was not specified, whereas the other types of adaptive designs were used more in phase 2 trials. Approximately 82% (202 of 245 trials) resulted in early termination at the interim analysis. Among the 202 trials, 132 (54% of 245 trials) had fewer randomized patients than initially planned. This result supports the motive to use adaptive design to make study durations shorter and include a smaller number of subjects.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

We found that adaptive designs have been applied to clinical trials in various therapeutic areas and interventions. The applications were frequently reported in neoplasm or cardiovascular clinical trials. The adaptive dose/treatment group selection and sample-size adjustment are increasingly common, and these adaptations generally follow the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) recommendations.

Sex-Divergent Clinical Outcomes and Precision Medicine: An Important New Role for Institutional Review Boards and Research Ethics Committees

The efforts toward individualized medicine have constantly increased in an attempt to improve treatment options. These efforts have led to the development of small molecules which target specific molecular pathways involved in cancer progression. We have reviewed preclinical studies of sunitinib that incorporate sex as a covariate to explore possible sex-based differences in pharmacokinetics and drug–drug interactions (DDI) to attempt a relationship with published clinical outputs. We observed that covariate sex is lacking in most clinical outcome reports and suggest a series of ethic-based proposals to improve research activities and identify relevant different sex outcomes. We propose a deeper integration of preclinical, clinical, and translational research addressing statistical and clinical significance jointly; to embed specific sex-divergent endpoints to evaluate possible gender differences objectively during all stages of research; to pay greater attention to sex-divergent outcomes in polypharmacy scenarios, DDI and bioequivalence studies; the clear reporting of preclinical and clinical findings regarding sex-divergent outcomes; as well as to encourage the active role of scientists and the pharmaceutical industry to foster a new scientific culture through their research programs, practice, and participation in editorial boards and Institutional Ethics Review Boards (IRBs) and Research Ethics Committees (RECs). We establish the IRB/REC as the centerpiece for the implementation of these proposals. We suggest the expansion of its competence to follow up clinical trials to ensure that sex differences are addressed and recognized; to engage in data monitoring committees to improve clinical research cooperation and ethically address those potential clinical outcome differences between male and female patients to analyze their social and clinical implications in research and healthcare policies.

A conceptual model for the development process of confirmatory adaptive clinical trials within an emergency research network

BACKGROUND

Adaptive clinical trials use accumulating data from enrolled subjects to alter trial conduct in pre-specified ways based on quantitative decision rules. In this research, we sought to characterize the perspectives of key stakeholders during the development process of confirmatory-phase adaptive clinical trials within an emergency clinical trials network and to build a model to guide future development of adaptive clinical trials.

METHODS

We used an ethnographic, qualitative approach to evaluate key stakeholders' views about the adaptive clinical trial development process. Stakeholders participated in a series of multidisciplinary meetings during the development of five adaptive clinical trials and completed a Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunities-Threats questionnaire. In the analysis, we elucidated overarching themes across the stakeholders' responses to develop a conceptual model.

RESULTS

Four major overarching themes emerged during the analysis of stakeholders' responses to questioning: the perceived statistical complexity of adaptive clinical trials and the roles of collaboration, communication, and time during the development process. Frequent and open communication and collaboration were viewed by stakeholders as critical during the development process, as were the careful management of time and logistical issues related to the complexity of planning adaptive clinical trials.

CONCLUSION

The Adaptive Design Development Model illustrates how statistical complexity, time, communication, and collaboration are moderating factors in the adaptive design development process. The intensity and iterative nature of this process underscores the need for funding mechanisms for the development of novel trial proposals in academic settings.

Advanced Research and Data Methods in Women's Health: Big Data Analytics, Adaptive Studies, and the Road Ahead

Technical advances in science have had broad implications in reproductive and women's health care. Recent innovations in population-level data collection and storage have made available an unprecedented amount of data for analysis while computational technology has evolved to permit processing of data previously thought too dense to study. "Big data" is a term used to describe data that are a combination of dramatically greater volume, complexity, and scale. The number of variables in typical big data research can readily be in the thousands, challenging the limits of traditional research methodologies. Regardless of what it is called, advanced data methods, predictive analytics, or big data, this unprecedented revolution in scientific exploration has the potential to dramatically assist research in obstetrics and gynecology broadly across subject matter. Before implementation of big data research methodologies, however, potential researchers and reviewers should be aware of strengths, strategies, study design methods, and potential pitfalls. Examination of big data research examples contained in this article provides insight into the potential and the limitations of this data science revolution and practical pathways for its useful implementation.

