1
|
Wang Y, Yao M, Liu J, Liu Y, Ma Y, Luo X, Mei F, Xiang H, Zou K, Sun X, Li L. A systematic survey of adaptive trials shows substantial improvement in methods is needed. J Clin Epidemiol 2024; 167:111257. [PMID: 38218461 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111257] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/20/2023] [Revised: 12/22/2023] [Accepted: 01/08/2024] [Indexed: 01/15/2024]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To investigate the design, conduct, and analysis of adaptive trials through a systematic survey and provide recommendations for future adaptive trials. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases up to January 2020. We included trials that were self-described as adaptive trials or applied adaptive designs. We identified three frequently used adaptive designs and summarized their methodological details in terms of design, conduct, and analysis. Lastly, we provided recommendations for future adaptive trials. RESULTS We included a total of 128 trials in this study. The primary motivations for using adaptive design were to speed up the trials and facilitate decision-making (n = 29, 31.5%). The three most frequently used methods were group sequential design (GSD) (n = 71, 55.5%), adaptive dose-finding design (ADFD) (n = 35, 27.3%), and adaptive randomization design (ARD) (n = 26, 20.3%). The timing and frequency of interim analysis were detailed in three-fourths of the GSD trials (n = 55, 77.5%) and in half of the ADFD trials (n = 19, 54.3%); however, more than half of the ARD trials (n = 15, 57.7%) did not provide this information. Some trials selected a different outcome than the primary outcome for interim analysis (GSD: n = 7, 12.7%; ADFD: n = 8, 27.6%; ARD: n = 7, 50.0%), but the majority of these trials did not provide explicit reasons for this choice (GSD: n = 7, 100.0%; ADFD: n = 7, 87.5%; ARD: n = 5, 71.4%). More than half (n = 76, 59.4%) of trials did not mention the accessibility of supporting documents, and two-thirds (n = 86, 67.2%) did not state the establishment of independent data monitoring committees (IDMCs). Moreover, unplanned adjustments were observed during the conduct of one-sixth adaptive trials (n = 22, 17.2%). Based on our findings, we provide 14 recommendations for improving adaptive trials in the future. CONCLUSION Substantial improvements were needed in methods of adaptive trials, particularly in the areas of interim analysis, the establishment of independent data monitoring committees, and unplanned adjustments. In this study, we offer recommendations from both general and specific aspects for researchers to carefully design, conduct, and analyze adaptive trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yuning Wang
- Institute of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine, Chinese Evidence-based Medicine Center and Chinese Cochrane Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, China; NMPA Key Laboratory for Real World Data Research and Evaluation in Hainan, Chengdu, 610041, China; China Sichuan Center of Technology Innovation for Real World Data, Chengdu, 610041, China
| | - Minghong Yao
- Institute of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine, Chinese Evidence-based Medicine Center and Chinese Cochrane Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, China; NMPA Key Laboratory for Real World Data Research and Evaluation in Hainan, Chengdu, 610041, China; China Sichuan Center of Technology Innovation for Real World Data, Chengdu, 610041, China
| | - Jiali Liu
- Institute of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine, Chinese Evidence-based Medicine Center and Chinese Cochrane Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, China; NMPA Key Laboratory for Real World Data Research and Evaluation in Hainan, Chengdu, 610041, China; China Sichuan Center of Technology Innovation for Real World Data, Chengdu, 610041, China
| | - Yanmei Liu
- Institute of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine, Chinese Evidence-based Medicine Center and Chinese Cochrane Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, China; NMPA Key Laboratory for Real World Data Research and Evaluation in Hainan, Chengdu, 610041, China; China Sichuan Center of Technology Innovation for Real World Data, Chengdu, 610041, China
| | - Yu Ma
- Institute of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine, Chinese Evidence-based Medicine Center and Chinese Cochrane Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, China; NMPA Key Laboratory for Real World Data Research and Evaluation in Hainan, Chengdu, 610041, China; China Sichuan Center of Technology Innovation for Real World Data, Chengdu, 610041, China
| | - Xiaochao Luo
- Institute of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine, Chinese Evidence-based Medicine Center and Chinese Cochrane Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, China; NMPA Key Laboratory for Real World Data Research and Evaluation in Hainan, Chengdu, 610041, China; China Sichuan Center of Technology Innovation for Real World Data, Chengdu, 610041, China
| | - Fan Mei
- Institute of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine, Chinese Evidence-based Medicine Center and Chinese Cochrane Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, China; NMPA Key Laboratory for Real World Data Research and Evaluation in Hainan, Chengdu, 610041, China; China Sichuan Center of Technology Innovation for Real World Data, Chengdu, 610041, China
| | - Hunong Xiang
