Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Adaptive designs (ADs) are intended to make clinical trials more flexible, offering efficiency and potentially cost-saving benefits. Despite a large number of statistical methods in the literature on different adaptations to trials, the characteristics, advantages and limitations of such designs remain unfamiliar to large parts of the clinical and research community. This systematic review provides an overview of the use of ADs in published clinical trials (Part I). A follow-up (Part II) will compare the application of AD in trials in adult and pediatric studies, to provide real-world examples and recommendations for the child health community. Methods Published studies from 2010 to April 2020 were searched in the following databases: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (Ovid). Clinical trial protocols, reports, and a secondary analyses using AD were included. We excluded trial registrations and interventions other than drugs or vaccines to align with regulatory guidance. Data from the published literature on study characteristics, types of adaptations, statistical analysis, stopping boundaries, logistical challenges, operational considerations and ethical considerations were extracted and summarized herein. Results Out of 23,886 retrieved studies, 317 publications of adaptive trials, 267 (84.2%) trial reports, and 50 (15.8%) study protocols), were included. The most frequent disease was oncology (168/317, 53%). Most trials included only adult participants (265, 83.9%),16 trials (5.4%) were limited to only children and 28 (8.9%) were for both children and adults, 8 trials did not report the ages of the included populations. Some studies reported using more than one adaptation (there were 390 reported adaptations in 317 clinical trial reports). Most trials were early in drug development (phase I, II (276/317, 87%). Dose-finding designs were used in the highest proportion of the included trials (121/317, 38.2 %). Adaptive randomization (53/317, 16.7%), with drop-the-losers (or pick-the-winner) designs specifically reported in 29 trials (9.1%) and seamless phase 2-3 design was reported in 27 trials (8.5%). Continual reassessment methods (60/317, 18.9%) and group sequential design (47/317, 14.8%) were also reported. Approximately two-thirds of trials used frequentist statistical methods (203/309, 64%), while Bayesian methods were reported in 24% (75/309) of included trials. Conclusion This review provides a comprehensive report of methodological features in adaptive clinical trials reported between 2010 and 2020. Adaptation details were not uniformly reported, creating limitations in interpretation and generalizability. Nevertheless, implementation of existing reporting guidelines on ADs and the development of novel educational strategies that address the scientific, operational challenges and ethical considerations can help in the clinical trial community to decide on when and how to implement ADs in clinical trials. Study protocol registration https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-018-2934-7 .

To investigate the design, conduct, and analysis of adaptive trials through a systematic survey and provide recommendations for future adaptive trials. We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases up to January 2020. We included trials that were self-described as adaptive trials or applied adaptive designs. We identified three frequently used adaptive designs and summarized their methodological details in terms of design, conduct, and analysis. Lastly, we provided recommendations for future adaptive trials. We included a total of 128 trials in this study. The primary motivations for using adaptive design were to speed up the trials and facilitate decision-making (n = 29, 31.5%). The three most frequently used methods were group sequential design (GSD) (n = 71, 55.5%), adaptive dose-finding design (ADFD) (n = 35, 27.3%), and adaptive randomization design (ARD) (n = 26, 20.3%). The timing and frequency of interim analysis were detailed in three-fourths of the GSD trials (n = 55, 77.5%) and in half of the ADFD trials (n = 19, 54.3%); however, more than half of the ARD trials (n = 15, 57.7%) did not provide this information. Some trials selected a different outcome than the primary outcome for interim analysis (GSD: n = 7, 12.7%; ADFD: n = 8, 27.6%; ARD: n = 7, 50.0%), but the majority of these trials did not provide explicit reasons for this choice (GSD: n = 7, 100.0%; ADFD: n = 7, 87.5%; ARD: n = 5, 71.4%). More than half (n = 76, 59.4%) of trials did not mention the accessibility of supporting documents, and two-thirds (n = 86, 67.2%) did not state the establishment of independent data monitoring committees (IDMCs). Moreover, unplanned adjustments were observed during the conduct of one-sixth adaptive trials (n = 22, 17.2%). Based on our findings, we provide 14 recommendations for improving adaptive trials in the future. Substantial improvements were needed in methods of adaptive trials, particularly in the areas of interim analysis, the establishment of independent data monitoring committees, and unplanned adjustments. In this study, we offer recommendations from both general and specific aspects for researchers to carefully design, conduct, and analyze adaptive trials.