Sequential Multiple Assignment Randomized Trials: An Opportunity for Improved Design of Stroke Reperfusion Trials

BACKGROUND

Modern clinical trials in stroke reperfusion fall into 2 categories: alternative systemic pharmacological regimens to alteplase and "rescue" endovascular approaches using targeted thrombectomy devices and/or medications delivered directly for persistently occluded vessels. Clinical trials in stroke have not evaluated how initial pharmacological thrombolytic management might influence subsequent rescue strategy. A sequential multiple assignment randomized trial (SMART) is a novel trial design that can test these dynamic treatment regimens and lead to treatment guidelines that more closely mimic practice.

AIM

To characterize a SMART design in comparison to traditional approaches for stroke reperfusion trials.

METHODS

We conducted a numerical simulation study that evaluated the performance of contrasting acute stroke clinical trial designs of both initial reperfusion and rescue therapy. We compare a SMART design where the same patients are followed through initial reperfusion and rescue therapy within 1 trial to a standard phase III design comparing 2 reperfusion treatments and a separate phase II futility design of rescue therapy in terms of sample size, power, and ability to address particular research questions.

RESULTS

Traditional trial designs can be well powered and have optimal design characteristics for independent treatment effects. When treatments, such as the reperfusion and rescue therapies, may interact, commonly used designs fail to detect this. A SMART design, with similar sample size to standard designs, can detect treatment interactions.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of SMART designs to investigate effective and realistic dynamic treatment regimens is a promising way to accelerate the discovery of new, effective treatments for stroke.

Glomerular Diseases: Registries and Clinical Trials

Nephrology has conducted few high-quality clinical trials, and the trials that have been conducted have not resulted in the approval of new treatments for primary or inflammatory glomerular diseases. There are overarching process issues that affect the conduct of all clinical trials, but there are also some specialty-specific issues. Within nephrology, primary glomerular diseases are rare, making adequate recruitment for meaningful trials difficult. Nephrologists need better ways, beyond histopathology, to phenotype patients with glomerular diseases and stratify the risk for progression to ESRD. Rigorous trial design is needed for the testing of new therapies, where most patients with glomerular diseases are offered the opportunity to enroll in a clinical trial if standard therapies have failed or are lacking. Training programs to develop a core group of kidney specialists with expertise in the design and implementation of clinical trials are also needed. Registries of patients with glomerular disease and observational studies can aid in the ability to determine realistic estimates of disease prevalence and inform trial design through a better understanding of the natural history of disease. Some proposed changes to the Common Rule, the federal regulations governing the ethical conduct of research involving humans, and the emerging use of electronic health records may facilitate the efficiency of initiating multicenter clinical trials. Collaborations among academia, government scientific and regulatory agencies, industry, foundations, and patient advocacy groups can accelerate therapeutic development for these complex diseases.

Attitudes and opinions regarding confirmatory adaptive clinical trials: a mixed methods analysis from the Adaptive Designs Accelerating Promising Trials into Treatments (ADAPT-IT) project

Background

Adaptive designs have been increasingly used in the pharmaceutical and device industries, but adoption within the academic setting has been less widespread — particularly for confirmatory phase trials. We sought to understand perceptions about understanding, acceptability, and scientific validity of adaptive clinical trials (ACTs).

Methods

We used a convergent mixed methods design using survey and mini-focus group data collection procedures to elucidate attitudes and opinions among “trial community” stakeholders regarding understanding, acceptability, efficiency, scientific validity, and speed of discovery with adaptive designs. Data were collected about various aspects of ACTs using self-administered surveys (paper or Web-based) with visual analog scales (VASs) with free text responses and with mini-focus groups of key stakeholders. Participants were recruited as part of an ongoing NIH/FDA-funded research project exploring the incorporation of ACTs into an existing NIH network that focuses on confirmatory phase clinical trials in neurological emergencies. “Trial community” representatives, namely, clinical investigators, biostatisticians, NIH officials, and FDA scientists involved in the planning of four clinical trials, were eligible to participate. In addition, recent and current members of a clinical trial-oriented NIH study section were also eligible.