- Institute of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine, Chinese Evidence-based Medicine Center and Chinese Cochrane Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, China; NMPA Key Laboratory for Real World Data Research and Evaluation in Hainan, Chengdu, 610041, China; China Sichuan Center of Technology Innovation for Real World Data, Chengdu, 610041, China
| | - Kang Zou
- Institute of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine, Chinese Evidence-based Medicine Center and Chinese Cochrane Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, China; NMPA Key Laboratory for Real World Data Research and Evaluation in Hainan, Chengdu, 610041, China; China Sichuan Center of Technology Innovation for Real World Data, Chengdu, 610041, China
| | - Xin Sun
- Institute of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine, Chinese Evidence-based Medicine Center and Chinese Cochrane Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, China; NMPA Key Laboratory for Real World Data Research and Evaluation in Hainan, Chengdu, 610041, China; China Sichuan Center of Technology Innovation for Real World Data, Chengdu, 610041, China.
| | - Ling Li
- Institute of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine, Chinese Evidence-based Medicine Center and Chinese Cochrane Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, China; NMPA Key Laboratory for Real World Data Research and Evaluation in Hainan, Chengdu, 610041, China; China Sichuan Center of Technology Innovation for Real World Data, Chengdu, 610041, China.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Factors influencing the statistical planning, design, conduct, analysis and reporting of trials in health care: A systematic review. Contemp Clin Trials Commun 2022; 26:100897. [PMID: 35198793 PMCID: PMC8842005 DOI: 10.1016/j.conctc.2022.100897] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/23/2020] [Revised: 11/24/2021] [Accepted: 01/24/2022] [Indexed: 11/23/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
|
3
|
Abstract
Currently, too many Data Monitoring Committee Reports for interim review of trial progress are quite inadequate for Data Monitoring Committees to make informed decisions about risks and benefits. Immediate serious improvement is necessary for Data Monitoring Committees to meet their ethical, clinical, and scientific responsibility to trial participants, investigators, sponsors, and participating institutions. To achieve this critical goal, all parties involved in the Data Monitoring Committee process including sponsors, investigators, Data Monitoring Committee members, and the independent statistical reporting group need to have a better understanding of the structure, function, and needs of a Data Monitoring Committee and the content of a Data Monitoring Committee Report. Training modules through the Society for Clinical Trials are now available on their website to facilitate this.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Janet Wittes
- WCG Acquires Statistics Collaborative, Washington, DC, USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Major-Pedersen A, McCullen MK, Sabol ME, Adetunji O, Massaro J, Neugut AI, Sosa JA, Hollenberg AN. A joint industry-sponsored data monitoring committee model for observational, retrospective drug safety studies in the real-world setting. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2020; 30:9-16. [PMID: 33179845 PMCID: PMC8247341 DOI: 10.1002/pds.5172] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/11/2020] [Accepted: 11/04/2020] [Indexed: 12/28/2022]
Abstract
Purpose To share better practice in establishing data monitoring committees (DMCs) for observational, retrospective safety studies with joint‐industry sponsorship. Methods A DMC model was created to monitor data from an observational, retrospective, post‐authorization safety study investigating risk of medullary thyroid cancer in patients treated with long‐acting glucagon‐like peptide‐1 receptor agonists (LA GLP‐1RAs) (NCT01511393). Sponsors reviewed regulatory guidelines, best practice and sponsors' standard operation procedures on DMCs. Discussions were held within the four‐member consortium, assessing applicability to observational, retrospective, real‐world studies. A DMC charter was drafted based on a sponsor‐proposed, adapted DMC model. Thereafter, a kick‐off meeting between sponsors and DMC members was held to receive DMC input and finalize the charter. Results Due to this study's observational, retrospective nature, assuring participant safety – central for traditional explanatory clinical trial models – was not applicable to our DMC model. The overall strategy and key indication for our real‐world model included preserving study integrity and credibility. Therefore, DMC member independence and their contribution of expert knowledge were essential. To ensure between‐sponsor data confidentiality, all study committees/corporations and sponsors, besides the DMC, received blinded data only (adapted to refer to data blinding that revealed the specific marketed LA GLP‐1RA/sponsor). Communication and blinding/unblinding of these data were facilitated by the contract research organization, which also provided crucial operational oversight. Conclusions To our knowledge, we have established the first DMC model for joint industry‐sponsored, observational, retrospective safety studies. This model could serve as a precedent for others performing similar post‐marketing, joint industry‐sponsored pharmacovigilance activities.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Mary Elizabeth Sabol