Background An adaptive design allows modifying the design based on accumulated data while maintaining trial validity and integrity. The final sample size may be unknown when designing an adaptive trial. It is therefore important to consider what sample size is used in the planning of the study and how that is communicated to add transparency to the understanding of the trial design and facilitate robust planning. In this paper, we reviewed trial protocols and grant applications on the sample size reporting for randomised adaptive trials. Method We searched protocols of randomised trials with comparative objectives on ClinicalTrials.gov (01/01/2010 to 31/12/2022). Contemporary eligible grant applications accessed from UK publicly funded researchers were also included. Suitable records of adaptive designs were reviewed, and key information was extracted and descriptively analysed. Results We identified 439 records, and 265 trials were eligible. Of these, 164 (61.9%) and 101 (38.1%) were sponsored by industry and public sectors, respectively, with 169 (63.8%) of all trials using a group sequential design although trial adaptations used were diverse. The maximum and minimum sample sizes were the most reported or directly inferred ( n  = 199, 75.1%). The sample size assuming no adaptation would be triggered was usually set as the estimated target sample size in the protocol. However, of the 152 completed trials, 15 (9.9%) and 33 (21.7%) had their sample size increased or reduced triggered by trial adaptations, respectively. The sample size calculation process was generally well reported in most cases ( n  = 216, 81.5%); however, the justification for the sample size calculation parameters was missing in 116 (43.8%) trials. Less than half gave sufficient information on the study design operating characteristics ( n  = 119, 44.9%). Conclusion Although the reporting of sample sizes varied, the maximum and minimum sample sizes were usually reported. Most of the trials were planned for estimated enrolment assuming no adaptation would be triggered. This is despite the fact a third of reported trials changed their sample size. The sample size calculation was generally well reported, but the justification of sample size calculation parameters and the reporting of the statistical behaviour of the adaptive design could still be improved.

Background Adaptive clinical trials increasingly aim to detect heterogeneity of treatment effect (HTE) to guide personalized care. However, most adaptive designs rely on predefined subgroups and are limited in their ability to uncover unknown or complex sources of HTE. Bayesian statistical methods offer a flexible alternative, enabling real-time learning and adaptation within trials. This review evaluates Bayesian methods used to detect hidden HTE in adaptive clinical trials, with attention to their methodological innovations, operating characteristics, and consideration of equity and inclusion in trial design. Methods We conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and other databases to identify original studies that developed Bayesian methods for detecting unknown HTE within adaptive clinical trial designs. Eligible studies were reviewed and synthesized based on design features, statistical methodology, operating characteristics, reproducibility, and whether equity-related factors were explicitly considered. Equity considerations included whether studies incorporated variables related to underrepresented populations—such as age, sex, race/ethnicity, or geography—examined intersectional subgroup effects, or explicitly framed their methods as tools to address health disparities. Results Of 2826 screened records, seven studies met inclusion criteria. Bayesian methods included random partition models, spatial models, logistic regression with dimension reduction, adaptive randomization using machine learning classifiers, and adaptive enrichment or platform designs incorporating model averaging or latent subgroup estimation. In simulation studies, these methods often showed improvements in subgroup detection, efficiency, or power relative to non-Bayesian comparators. None were tested using real-world trial data. Reproducibility was limited overall, with analytic code only available for the three most recent studies. Notably, none explicitly framed their methods as tools to address inequities in treatment outcomes across population subgroups. Conclusions The small number of simulation-based studies illustrates preliminary but promising directions for applying Bayesian methods to detect HTE in adaptive clinical trials. While these approaches demonstrate potential to enhance trial adaptability, scalability, and inclusiveness, current evidence remains limited and largely conceptual. Incorporating an equity lens into future methodological development, alongside greater emphasis on empirical validation and open science practices, will be essential to determine their practical value in advancing equitable clinical research.