Results

A total of 76 stakeholders completed the survey (out of 91 who were offered it, response rate 84 %). While the VAS attitudinal data showed substantial variability across respondents about acceptability and understanding of ACTs by various constituencies, respondents perceived clinicians to be less likely to understand ACTs and that ACTs probably would increase the efficiency of discovery. Textual and focus group responses emerged into several themes that enhanced understanding of VAS attitudinal data including the following: acceptability of adaptive designs depends on constituency and situation; there is variable understanding of ACTs (limited among clinicians, perceived to be higher at FDA); views about the potential for efficiency depend on the situation and implementation. Participants also frequently mentioned a need for greater education within the academic community. Finally, the empiric, non-quantitative selection of treatments for phase III trials based on limited phase II trials was highlighted as an opportunity for improvement and a potential explanation for the high number of neutral confirmatory trials.

Conclusions

These data show considerable variations in attitudes and beliefs about ACTs among trial community representatives. For adaptive trials to be fully considered when appropriate and for the research enterprise to realize the full potential of adaptive designs will likely require extensive experience and trust building within the trial community.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1493-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Emerging technologies to measure neighborhood conditions in public health: implications for interventions and next steps

Adverse neighborhood conditions play an important role beyond individual characteristics. There is increasing interest in identifying specific characteristics of the social and built environments adversely affecting health outcomes. Most research has assessed aspects of such exposures via self-reported instruments or census data. Potential threats in the local environment may be subject to short-term changes that can only be measured with more nimble technology. The advent of new technologies may offer new opportunities to obtain geospatial data about neighborhoods that may circumvent the limitations of traditional data sources. This overview describes the utility, validity and reliability of selected emerging technologies to measure neighborhood conditions for public health applications. It also describes next steps for future research and opportunities for interventions. The paper presents an overview of the literature on measurement of the built and social environment in public health (Google Street View, webcams, crowdsourcing, remote sensing, social media, unmanned aerial vehicles, and lifespace) and location-based interventions. Emerging technologies such as Google Street View, social media, drones, webcams, and crowdsourcing may serve as effective and inexpensive tools to measure the ever-changing environment. Georeferenced social media responses may help identify where to target intervention activities, but also to passively evaluate their effectiveness. Future studies should measure exposure across key time points during the life-course as part of the exposome paradigm and integrate various types of data sources to measure environmental contexts. By harnessing these technologies, public health research can not only monitor populations and the environment, but intervene using novel strategies to improve the public health.

Adaptive designs undertaken in clinical research: a review of registered clinical trials

Adaptive designs have the potential to improve efficiency in the evaluation of new medical treatments in comparison to traditional fixed sample size designs. However, they are still not widely used in practice in clinical research. Little research has been conducted to investigate what adaptive designs are being undertaken. This review highlights the current state of registered adaptive designs and their characteristics. The review looked at phase II, II/III and III trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov from 29 February 2000 to 1 June 2014, supplemented with trials from the National Institute for Health Research register and known adaptive trials. A range of adaptive design search terms were applied to the trials extracted from each database. Characteristics of the adaptive designs were then recorded including funder, therapeutic area and type of adaptation. The results in the paper suggest that the use of adaptive designs has increased. They seem to be most often used in phase II trials and in oncology. In phase III trials, the most popular form of adaptation is the group sequential design. The review failed to capture all trials with adaptive designs, which suggests that the reporting of adaptive designs, such as in clinical trials registers, needs much improving. We recommend that clinical trial registers should contain sections dedicated to the type and scope of the adaptation and that the term 'adaptive design' should be included in the trial title or at least in the brief summary or design sections.

Cross-sector surveys assessing perceptions of key stakeholders towards barriers, concerns and facilitators to the appropriate use of adaptive designs in confirmatory trials

Background

Appropriately conducted adaptive designs (ADs) offer many potential advantages over conventional trials. They make better use of accruing data, potentially saving time, trial participants, and limited resources compared to conventional, fixed sample size designs. However, one can argue that ADs are not implemented as often as they should be, particularly in publicly funded confirmatory trials. This study explored barriers, concerns, and potential facilitators to the appropriate use of ADs in confirmatory trials among key stakeholders.