- Safety Evaluation & Risk Management, GlaxoSmithKline, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| | | | - Joseph Massaro
- Department of Biostatistics, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Alfred I Neugut
- Departments of Medicine and Epidemiology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, USA
| | - Julie Ann Sosa
- Department of Surgery, University of California San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, California, USA
| | - Anthony N Hollenberg
- Joan and Sanford I. Weill Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York-Presbyterian Hospital-Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, New York, USA
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Neaton JD, Grund B, Wentworth D. How to construct an optimal interim report: What the data monitoring committee does and doesn’t need to know. Clin Trials 2018; 15:359-365. [PMID: 29552920 DOI: 10.1177/1740774518764449] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/08/2023]
Abstract
Background: Data monitoring committees for randomized clinical trials have the responsibility of safeguarding interests of trial participants. To do so, the data monitoring committee must receive reports on safety and efficacy to assess risk/benefit and on trial conduct to ensure that the study can achieve its goals. This article outlines the key components of reports to the data monitoring committee and the important role of the unblinded statistician in preparing those reports. Methods: Most data monitoring committee meetings include open and closed sessions. For each session, there is a report of interim results. The open session is attended by the sponsor and lead investigators, including the statistician(s) responsible for the trial design. These investigators are blinded to the interim treatment comparisons. The closed session is attended by the data monitoring committee members and by the statistician(s) who prepared the closed report. These individuals are unblinded to interim treatment comparisons and therefore are not involved in study design changes. The optimal content of data monitoring committee reports and qualifications of the unblinded statistician(s) are discussed. Reports: Open reports should include responses to data monitoring committee recommendations, a synopsis of the protocol, a review of the protocol history and amendments, and information on enrollment, baseline characteristics, completeness of follow-up, and data quality. The open report is also a vehicle through which the sponsor and investigators should inform the data monitoring committee of relevant external information. Data in the open report are pooled over the treatment groups. The open report should not include data summaries by treatment group. The closed report should include a written summary with references to key tables and figures and methods used to prepare them. Tables and figures should summarize baseline characteristics, follow-up completeness, treatment adherence, and major safety and efficacy outcomes by treatment group. Text summaries should accompany the tables and figures. The data monitoring committee monitoring history (e.g. treatment differences at previous meetings) should be summarized. The unblinded statistician preparing the closed report should be familiar with the protocol and data collection plan and be capable of customizing the report to the current stage of the trial. This includes anticipating questions that may arise during the data monitoring committee review and pro-actively including data summaries to address these questions. Conclusions: There is considerable variation in the quality of open and closed data monitoring committee reports. Open and closed data monitoring committee reports should be concise, up to date, and informative. To achieve this, unblinded statisticians responsible for preparing closed data monitoring committee reports should be familiar with the statistical methods, the trial protocol, and the data collection plan. They should be capable of anticipating questions from the data monitoring committee and responding to requests for additional analyses.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- James D Neaton
- Division of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA
| | - Birgit Grund
- School of Statistics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA
| | - Deborah Wentworth
- Division of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Buhr KA, Downs M, Rhorer J, Bechhofer R, Wittes J. Reports to Independent Data Monitoring Committees: An Appeal for Clarity, Completeness, and Comprehensibility. Ther Innov Regul Sci 2017; 52:459-468. [PMID: 29714543 DOI: 10.1177/2168479017739268] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Organizations presenting reports to independent data monitoring committees (IDMCs) should present data in a way that facilitates the ability of the IDMC to make informed judgments about the trial. METHODS This paper reviews reports to IDMCs and suggests approaches an independent statistical reporting group (ISRG) might take to prepare clear, complete, and comprehensible reports. RESULTS Sensible reporting by an ISRG and informed decision making by an IDMC require a productive partnership between the quantitative and clinical disciplines involved in a clinical trial. IDMC reports differ in structure and purpose from clinical study reports that summarize data at the end of a trial. The ISRG must have intellectual independence, recognizing that although the sponsor may be paying the bills, the ISRG is responsible to the IDMC. Ideally, it should have access to all data from the trial and should be capable of responding to requests from the IDMC without the sponsor's specific permission. The ISRG and sponsor must understand the differences between clean data at the end of the trial and data collected during the trial. To perform its role most effectively, the ISRG must collaborate with sponsor and IDMC clinicians to become conversant with the disease area, the product's mechanism of action, and the clinical relevance of important outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS An IDMC is best served by an independent ISRG that will prepare clear, complete, and comprehensible reports. Given the complexities of interim data and IDMC requirements, the ISRG must be an active and informed participant in the monitoring process.