25
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Adaptive seamless clinical trials using early outcomes for treatment or subgroup selection: Methods, simulation model and their implementation in R

      research-article

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Adaptive seamless designs combine confirmatory testing, a domain of phase III trials, with features such as treatment or subgroup selection, typically associated with phase II trials. They promise to increase the efficiency of development programmes of new drugs, for example, in terms of sample size and/or development time. It is well acknowledged that adaptive designs are more involved from a logistical perspective and require more upfront planning, often in the form of extensive simulation studies, than conventional approaches. Here, we present a framework for adaptive treatment and subgroup selection using the same notation, which links the somewhat disparate literature on treatment selection on one side and on subgroup selection on the other. Furthermore, we introduce a flexible and efficient simulation model that serves both designs. As primary endpoints often take a long time to observe, interim analyses are frequently informed by early outcomes. Therefore, all methods presented accommodate interim analyses informed by either the primary outcome or an early outcome. The R package asd, previously developed to simulate designs with treatment selection, was extended to include subgroup selection (so‐called adaptive enrichment designs). Here, we describe the functionality of the R package asd and use it to present some worked‐up examples motivated by clinical trials in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and oncology. The examples both illustrate various features of the R package and provide insights into the operating characteristics of adaptive seamless studies.

          Related collections

          Most cited references61

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Master Protocols to Study Multiple Therapies, Multiple Diseases, or Both

            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Adaptive designs in clinical trials: why use them, and how to run and report them

            Adaptive designs can make clinical trials more flexible by utilising results accumulating in the trial to modify the trial’s course in accordance with pre-specified rules. Trials with an adaptive design are often more efficient, informative and ethical than trials with a traditional fixed design since they often make better use of resources such as time and money, and might require fewer participants. Adaptive designs can be applied across all phases of clinical research, from early-phase dose escalation to confirmatory trials. The pace of the uptake of adaptive designs in clinical research, however, has remained well behind that of the statistical literature introducing new methods and highlighting their potential advantages. We speculate that one factor contributing to this is that the full range of adaptations available to trial designs, as well as their goals, advantages and limitations, remains unfamiliar to many parts of the clinical community. Additionally, the term adaptive design has been misleadingly used as an all-encompassing label to refer to certain methods that could be deemed controversial or that have been inadequately implemented. We believe that even if the planning and analysis of a trial is undertaken by an expert statistician, it is essential that the investigators understand the implications of using an adaptive design, for example, what the practical challenges are, what can (and cannot) be inferred from the results of such a trial, and how to report and communicate the results. This tutorial paper provides guidance on key aspects of adaptive designs that are relevant to clinical triallists. We explain the basic rationale behind adaptive designs, clarify ambiguous terminology and summarise the utility and pitfalls of adaptive designs. We discuss practical aspects around funding, ethical approval, treatment supply and communication with stakeholders and trial participants. Our focus, however, is on the interpretation and reporting of results from adaptive design trials, which we consider vital for anyone involved in medical research. We emphasise the general principles of transparency and reproducibility and suggest how best to put them into practice.
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Once-daily bronchodilators for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: indacaterol versus tiotropium.

              Indacaterol is the first once-daily, long-acting inhaled beta(2)-agonist bronchodilator studied in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). To demonstrate greater efficacy of indacaterol versus placebo on FEV(1) at 24 hours post dose (trough) after 12 weeks, to compare efficacy with placebo and tiotropium, and to evaluate safety and tolerability over 26 weeks. Patients with moderate-to-severe COPD were randomized to double-blind indacaterol 150 or 300 microg or placebo, or open-label tiotropium 18 microg, all once daily, for 26 weeks. The primary efficacy outcome was trough FEV(1) at 12 weeks. Additional analyses (not adjusted for multiplicity) included transition dyspnea index (TDI), health status (St George's Respiratory Questionnaire [SGRQ]), and exacerbations. Serum potassium, blood glucose, and QTc interval were measured. A total of 1,683 patients (age, 63.3 yr; post-bronchodilator FEV(1), 56% predicted; FEV(1)/FVC, 0.53) were randomized to the four treatment arms. Trough FEV(1) at Week 12 increased versus placebo by 180 ml with both indacaterol doses and by 140 ml with tiotropium (all P < 0.001 vs. placebo). At Week 26, for indacaterol 150/300 microg, respectively, versus placebo, TDI increased (1.00/1.18, P < 0.001) and SGRQ total score decreased (-3.3/-2.4, P < 0.01); corresponding results with tiotropium were 0.87 (P < 0.001) for TDI and (-1.0, P = not significant) for SGRQ total score. The incidence of adverse events, low serum potassium, high blood glucose, and prolonged QTc interval was similar across treatments. Indacaterol was an effective once-daily bronchodilator and was at least as effective as tiotropium in improving clinical outcomes for patients with COPD. Clinical trial registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 00463567).

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                tim.friede@med.uni-goettingen.de
                Journal
                Biom J
                Biom J
                10.1002/(ISSN)1521-4036
                BIMJ
                Biometrical Journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                0323-3847
                1521-4036
                02 March 2020
                September 2020
                : 62
                : 5 ( doiID: 10.1002/bimj.v62.5 )
                : 1264-1283
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Department of Medical Statistics University Medical Center Göttingen Göttingen Germany
                [ 2 ] Division of Health Sciences Warwick Medical School University of Warwick Coventry UK
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence

                Tim Friede, Department of Medical Statistics, University Medical Center Göttingen, Humboldtallee 32, 37073 Göttingen, Germany.

                Email: tim.friede@ 123456med.uni-goettingen.de

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5347-7441
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7781-1512
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9975-888X
                Article
                BIMJ2108
                10.1002/bimj.201900020
                8614126
                32118317
                d4e413f9-e289-4028-ba03-bdf1e256e35e
                © 2020 The Authors. Biometrical Journal published by WILEY‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 10 January 2020
                : 12 January 2019
                : 12 January 2020
                Page count
                Figures: 2, Tables: 2, Pages: 20, Words: 11632
                Funding
                Funded by: Medical Research Council , doi 10.13039/501100000265;
                Award ID: G1001344
                Categories
                Research Paper
                Clinical Trials
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                September 2020
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:6.0.9 mode:remove_FC converted:25.11.2021

                Quantitative & Systems biology
                adaptive design,clinical trials,closed test procedure,combination test,dunnett test

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                Related Documents Log