Methods

We conducted three cross-sectional, online parallel surveys between November 2014 and January 2015. The surveys were based upon findings drawn from in-depth interviews of key research stakeholders, predominantly in the UK, and targeted Clinical Trials Units (CTUs), public funders, and private sector organisations. Response rates were as follows: 30(55 %) UK CTUs, 17(68 %) private sector, and 86(41 %) public funders. A Rating Scale Model was used to rank barriers and concerns in order of perceived importance for prioritisation.

Results

Top-ranked barriers included the lack of bridge funding accessible to UK CTUs to support the design of ADs, limited practical implementation knowledge, preference for traditional mainstream designs, difficulties in marketing ADs to key stakeholders, time constraints to support ADs relative to competing priorities, lack of applied training, and insufficient access to case studies of undertaken ADs to facilitate practical learning and successful implementation. Associated practical complexities and inadequate data management infrastructure to support ADs were reported as more pronounced in the private sector. For funders of public research, the inadequate description of the rationale, scope, and decision-making criteria to guide the planned AD in grant proposals by researchers were all viewed as major obstacles.

Conclusions

There are still persistent and important perceptions of individual and organisational obstacles hampering the use of ADs in confirmatory trials research. Stakeholder perceptions about barriers are largely consistent across sectors, with a few exceptions that reflect differences in organisations’ funding structures, experiences and characterisation of study interventions. Most barriers appear connected to a lack of practical implementation knowledge and applied training, and limited access to case studies to facilitate practical learning.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-015-1119-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The radiogenomic risk score stratifies outcomes in a renal cell cancer phase 2 clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

To characterize a radiogenomic risk score (RRS), a previously defined biomarker, and to evaluate its potential for stratifying radiological progression-free survival (rPFS) in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) undergoing pre-surgical treatment with bevacizumab.

METHODOLOGY

In this IRB-approved study, prospective imaging analysis of the RRS was performed on phase II clinical trial data of mRCC patients (n = 41) evaluating whether patient stratification according to the RRS resulted in groups more or less likely to have a rPFS to pre-surgical bevacizumab prior to cytoreductive nephrectomy. Survival times of RRS subgroups were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis.

RESULTS

The RRS is enriched in diverse molecular processes including drug response, stress response, protein kinase regulation, and signal transduction pathways (P < 0.05). The RRS successfully stratified rPFS to bevacizumab based on pre-treatment computed tomography imaging with a median progression-free survival of 6 versus >25 months (P = 0.005) and overall survival of 25 versus >37 months in the high and low RRS groups (P = 0.03), respectively. Conventional prognostic predictors including the Motzer and Heng criteria were not predictive in this cohort (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The RRS stratifies rPFS to bevacizumab in patients from a phase II clinical trial with mRCC undergoing cytoreductive nephrectomy and pre-surgical bevacizumab.

KEY POINTS

• The RRS SOMA stratifies patient outcomes in a phase II clinical trial. • RRS stratifies subjects into prognostic groups in a discrete or continuous fashion. • RRS is biologically enriched in diverse processes including drug response programs.

An Investigation of the Shortcomings of the CONSORT 2010 Statement for the Reporting of Group Sequential Randomised Controlled Trials: A Methodological Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

It can be argued that adaptive designs are underused in clinical research. We have explored concerns related to inadequate reporting of such trials, which may influence their uptake. Through a careful examination of the literature, we evaluated the standards of reporting of group sequential (GS) randomised controlled trials, one form of a confirmatory adaptive design.

METHODS

We undertook a systematic review, by searching Ovid MEDLINE from the 1st January 2001 to 23rd September 2014, supplemented with trials from an audit study. We included parallel group, confirmatory, GS trials that were prospectively designed using a Frequentist approach. Eligible trials were examined for compliance in their reporting against the CONSORT 2010 checklist. In addition, as part of our evaluation, we developed a supplementary checklist to explicitly capture group sequential specific reporting aspects, and investigated how these are currently being reported.