Background The demand for adaptive trial designs is growing because of their flexibility and the potential for efficiency gains over traditional fixed designs. Adaptive trials allow planned modifications to the design based on accumulating data. Simulation is imperative in designing adaptive trials because analytical power formulae cannot account for data-driven adaptations. Despite their popularity, the uptake of adaptive trials has been slowed by the lack of expertise and availability of training resources. Methods In this tutorial, we demonstrate how to simulate data from a simple adaptive trial with a single interim analysis, summarise the simulations, and use these results to balance the type I error and power to inform the study design and to determine the expected sample size. The simulation code, based on a real trial in hyponatraemia in children, is provided in both R and Stata programming languages. The code is written in modules to improve comprehensibility and enable simple changes to generate a range of adaptive designs. Discussion When using simulation to design an adaptive trial, the simulations must be tailored to the unique design requirements of the trial at hand. This tutorial provides a foundational framework designed to make the simulation process more accessible to both statisticians and clinicians.

Background Many recent Stroke trials fail to show a beneficial effect of the intervention late in the development. Currently a large number of new treatment options are being developed. Multi-arm multi-stage (MAMS) designs offer one potential strategy to avoid lengthy studies of treatments without beneficial effects while at the same time allowing evaluation of several novel treatments. In this paper we provide a review of what MAMS designs are and argue that they are of particular value for Stroke trials. We illustrate this benefit through a case study based on previous published trials of endovascular treatment for acute ischemic stroke. We show in this case study that MAMS trials provide additional power for the same sample size compared to alternative trial designs. This level of additional power depends on the recruitment length of the trial, with most efficiency gained when recruitment is relatively slow. We conclude with a discussion of additional considerations required when starting a MAMS trial. Conclusion MAMS trial designs are potentially very useful for stroke trials due to their improved statistical power compared to the traditional approach.

Escalating costs of cardiovascular trials are limiting medical innovations, prompting the development of more efficient and flexible study designs. The Bayesian paradigm offers a framework conducive to adaptive trial methodologies and is well suited for the study of small populations. Bayesian adaptive trials provide a statistical structure for combining prior information with accumulating data to compute probabilities of unknown quantities of interest. Adaptive design features are useful in modifying randomization schemes, adjusting sample sizes and providing continuous surveillance to guide decisions on dropping study arms or premature trial interruption. Advantages include greater efficiency, minimization of risks, inclusion of knowledge as it is generated, cost savings and more intuitive interpretability. Extensive high-level computations are facilitated by an expanding armamentarium of available tools.

Background Phase-3 clinical trials provide the highest level of evidence on drug safety and effectiveness needed for market approval by implementing large randomized controlled trials (RCTs). However, 30–40% of these trials fail mainly because such studies have inadequate sample sizes, stemming from the inability to obtain accurate initial estimates of average treatment effect parameters. Methods To remove this obstacle from the drug development cycle, we present a new algorithm called Trend-Adaptive Design with a Synthetic-Intervention-Based Estimator (TAD-SIE) that powers a parallel-group trial, a standard RCT design, by leveraging a state-of-the-art hypothesis testing strategy and a novel trend-adaptive design (TAD). Specifically, TAD-SIE uses synthetic intervention (SI) to estimate individual treatment effects and thereby simulate a cross-over design, which makes it easier for a trial to reach target power within trial constraints (e.g., sample size limits). To estimate sample sizes, TAD-SIE implements a new TAD tailored to SI given that using it violates assumptions under standard TADs. In addition, our TAD overcomes the ineffectiveness of standard TADs by allowing sample sizes to be increased across iterations without any condition while controlling significance level with futility stopping. Our TAD also introduces a hyperparameter that enables trial designers to trade off between accuracy and efficiency (sample size and number of iterations) of the solution. Results On a real-world Phase-3 clinical RCT (i.e., a two-arm parallel-group superiority trial with an equal number of subjects per arm), TAD-SIE obtains operating points ranging between 63% to 84% power and 3% to 6% significance level in contrast to baseline algorithms that get at best 49% power and 6% significance level. Conclusion TAD-SIE is a superior TAD that can be used to reach typical target operating points but only for trials with rapidly measurable primary outcomes due to its sequential nature. The framework is useful to practitioners interested in leveraging the SI algorithm for their study design.

