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.

DIA's Adaptive Design Scientific Working Group (ADSWG): Best Practices Case Studies for "Less Well-understood" Adaptive Designs

Adaptive design (AD) clinical trials use accumulating subject data to modify the parameters of the design of an ongoing study, without compromising the validity and integrity of the study. The 2010 US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Draft Guidance on Adaptive Design Clinical Trials described a subset of 7 primary design types as "less well-understood." FDA defined these designs as those with limited regulatory experience. To better understand the properties of these less well-understood ADs and to promote their use when applicable, the Best Practices Subteam for DIA's Adaptive Design Scientific Working Group conducted an extensive nonsystematic search and reviewed trials from multiple sponsors who had employed these designs. Here, we review 10 specific case studies for which less well-understood ADs were employed and share feedback about their challenges and successes, as well as details about the regulatory interactions from these trials. We learned that these designs and associated statistical methodologies can make difficult research situations more amenable for study and, therefore, are needed in our toolbox. While they can be used to study many diseases, they are particularly valuable for rare diseases, small populations, studies involving terminal illnesses, and vaccine trials, in which it is important to find efficient ways to bring effective treatments to market more rapidly. It is imperative, however, that these methodologies be utilized appropriately, which requires careful planning and precise operational execution.