RESULTS

Of the 284 screened trials, 68(24%) were eligible. Most trials were published in "high impact" peer-reviewed journals. Examination of trials established that 46(68%) were stopped early, predominantly either for futility or efficacy. Suboptimal reporting compliance was found in general items relating to: access to full trials protocols; methods to generate randomisation list(s); details of randomisation concealment, and its implementation. Benchmarking against the supplementary checklist, GS aspects were largely inadequately reported. Only 3(7%) trials which stopped early reported use of statistical bias correction. Moreover, 52(76%) trials failed to disclose methods used to minimise the risk of operational bias, due to the knowledge or leakage of interim results. Occurrence of changes to trial methods and outcomes could not be determined in most trials, due to inaccessible protocols and amendments.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

There are issues with the reporting of GS trials, particularly those specific to the conduct of interim analyses. Suboptimal reporting of bias correction methods could potentially imply most GS trials stopping early are giving biased results of treatment effects. As a result, research consumers may question credibility of findings to change practice when trials are stopped early. These issues could be alleviated through a CONSORT extension. Assurance of scientific rigour through transparent adequate reporting is paramount to the credibility of findings from adaptive trials. Our systematic literature search was restricted to one database due to resource constraints.

Missing steps in a staircase: a qualitative study of the perspectives of key stakeholders on the use of adaptive designs in confirmatory trials

Background

Despite the promising benefits of adaptive designs (ADs), their routine use, especially in confirmatory trials, is lagging behind the prominence given to them in the statistical literature. Much of the previous research to understand barriers and potential facilitators to the use of ADs has been driven from a pharmaceutical drug development perspective, with little focus on trials in the public sector. In this paper, we explore key stakeholders’ experiences, perceptions and views on barriers and facilitators to the use of ADs in publicly funded confirmatory trials.

Methods

Semi-structured, in-depth interviews of key stakeholders in clinical trials research (CTU directors, funding board and panel members, statisticians, regulators, chief investigators, data monitoring committee members and health economists) were conducted through telephone or face-to-face sessions, predominantly in the UK. We purposively selected participants sequentially to optimise maximum variation in views and experiences. We employed the framework approach to analyse the qualitative data.

Results

We interviewed 27 participants. We found some of the perceived barriers to be: lack of knowledge and experience coupled with paucity of case studies, lack of applied training, degree of reluctance to use ADs, lack of bridge funding and time to support design work, lack of statistical expertise, some anxiety about the impact of early trial stopping on researchers’ employment contracts, lack of understanding of acceptable scope of ADs and when ADs are appropriate, and statistical and practical complexities. Reluctance to use ADs seemed to be influenced by: therapeutic area, unfamiliarity, concerns about their robustness in decision-making and acceptability of findings to change practice, perceived complexities and proposed type of AD, among others.

Conclusions

There are still considerable multifaceted, individual and organisational obstacles to be addressed to improve uptake, and successful implementation of ADs when appropriate. Nevertheless, inferred positive change in attitudes and receptiveness towards the appropriate use of ADs by public funders are supportive and are a stepping stone for the future utilisation of ADs by researchers.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-015-0958-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Economic evaluations of personalized medicine: existing challenges and current developments

Personalized medicine, with the aim of safely, effectively, and cost-effectively targeting treatment to a prespecified patient population, has always been a long-time goal within health care. It is often argued that personalizing treatment will inevitably improve clinical outcomes for patients and help achieve more effective use of health care resources. Demand is increasing for demonstrable evidence of clinical and cost-effectiveness to support the use of personalized medicine in health care. This paper begins with an overview of the existing challenges in conducting economic evaluations of genetics- and genomics-targeted technologies, as an example of personalized medicine. Our paper illustrates the complexity of the challenges faced by these technologies by highlighting the variations in the issues faced by diagnostic tests for somatic variations, generally referring to genetic variation in a tumor, and germline variations, generally referring to inherited genetic variation in enzymes involved in drug metabolic pathways. These tests are typically aimed at stratifying patient populations into subgroups on the basis of clinical effectiveness (response) or safety (avoidance of adverse events). The paper summarizes the data requirements for economic evaluations of genetics and genomics-based technologies while outlining that the main challenges relating to data requirements revolve around the availability and quality of existing data. We conclude by discussing current developments aimed to address the challenges of assessing the cost-effectiveness of genetics and genomics-based technologies, which revolve around two central issues that are interlinked: the need to adapt available evaluation methods and identifying who is responsible for generating evidence for these technologies.

