Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Trials 1/2016

Open Access 01-12-2016 | Review

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

Authors: Isabella Hatfield, Annabel Allison, Laura Flight, Steven A. Julious, Munyaradzi Dimairo

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

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.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Millard WB. The gold standard’s flexible alloy: adaptive designs on the advance. Ann Emerg Med. 2012; 60(2):22–7.CrossRef Millard WB. The gold standard’s flexible alloy: adaptive designs on the advance. Ann Emerg Med. 2012; 60(2):22–7.CrossRef
2.
3.
go back to reference Coffey CS, Kairalla JA. Adaptive clinical trials. Drugs R&D. 2008; 9(4):229–42.CrossRef Coffey CS, Kairalla JA. Adaptive clinical trials. Drugs R&D. 2008; 9(4):229–42.CrossRef
4.
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(6):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(6):671–80.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Gallo P, Anderson K, Chuang-Stein C, Dragalin V, Gaydos B, Krams M, et al.Viewpoints on the FDA draft adaptive designs guidance from the PhRMA working group. J Biopharm Stat. 2010; 20(6):1115–24.CrossRefPubMed Gallo P, Anderson K, Chuang-Stein C, Dragalin V, Gaydos B, Krams M, et al.Viewpoints on the FDA draft adaptive designs guidance from the PhRMA working group. J Biopharm Stat. 2010; 20(6):1115–24.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Gaydos B, Anderson KM, Berry D, Burnham N, Chuang-Stein C, Dudinak J, et al.Good practices for adaptive clinical trials in pharmaceutical product development. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2009; 43(5):539–56.CrossRef Gaydos B, Anderson KM, Berry D, Burnham N, Chuang-Stein C, Dudinak J, et al.Good practices for adaptive clinical trials in pharmaceutical product development. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2009; 43(5):539–56.CrossRef
8.
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(2):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(2):167–73.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Quinlan JA, Krams M. Implementing adaptive designs: logistical and operational considerations. Drug Inf J. 2006; 40(4):437–44. Quinlan JA, Krams M. Implementing adaptive designs: logistical and operational considerations. Drug Inf J. 2006; 40(4):437–44.
10.
go back to reference Chuang-Stein C, Beltangady M. FDA draft guidance on adaptive design clinical trials: Pfizer’s perspective. J Biopharm Stat. 2010; 20(6):1143–9.CrossRefPubMed Chuang-Stein C, Beltangady M. FDA draft guidance on adaptive design clinical trials: Pfizer’s perspective. J Biopharm Stat. 2010; 20(6):1143–9.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Cook T, DeMets DL. Review of draft FDA adaptive design guidance. J Biopharm Stat. 2010; 20(6):1132–42.CrossRefPubMed Cook T, DeMets DL. Review of draft FDA adaptive design guidance. J Biopharm Stat. 2010; 20(6):1132–42.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference FDA Draft Guidance. Adaptive design clinical trials for drugs and biologics. Biotechnol Law Rep. 2010; 29(2):173.CrossRef FDA Draft Guidance. Adaptive design clinical trials for drugs and biologics. Biotechnol Law Rep. 2010; 29(2):173.CrossRef
13.
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(1):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(1):383.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
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(4):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(4):473–81.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Berry DA. Adaptive clinical trials: the promise and the caution. J Clin Oncol. 2011; 29(6):606–9.CrossRefPubMed Berry DA. Adaptive clinical trials: the promise and the caution. J Clin Oncol. 2011; 29(6):606–9.CrossRefPubMed
16.
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(2):344–6.CrossRefPubMed Jaki T. Uptake of novel statistical methods for early-phase clinical studies in the UK public sector. Clin Trials. 2013; 10(2):344–6.CrossRefPubMed
17.
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(1):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(1):430.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
go back to reference Chow SC, Chang M. Adaptive design methods in clinical trials. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2011. Chow SC, Chang M. Adaptive design methods in clinical trials. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2011.
