Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Trials 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Research

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

Authors: Munyaradzi Dimairo, Steven A. Julious, Susan Todd, Jonathan P. Nicholl, Jonathan Boote

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

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.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Thompson WR. On the likelihood that One unknown probability exceeds another in view of the evidence of Two samples. Biometrika. 1933;25:285–94.CrossRef Thompson WR. On the likelihood that One unknown probability exceeds another in view of the evidence of Two samples. Biometrika. 1933;25:285–94.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Bauer P, Bretz F, Dragalin V, König F, Wassmer G. Twenty-five years of confirmatory adaptive designs: opportunities and pitfalls. Stat Med. 2015 Mar 16. doi: 10.1002/sim.6472 Bauer P, Bretz F, Dragalin V, König F, Wassmer G. Twenty-five years of confirmatory adaptive designs: opportunities and pitfalls. Stat Med. 2015 Mar 16. doi: 10.1002/sim.6472
3.
go back to reference Todd S. A 25-year review of sequential methodology in clinical studies. Stat Med. 2007;26:237–52.CrossRefPubMed Todd S. A 25-year review of sequential methodology in clinical studies. Stat Med. 2007;26:237–52.CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Morgan CC, Huyck S, Jenkins M, Chen L, Bedding a, Coffey CS, et al. Adaptive design: results of 2012 survey on perception and Use. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2014;48:473–81.CrossRef Morgan CC, Huyck S, Jenkins M, Chen L, Bedding a, Coffey CS, et al. Adaptive design: results of 2012 survey on perception and Use. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2014;48:473–81.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Elsäßer A, Regnstrom J, Vetter T, Koenig F, Hemmings RJ, Greco M, et al. Adaptive clinical trial designs for European marketing authorization: a survey of scientific advice letters from the European medicines agency. Trials. 2014;15:383.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Elsäßer A, Regnstrom J, Vetter T, Koenig F, Hemmings RJ, Greco M, et al. Adaptive clinical trial designs for European marketing authorization: a survey of scientific advice letters from the European medicines agency. Trials. 2014;15:383.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
go back to reference Quinlan J, Gaydos B, Maca J, Krams M. Barriers and opportunities for implementation of adaptive designs in pharmaceutical product development. Clin Trials. 2010;7:167–73.CrossRefPubMed Quinlan J, Gaydos B, Maca J, Krams M. Barriers and opportunities for implementation of adaptive designs in pharmaceutical product development. Clin Trials. 2010;7:167–73.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Chang M, Chow S-C, Pong A. Adaptive design in clinical research: issues, opportunities, and recommendations. J Biopharm Stat. 2006;16:299–309. discussion 311–2.CrossRefPubMed Chang M, Chow S-C, Pong A. Adaptive design in clinical research: issues, opportunities, and recommendations. J Biopharm Stat. 2006;16:299–309. discussion 311–2.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Coffey CS, Levin B, Clark C, Timmerman C, Wittes J, Gilbert P, et al. Overview, hurdles, and future work in adaptive designs: perspectives from a National Institutes of Health-funded workshop. Clin Trials. 2012;9:671–80.CrossRefPubMed Coffey CS, Levin B, Clark C, Timmerman C, Wittes J, Gilbert P, et al. Overview, hurdles, and future work in adaptive designs: perspectives from a National Institutes of Health-funded workshop. Clin Trials. 2012;9:671–80.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Jaki T. Uptake of novel statistical methods for early-phase clinical studies in the UK public sector. Clin Trials. 2013;10:344–6.CrossRefPubMed Jaki T. Uptake of novel statistical methods for early-phase clinical studies in the UK public sector. Clin Trials. 2013;10:344–6.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Dimairo M, Boote J, Julious SA, Nicholl JP, Todd S. Missing steps in a staircase: a qualitative study of the perspectives of key stakeholders on the use of adaptive designs in confirmatory trials. Trials. 2015;16:430.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Dimairo M, Boote J, Julious SA, Nicholl JP, Todd S. Missing steps in a staircase: a qualitative study of the perspectives of key stakeholders on the use of adaptive designs in confirmatory trials. Trials. 2015;16:430.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
go back to reference Andrich D. A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika. 1978;43:561–73.CrossRef Andrich D. A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika. 1978;43:561–73.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Bennett C, Khangura S, Brehaut JC, Graham ID, Moher D, Potter BK, et al. Reporting guidelines for survey research: An analysis of published guidance and reporting practices. PLoS Med. 2011;8:1–11. Bennett C, Khangura S, Brehaut JC, Graham ID, Moher D, Potter BK, et al. Reporting guidelines for survey research: An analysis of published guidance and reporting practices. PLoS Med. 2011;8:1–11.
23.
go back to reference Montori VM, Devereaux PJ, Adhikari NKJ, Burns KEA, Eggert CH, Briel M, et al. Randomized trials stopped early for benefit: a systematic review. JAMA. 2005;294:2203–9.CrossRefPubMed Montori VM, Devereaux PJ, Adhikari NKJ, Burns KEA, Eggert CH, Briel M, et al. Randomized trials stopped early for benefit: a systematic review. JAMA. 2005;294:2203–9.CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Wilcox RA, Djulbegovic B, Moffitt HL, Guyatt GH, Montori VM. Randomized trials in oncology stopped early for benefit. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:18–9.CrossRefPubMed Wilcox RA, Djulbegovic B, Moffitt HL, Guyatt GH, Montori VM. Randomized trials in oncology stopped early for benefit. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:18–9.CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Bassler D, Montori VM, Briel M, Glasziou P, Guyatt G. Early stopping of randomized clinical trials for overt efficacy is problematic. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:241–6.CrossRefPubMed Bassler D, Montori VM, Briel M, Glasziou P, Guyatt G. Early stopping of randomized clinical trials for overt efficacy is problematic. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:241–6.CrossRefPubMed
27.
go back to reference Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2008;337:a1655.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2008;337:a1655.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
30.
go back to reference Bower P, Brueton V, Gamble C, Treweek S, Smith CT, Young B, et al. Interventions to improve recruitment and retention in clinical trials: a survey and workshop to assess current practice and future priorities. Trials. 2014;15:399.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Bower P, Brueton V, Gamble C, Treweek S, Smith CT, Young B, et al. Interventions to improve recruitment and retention in clinical trials: a survey and workshop to assess current practice and future priorities. Trials. 2014;15:399.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
31.
go back to reference Tudur Smith C, Hickey H, Clarke M, Blazeby J, Williamson P. The trials methodological research agenda: results from a priority setting exercise. Trials. 2014;15:32.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Tudur Smith C, Hickey H, Clarke M, Blazeby J, Williamson P. The trials methodological research agenda: results from a priority setting exercise. Trials. 2014;15:32.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Cross-sector surveys assessing perceptions of key stakeholders towards barriers, concerns and facilitators to the appropriate use of adaptive designs in confirmatory trials
Authors
Munyaradzi Dimairo
Steven A. Julious
Susan Todd
Jonathan P. Nicholl
Jonathan Boote
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-015-1119-x

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

Trials 1/2015 Go to the issue