Improving clinical trials for cardiovascular diseases: a position paper from the Cardiovascular Round Table of the European Society of Cardiology

AIMS

Cardiovascular disease is the most common cause of mortality and morbidity in the world, but the pharmaceutical industry's willingness to invest in this field has declined because of the many challenges involved with bringing new cardiovascular drugs to market, including late-stage failures, escalating regulatory requirements, bureaucracy of the clinical trial business enterprise, and limited patient access after approval. This contrasts with the remaining burden of cardiovascular disease in Europe and in the world. Thus, clinical cardiovascular research needs to adapt to address the impact of these challenges in order to ensure development of new cardiovascular medicines.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The present paper is the outcome of a two-day workshop held by the Cardiovascular Round Table of the European Society of Cardiology. We propose strategies to improve development of effective new cardiovascular therapies. These can include (i) the use of biomarkers to describe patients who will benefit from new therapies more precisely, achieving better human target validation; (ii) targeted, mechanism-based approaches to drug development for defined populations; (iii) the use of information technology to simplify data collection and follow-up in clinical trials; (iv) streamlining adverse event collection and reducing monitoring; (v) extended patent protection or limited rapid approval of new agents to motivate investment in early phase development; and (vi) collecting data needed for health technology assessment continuously throughout the drug development process (before and after approval) to minimize delays in patient access. Collaboration across industry, academia, regulators, and payers will be necessary to enact change and to unlock the existing potential for cardiovascular clinical drug development.

CONCLUSIONS

A coordinated effort involving academia, regulators, industry, and payors will help to foster better and more effective conduct of clinical cardiovascular trials, supporting earlier availability of innovative therapies and better management of cardiovascular diseases.

The utility of Google Trends data to examine interest in cancer screening

OBJECTIVES

We examined the utility of January 2004 to April 2014 Google Trends data from information searches for cancer screenings and preparations as a complement to population screening data, which are traditionally estimated through costly population-level surveys.

SETTING

State-level data across the USA.

PARTICIPANTS

Persons who searched for terms related to cancer screening using Google, and persons who participated in the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS).

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

(1) State-level Google Trends data, providing relative search volume (RSV) data scaled to the highest search proportion per week (RSV100) for search terms over time since 2004 and across different geographical locations. (2) RSV of new screening tests, free/low-cost screening for breast and colorectal cancer, and new preparations for colonoscopy (Prepopik). (3) State-level breast, cervical, colorectal and prostate cancer screening rates.

RESULTS

Correlations between Google Trends and BRFSS data ranged from 0.55 for ever having had a colonoscopy to 0.14 for having a Pap smear within the past 3 years. Free/low-cost mammography and colonoscopy showed higher RSV during their respective cancer awareness months. RSV for Miralax remained stable, while interest in Prepopik increased over time. RSV for lung cancer screening, virtual colonoscopy and three-dimensional mammography was low.

CONCLUSIONS

Google Trends data provides enormous scientific possibilities, but are not a suitable substitute for, but may complement, traditional data collection and analysis about cancer screening and related interests.

Adding a treatment arm to an ongoing clinical trial: a review of methodology and practice

Incorporating an emerging therapy as a new randomisation arm in a clinical trial that is open to recruitment would be desirable to researchers, regulators and patients to ensure that the trial remains current, new treatments are evaluated as quickly as possible, and the time and cost for determining optimal therapies is minimised. It may take many years to run a clinical trial from concept to reporting within a rapidly changing drug development environment; hence, in order for trials to be most useful to inform policy and practice, it is advantageous for them to be able to adapt to emerging therapeutic developments. This paper reports a comprehensive literature review on methodologies for, and practical examples of, amending an ongoing clinical trial by adding a new treatment arm. Relevant methodological literature describing statistical considerations required when making this specific type of amendment is identified, and the key statistical concepts when planning the addition of a new treatment arm are extracted, assessed and summarised. For completeness, this includes an assessment of statistical recommendations within general adaptive design guidance documents. Examples of confirmatory ongoing trials designed within the frequentist framework that have added an arm in practice are reported; and the details of the amendment are reviewed. An assessment is made as to how well the relevant statistical considerations were addressed in practice, and the related implications. The literature review confirmed that there is currently no clear methodological guidance on this topic, but that guidance would be advantageous to help this efficient design amendment to be used more frequently and appropriately in practice. Eight confirmatory trials were identified to have added a treatment arm, suggesting that trials can benefit from this amendment and that it can be practically feasible; however, the trials were not always able to address the key statistical considerations, often leading to uninterpretable or invalid outcomes. If the statistical concepts identified within this review are considered and addressed during the design of a trial amendment, it is possible to effectively assess a new treatment arm within an ongoing trial without compromising the original trial outcomes.