22.
go back to reference Hopewell S, Loudon K, Clarke MJ, Oxman AD, Dickersin K. Publication bias in clinical trials due to statistical significance or direction of trial results. The Cochrane Library. 2009. Hopewell S, Loudon K, Clarke MJ, Oxman AD, Dickersin K. Publication bias in clinical trials due to statistical significance or direction of trial results. The Cochrane Library. 2009.
23.
go back to reference Lin M, Lee S, Zhen B, Scott J, Horne A, Solomon G, et al.CBER’s experience with adaptive design clinical trials. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2016; 50(2):195–203.CrossRef Lin M, Lee S, Zhen B, Scott J, Horne A, Solomon G, et al.CBER’s experience with adaptive design clinical trials. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2016; 50(2):195–203.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Stevely A, Dimairo M, Todd S, Julious SA, Nicholl J, Hind D, et al.An investigation of the shortcomings of the CONSORT 2010 statement for the reporting of group sequential randomised controlled trials: a methodological systematic review. PloS ONE. 2015; 10(11):0141104.CrossRef Stevely A, Dimairo M, Todd S, Julious SA, Nicholl J, Hind D, et al.An investigation of the shortcomings of the CONSORT 2010 statement for the reporting of group sequential randomised controlled trials: a methodological systematic review. PloS ONE. 2015; 10(11):0141104.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Bauer P, Kohne K. Evaluation of experiments with adaptive interim analyses. Biometrics. 1994; 50(4):1029–41.CrossRefPubMed Bauer P, Kohne K. Evaluation of experiments with adaptive interim analyses. Biometrics. 1994; 50(4):1029–41.CrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference Sydes MR, Parmar MK, Mason MD, Clarke NW, Amos C, Anderson J, et al.Flexible trial design in practice-stopping arms for lack-of-benefit and adding research arms mid-trial in STAMPEDE: a multi-arm multi-stage randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2012; 13(1):168.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Sydes MR, Parmar MK, Mason MD, Clarke NW, Amos C, Anderson J, et al.Flexible trial design in practice-stopping arms for lack-of-benefit and adding research arms mid-trial in STAMPEDE: a multi-arm multi-stage randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2012; 13(1):168.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
27.
go back to reference Sydes MR, Parmar MK, James ND, Clarke NW, Dearnaley DP, Mason MD, et al.Issues in applying multi-arm multi-stage methodology to a clinical trial in prostate cancer: the MRC STAMPEDE trial. Trials. 2009; 10(1):39.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Sydes MR, Parmar MK, James ND, Clarke NW, Dearnaley DP, Mason MD, et al.Issues in applying multi-arm multi-stage methodology to a clinical trial in prostate cancer: the MRC STAMPEDE trial. Trials. 2009; 10(1):39.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
28.
go back to reference James ND, Sydes MR, Mason MD, Clarke NW, Anderson J, Dearnaley DP, et al.Celecoxib plus hormone therapy versus hormone therapy alone for hormone-sensitive prostate cancer: first results from the STAMPEDE multiarm, multistage, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2012; 13(5):549–58.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral James ND, Sydes MR, Mason MD, Clarke NW, Anderson J, Dearnaley DP, et al.Celecoxib plus hormone therapy versus hormone therapy alone for hormone-sensitive prostate cancer: first results from the STAMPEDE multiarm, multistage, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2012; 13(5):549–58.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
go back to reference Baraniuk S, Tilley BC, Del Junco DJ, Fox EE, van Belle G, Wade CE, et al.Pragmatic randomized optimal platelet and plasma ratios (PROPPR) trial: design, rationale and implementation. Injury. 2014; 45(9):1287–95.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Baraniuk S, Tilley BC, Del Junco DJ, Fox EE, van Belle G, Wade CE, et al.Pragmatic randomized optimal platelet and plasma ratios (PROPPR) trial: design, rationale and implementation. Injury. 2014; 45(9):1287–95.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
30.
go back to reference O’Brien PC, Fleming TR. A multiple testing procedure for clinical trials. Biometrics. 1979; 35(3):549–56.CrossRefPubMed O’Brien PC, Fleming TR. A multiple testing procedure for clinical trials. Biometrics. 1979; 35(3):549–56.CrossRefPubMed