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kevin A Buhr
- 1 Department of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA
| | - Matthew Downs
- 2 Statistics Collaborative, Inc, Washington, DC, USA
| | | | - Robin Bechhofer
- 1 Department of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA
| | - Janet Wittes
- 2 Statistics Collaborative, Inc, Washington, DC, USA
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Fleming TR, DeMets DL, Roe MT, Wittes J, Calis KA, Vora AN, Meisel A, Bain RP, Konstam MA, Pencina MJ, Gordon DJ, Mahaffey KW, Hennekens CH, Neaton JD, Pearson GD, Andersson TL, Pfeffer MA, Ellenberg SS. Data monitoring committees: Promoting best practices to address emerging challenges. Clin Trials 2017; 14:115-123. [PMID: 28359194 DOI: 10.1177/1740774516688915] [Citation(s) in RCA: 41] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Data monitoring committees are responsible for safeguarding the interests of study participants and assuring the integrity and credibility of clinical trials. The independence of data monitoring committees from sponsors and investigators is essential in achieving this mission. Creative approaches are needed to address ongoing and emerging challenges that potentially threaten data monitoring committees' independence and effectiveness. METHODS An expert panel of representatives from academia, industry and government sponsors, and regulatory agencies discussed these challenges and proposed best practices and operating principles for effective functioning of contemporary data monitoring committees. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS Prospective data monitoring committee members need better training. Options could include didactic instruction as well as apprenticeships to provide real-world experience. Data monitoring committee members should be protected against legal liability arising from their service. While avoiding breaches in confidentiality of interim data remains a high priority, data monitoring committees should have access to unblinded efficacy and safety data throughout the trial to enable informed judgments about risks and benefits. Because overly rigid procedures can compromise their independence, data monitoring committees should have the flexibility necessary to best fulfill their responsibilities. Data monitoring committee charters should articulate principles that guide the data monitoring committee process rather than list a rigid set of requirements. Data monitoring committees should develop their recommendations by consensus rather than through voting processes. The format for the meetings of the data monitoring committee should maintain the committee's independence and clearly establish the leadership of the data monitoring committee chair. The independent statistical group at the Statistical Data Analysis Center should have sufficient depth of knowledge about the study at hand and experience with trials in general to ensure that the data monitoring committee has access to timely, reliable, and readily interpretable insights about emerging evidence in the clinical trial. Contracts engaging data monitoring committee members for industry-sponsored trials should have language customized to the unique responsibilities of data monitoring committee members rather than use language appropriate to consultants for product development. Regulatory scientists would benefit from experiencing data monitoring committee service that does not conflict with their regulatory responsibilities.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Thomas R Fleming
- 1 Department of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
| | | | - Matthew T Roe
- 3 Duke Clinical Research Institute (DCRI), Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Janet Wittes
- 4 Statistics Collaborative, Inc., Washington, DC, USA
| | - Karim A Calis
- 5 Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), FDA, Silver Spring, MD, USA.,6 National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), NIH, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Amit N Vora
- 3 Duke Clinical Research Institute (DCRI), Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Alan Meisel
- 7 University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | | | | | - Michael J Pencina
- 3 Duke Clinical Research Institute (DCRI), Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA
| | - David J Gordon
- 10 National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI), NIH, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Kenneth W Mahaffey
- 11 Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
| | | | | | - Gail D Pearson
- 10 National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI), NIH, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|