Background Faced with the high cost and limited efficiency of classical randomized controlled trials, researchers are increasingly applying adaptive designs to speed up the development of new drugs. However, the application of adaptive design to drug randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and whether the reporting is adequate are unclear. Thus, this study aimed to summarize the epidemiological characteristics of the relevant trials and assess their reporting quality by the Adaptive designs CONSORT Extension (ACE) checklist. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to January 2020. We included drug RCTs that explicitly claimed to be adaptive trials or used any type of adaptative design. We extracted the epidemiological characteristics of included studies to summarize their adaptive design application. We assessed the reporting quality of the trials by Adaptive designs CONSORT Extension (ACE) checklist. Univariable and multivariable linear regression models were used to the association of four prespecified factors with the quality of reporting. Results Our survey included 108 adaptive trials. We found that adaptive design has been increasingly applied over the years, and was commonly used in phase II trials ( n  = 45, 41.7%). The primary reasons for using adaptive design were to speed the trial and facilitate decision-making ( n  = 24, 22.2%), maximize the benefit of participants ( n  = 21, 19.4%), and reduce the total sample size ( n  = 15, 13.9%). Group sequential design ( n  = 63, 58.3%) was the most frequently applied method, followed by adaptive randomization design ( n  = 26, 24.1%), and adaptive dose-finding design ( n  = 24, 22.2%). The proportion of adherence to the ACE checklist of 26 topics ranged from 7.4 to 99.1%, with eight topics being adequately reported (i.e., level of adherence ≥ 80%), and eight others being poorly reported (i.e., level of adherence ≤ 30%). In addition, among the seven items specific for adaptive trials, three were poorly reported: accessibility to statistical analysis plan ( n  = 8, 7.4%), measures for confidentiality ( n  = 14, 13.0%), and assessments of similarity between interim stages ( n  = 25, 23.1%). The mean score of the ACE checklist was 13.9 (standard deviation [SD], 3.5) out of 26. According to our multivariable regression analysis, later published trials (estimated β  = 0.14, p  < 0.01) and the multicenter trials (estimated β  = 2.22, p  < 0.01) were associated with better reporting. Conclusion Adaptive design has shown an increasing use over the years, and was primarily applied to early phase drug trials. However, the reporting quality of adaptive trials is suboptimal, and substantial efforts are needed to improve the reporting.

Recent years have seen a change in the way that clinical trials are being conducted. There has been a rise of designs more flexible than traditional adaptive and group sequential trials which allow the investigation of multiple substudies with possibly different objectives, interventions, and subgroups conducted within an overall trial structure, summarized by the term master protocol. This review aims to identify existing master protocol studies and summarize their characteristics. The review also identifies articles relevant to the design of master protocol trials, such as proposed trial designs and related methods. We conducted a comprehensive systematic search to review current literature on master protocol trials from a design and analysis perspective, focusing on platform trials and considering basket and umbrella trials. Articles were included regardless of statistical complexity and classified as reviews related to planned or conducted trials, trial designs, or statistical methods. The results of the literature search are reported, and some features of the identified articles are summarized. Most of the trials using master protocols were designed as single-arm (n = 29/50), Phase II trials (n = 32/50) in oncology (n = 42/50) using a binary endpoint (n = 26/50) and frequentist decision rules (n = 37/50). We observed an exponential increase in publications in this domain during the last few years in both planned and conducted trials, as well as relevant methods, which we assume has not yet reached its peak. Although many operational and statistical challenges associated with such trials remain, the general consensus seems to be that master protocols provide potentially enormous advantages in efficiency and flexibility of clinical drug development. Master protocol trials and especially platform trials have the potential to revolutionize clinical drug development if the methodologic and operational challenges can be overcome.