31.
go back to reference Lan KG, DeMets DL. Discrete sequential boundaries for clinical trials. Biometrika. 1983; 70(3):659–63.CrossRef Lan KG, DeMets DL. Discrete sequential boundaries for clinical trials. Biometrika. 1983; 70(3):659–63.CrossRef
32.
go back to reference Holcomb JB, Tilley BC, Baraniuk S, Fox EE, Wade CE, Podbielski JM, et al.Transfusion of plasma, platelets, and red blood cells in a 1: 1: 1 vs a 1: 1: 2 ratio and mortality in patients with severe trauma: the PROPPR randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015; 313(5):471–82.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Holcomb JB, Tilley BC, Baraniuk S, Fox EE, Wade CE, Podbielski JM, et al.Transfusion of plasma, platelets, and red blood cells in a 1: 1: 1 vs a 1: 1: 2 ratio and mortality in patients with severe trauma: the PROPPR randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015; 313(5):471–82.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
33.
go back to reference Holmes DR, Kar S, Price MJ, Whisenant B, Sievert H, Doshi SK, et al.Prospective randomized evaluation of the watchman left atrial appendage closure device in patients with atrial fibrillation versus long-term warfarin therapy: the PREVAIL trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014; 64(1):1–12.CrossRefPubMed Holmes DR, Kar S, Price MJ, Whisenant B, Sievert H, Doshi SK, et al.Prospective randomized evaluation of the watchman left atrial appendage closure device in patients with atrial fibrillation versus long-term warfarin therapy: the PREVAIL trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014; 64(1):1–12.CrossRefPubMed
34.
go back to reference Pritchett Y, Jemiai Y, Chang Y, Bhan I, Agarwal R, Zoccali C, et al.The use of group sequential, information-based sample size re-estimation in the design of the PRIMO study of chronic kidney disease. Clin Trials. 2011; 8(2):165–74.CrossRefPubMed Pritchett Y, Jemiai Y, Chang Y, Bhan I, Agarwal R, Zoccali C, et al.The use of group sequential, information-based sample size re-estimation in the design of the PRIMO study of chronic kidney disease. Clin Trials. 2011; 8(2):165–74.CrossRefPubMed
35.
go back to reference Thadhani R, Appelbaum E, Pritchett Y, Chang Y, Wenger J, Tamez H, et al.Vitamin D therapy and cardiac structure and function in patients with chronic kidney disease: the PRIMO randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2012; 307(7):674–84.CrossRefPubMed Thadhani R, Appelbaum E, Pritchett Y, Chang Y, Wenger J, Tamez H, et al.Vitamin D therapy and cardiac structure and function in patients with chronic kidney disease: the PRIMO randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2012; 307(7):674–84.CrossRefPubMed
36.
go back to reference Collinson FJ, Gregory WM, McCabe C, Howard H, Lowe C, Potrata B, et al.The STAR trial protocol: a randomised multi-stage phase II/III study of sunitinib comparing temporary cessation with allowing continuation, at the time of maximal radiological response, in the first-line treatment of locally advanced/metastatic renal cancer. BMC Cancer. 2012; 12(1):598.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Collinson FJ, Gregory WM, McCabe C, Howard H, Lowe C, Potrata B, et al.The STAR trial protocol: a randomised multi-stage phase II/III study of sunitinib comparing temporary cessation with allowing continuation, at the time of maximal radiological response, in the first-line treatment of locally advanced/metastatic renal cancer. BMC Cancer. 2012; 12(1):598.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
37.
go back to reference Kaplan R, Maughan T, Crook A, Fisher D, Wilson R, Brown L, et al.Evaluating many treatments and biomarkers in oncology: a new design. J Clin Oncol. 2013; 31(36):4562–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Kaplan R, Maughan T, Crook A, Fisher D, Wilson R, Brown L, et al.Evaluating many treatments and biomarkers in oncology: a new design. J Clin Oncol. 2013; 31(36):4562–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Adaptive designs undertaken in clinical research: a review of registered clinical trials
Authors
Isabella Hatfield
Annabel Allison
Laura Flight
Steven A. Julious
Munyaradzi Dimairo
Publication date
01-12-2016
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2016
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-016-1273-9

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

Trials 1/2016 Go to the issue