The draft adaptive design guidance released by FDA in 2010 included references to adaptive study designs that were described as “less well-understood.” At that time, there was relatively little regulatory experience with such designs, and their properties were felt to be insufficiently understood. In order to promote greater use of adaptive designs, especially those categorized as less well-understood, the Best Practice Subteam of the DIA Adaptive Designs Scientific Working Group (ADSWG) has worked on describing and characterizing these designs, identifying challenges associated with them and suggesting improvements to design or study conduct aspects that might make them more acceptable. This paper summarizes the work from the subteam.
MillerEGalloPHeWKammermanL. Best practices case studies for “less well-understood” adaptive designs. Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science. In press.
JennisonCTurnbullB. Mid-course sample size modification in clinical trials based on the observed treatment effect. Stat Med. 2003;22:971–993.
6.
PittBPfefferMAssmannS. Spironolactone for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. N Engl J Med. 2011;370:1453–1454.
7.
MacaJGalloPKramsMDragalinVBhattacharyaS. Adaptive seamless phase II/II designs—background, operational aspects, and examples. Drug Inf J. 2006;40:463–475.
8.
CuiLHungHMWangSJ. Modification of sample size in group sequential clinical trials. Biometrics. 1999;55:853–857.
9.
WassmerGDragalinV. Designing issues in confirmatory adaptive population enrichment trials. J Biopharm Stat. 2015;25:651–669.
10.
ChenYHDeMetsDLLanKK. Increasing the sample size when the unblinded interim result is promising. Stat Med. 2004;23:1023–1038.
11.
SchmidliHBretzFRacineAMaurerW. Confirmatory seamless phase II/III clinical trials with hypothesis selection at interim: applications and practical considerations. Biom J. 2006;48:635–643.
12.
GalloPDeMetsDLLaVangeL. Considerations for interim analyses in adaptive trials, and perspectives on the use of DMCs. In: HeWPinheiroJKuznetsovaOM, eds. Practical Considerations for Adaptive Trial Design and Implementation. New York: Springer; 2014:259–272.
13.
WhiteheadJ. On the bias of maximum likelihood estimation following a sequential test. Biometrika. 1986;73:573–581.
14.
EmersonS. Computation of the uniform minimum variance unbiased estimator of a normal mean following a group sequential test. Comput Biomed Res. 1993;26:69–73.
15.
KimK. Point estimation following group sequential tests. Biometrics. 1989;45:613–617.
16.
HughesMDPocockSJ. Stopping rules and estimation problems in clinical trials. Stat Med. 1989;7:1231–1242.
17.
FanXDeMetsDLLanKKG. Conditional bias of point estimates following a group sequential test. J Biopharm Stat. 2004;14:505–530.
18.
BauerPKoenigFBrannathWPoschM. Selection and bias—two hostile brothers. Stat Med. 2010;29:1–13.
19.
SampsonASillM. Drop-the-losers design: normal case. Biom J. 2005;3:257–268.
20.
BowdenJGlimmE. Unbiased estimation of selected treatment means in two-stage trials. Biom J. 2008;50:515–527.
21.
WuSWangWYangM. Interval estimation for drop-the-losers designs. Biometrika2010;97:405–418.
22.
BebuIDragalinVLutaG. Confidence intervals for confirmatory adaptive two-stage designs with treatment selection. Biom J. 2013;55:294–309.
23.
ThallP. A review of phase 2-3 clinical trial designs. Lifetime Data Anal2008;14:37–53.
24.
DavidFSBobulskySSchulzKPatelN. Creating value with financially adaptive clinical trials. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2015;14:523–524.
25.
AndersonK. Timing and frequency of interim analyses in confirmatory trials. In: HeWPinheiroJKuznetsovaOM, eds. Practical Considerations for Adaptive Trial Design and Implementation. New York: Springer; 2014:115–123.
26.
BurnhamNQuinlanJHeW. Effective drug supply for adaptive clinical trials: recommendations by the DIA Adaptive Designs Scientific Working Group Drug Supply Subteam. Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science. 2015;49:100–107.
27.
PatelNAnkolekarSSenchaudhuriP. Approaches for clinical supply modelling and simulation. In: HeWPinheiroJKuznetsovaO, ed. Practical Considerations for Adaptive Trial Design and Implementation. New York: Springer; 2014:273–297.
28.
AnisimovVVFedorovVV. Modelling, prediction and adaptive adjustment of recruitment in multicentre trials. Stat Med. 2007;26:4958–4975.
29.
AnisimovVV. Predictive event modelling in multicentre clinical trials with waiting time to response. Pharm Stat. 2011;10:517–522.
30.
GalloP. Confidentiality and trial integrity issues for adaptive designs. Drug Inf J. 2006;40:445–450.
31.
Sanchez-KamMGalloPLoewyJ. A practical guide to data monitoring committees in adaptive trials. Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science. 2014;48:316–326.