International clinical trials, cardiovascular disease and treatment options in the Russian Federation: research and treatment in practice

The issue of balance between research and treatment in clinical trials conduct has been surrounded by controversies. Scientific characteristics of trials may compromise medical care available to participants, while conceiving research participation as having therapeutic value may foster the therapeutic misconception. However, it has also been questioned whether research can and should always be separated from medical care provision. In this paper we analyze how these concerns played out in practice settings of the three trial sites in Russia, specialized in trials in cardiovascular diseases. Using in-depth interviews with participants of phase II and III trials (n = 21) and discussions with physician-investigators (n = 7), we found that trial enrollment allowed participants to establish continuous supportive relationships with the physician-investigators. In the context of unresponsive health care, chronically ill participants received regular monitoring, treatment recommendations and help in case of problems and emergencies through such relationships. The trial designs in the three sites did not preclude the provision of individualized treatment. We suggest that debates about the research/treatment interface in trials need to become more attuned to the conditions in locations of their conduct, views and experiences of actors involved and evolving trial methodologies. Too much focus on categorical differentiation of research and treatment may obscure the fact that globalizing clinical trials proceed amidst profound health disparities, dismiss diverse concerns of people on the ground and risk attenuating responsibilities of trial organizers, sponsors and investigators towards research participants.

Selecting the right tool for the job

There are competing ethical concerns when it comes to designing any clinical research study. Clinical trials of possible treatments for Ebola virus are no exception. If anything, the competing ethical concerns are exacerbated in trying to find answers to a deadly, rapidly spreading, infectious disease. The primary goal of current research is to identify experimental therapies that can cure Ebola or cure it with reasonable probability in infected individuals. Pursuit of that goal must be methodologically sound, practical and consistent with prevailing norms governing human subjects research. Some maintain that only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with a placebo or standard-of-care arm can meet these conditions. We maintain that there are alternative trial designs that can do so as well and that sometimes these are preferable to RCTs.

Dynamic Treatment Regimes

A dynamic treatment regime consists of a sequence of decision rules, one per stage of intervention, that dictate how to individualize treatments to patients based on evolving treatment and covariate history. These regimes are particularly useful for managing chronic disorders, and fit well into the larger paradigm of personalized medicine. They provide one way to operationalize a clinical decision support system. Statistics plays a key role in the construction of evidence-based dynamic treatment regimes - informing best study design as well as efficient estimation and valid inference. Due to the many novel methodological challenges it offers, this area has been growing in popularity among statisticians in recent years. In this article, we review the key developments in this exciting field of research. In particular, we discuss the sequential multiple assignment randomized trial designs, estimation techniques like Q-learning and marginal structural models, and several inference techniques designed to address the associated non-standard asymptotics. We reference software, whenever available. We also outline some important future directions.

Designing clinical trials for dystonia

With advances in the understanding of the pathophysiology of dystonia, novel therapeutics are being developed. Such therapies will require clinical investigation ranging from exploratory studies to examine safety, tolerability, dosage selection, and preliminary efficacy to confirmatory studies to evaluate efficacy definitively. As dystonia is a rare and complex disorder with clinical and etiological heterogeneity, clinical trials will require careful consideration of the trial design, including enrollment criteria, concomitant medication use, and outcome measures. Given the complexities of designing and implementing efficient clinical trials, it is important for clinicians and statisticians to collaborate closely throughout the clinical development process and that each has a basic understanding of both the clinical and statistical issues that must be addressed. To facilitate designing appropriate clinical trials in this field, we review important general clinical trial and regulatory principles, and discuss the critical components of trials with an emphasis on considerations specific to dystonia. Additionally, we discuss designs used in early exploratory, late exploratory, and confirmatory phases, including adaptive designs.