Explore the vast range of titles available.

This paper proposes a two-stage phase I-II clinical trial design to optimize doseschedule regimes of an experimental agent within ordered disease subgroups in terms of the toxicity-efficacy trade-off. The design is motivated by settings where prior biological information indicates it is certain that efficacy will improve with ordinal subgroup level. We formulate a flexible Bayesian hierarchical model to account for associations among subgroups and regimes, and to characterize ordered subgroup effects. Sequentially adaptive decisionmaking is complicated by the problem, arising from the motivating application, that efficacy is scored on day 90 and toxicity is evaluated within 30 days from the start of therapy, while the patient accrual rate is fast relative to these outcome evaluation intervals. To deal with this in a practical manner, we take a likelihood-based approach that treats unobserved toxicity and efficacy outcomes as missing values, and use elicited utilities that quantify the efficacy-toxicity trade-off as a decision criterion. Adaptive randomization is used to assign patients to regimes while accounting for subgroups, with randomization probabilities depending on the posterior predictive distributions of utilities. A simulation study is presented to evaluate the design’s performance under a variety of scenarios, and to assess its sensitivity to the amount of missing data, the prior, and model misspecification.

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 Value-adaptive designs for clinical trials are a novel set of emerging methods for delivering greater value for clinical research. There is increasing interest in using them within publicly funded health systems. A value-adaptive design permits ‘in progress’ changes to be made to the trial according to criteria which reflect its overall value to the healthcare system, including the cost-effectiveness of the technologies under investigation, the cost of running the trial and the total health benefit delivered to patients. These trial designs offer the potential to explicitly balance the costs and benefits of adaptive clinical trials with the health economic benefits expected for populations that are affected by any subsequent health technology adoption decisions. They may also improve the expected value of learning from the budget that is spent within a trial. Main body This paper introduces value-adaptive designs for publicly funded clinical trials. It discusses the idea of delivering ‘value for money’ in health technology assessment, what is meant by being ‘value-adaptive’ and the key features that characterise these designs. The methodology behind one kind of value-adaptive design – the value-based sequential model of a two-armed clinical trial proposed by Chick et al. (2017) – is described and illustrated using three retrospective case studies from the United Kingdom. The paper concludes by reviewing a range of perspectives provided by stakeholders, together with our own thoughts, on the practical opportunities and changes required for implementing a value-adaptive approach. Conclusions Value-adaptive clinical trial designs offer the potential to align health research funding allocations with population health economic goals. Many of the systems required to deploy value-adaptive designs within a publicly funded health system already exist and, with increased application, experience, and refinement they have the potential to deliver improved value for money.

Background Adaptive designs are increasingly being used in clinical trials within diverse clinical areas. They can offer advantages over traditional non-adaptive approaches, including improved efficiency and patient benefit. The level of improvement observed in practice depends to a large degree on conducting interim analyses (at which adaptations can be made to the trial based on collected data) rapidly and to a high standard. Methods The ROBust INterims for adaptive designs (ROBIN) project aimed to identify best practice for conducting high-quality and rapid interim analyses. This was done through evidence synthesis of published work, qualitative research with trial stakeholders working at public sector clinical trials units, engagement with patients and the public, and a meeting of trial stakeholders to discuss findings and agree recommendations. Results This paper provides recommendations for teams that conduct adaptive trials about how to ensure interim analyses are done rapidly and to a high standard. We break down recommendations by stage of the trial. We also identify a lack of methodology on how best to involve patients in adaptive trials and related decision-making. A limitation of our recommendations is that the research was mostly focused on UK academic settings, although we believe much of the recommendations are relevant in other countries and to industry-sponsored trials. Conclusions When following the recommendations outlined in this paper, the process of planning and executing interim analyses will be smoother; in turn, this will lead to more benefits from using adaptive designs.

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.

Adaptive features may increase flexibility and efficiency of clinical trials, and improve participants’ chances of being allocated to better interventions. Our objective is to provide thorough guidance on key methodological considerations for adaptive clinical trials. We provide an overview of key methodological considerations for clinical trials employing adaptive stopping, adaptive arm dropping, and response-adaptive randomization. We cover pros and cons of different decisions and provide guidance on using simulation to compare different adaptive trial designs. We focus on Bayesian multi-arm adaptive trials, although the same general considerations apply to frequentist adaptive trials. We provide guidance on 1) interventions and possible common control, 2) outcome selection, follow-up duration and model choice, 3) timing of adaptive analyses, 4) decision rules for adaptive stopping and arm dropping, 5) randomization strategies, 6) performance metrics, their prioritization, and arm selection strategies, and 7) simulations, assessment of performance under different scenarios, and reporting. Finally, we provide an example using a newly developed R simulation engine that may be used to evaluate and compare different adaptive trial designs. This overview may help trialists design better and more transparent adaptive clinical trials and to adequately compare them before initiation. •Adaptive clinical trials are flexible and adaptive features may increase trial efficiency and individual participants' chances of being allocated to superior interventions.•Adaptive trials come with increased complexity and not all adaptive features may always be beneficial.•We provide an overview of and guidance on key methodological considerations for clinical trials employing adaptive stopping, adaptive arm dropping, or response-adaptive randomization.•Further, we provide a simulation engine and example on how to compare adaptive trial designs using simulation.•This guidance paper may help trialists design and plan adaptive clinical trials.

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.

Response-adaptive designs allow the randomization probabilities to change during the course of a trial based on cumulated response data so that a greater proportion of patients can be allocated to the better performing treatments. A major concern over the use of response-adaptive designs in practice, particularly from a regulatory viewpoint, is controlling the type I error rate. In particular, we show that the naïve z-test can have an inflated type I error rate even after applying a Bonferroni correction. Simulation studies have often been used to demonstrate error control but do not provide a guarantee. In this article, we present adaptive testing procedures for normally distributed outcomes that ensure strong familywise error control by iteratively applying the conditional invariance principle. Our approach can be used for fully sequential and block randomized trials and for a large class of adaptive randomization rules found in the literature. We show there is a high price to pay in terms of power to guarantee familywise error control for randomization schemes with extreme allocation probabilities. However, for proposed Bayesian adaptive randomization schemes in the literature, our adaptive tests maintain or increase the power of the trial compared to the z-test. We illustrate our method using a three-armed trial in primary hypercholesterolemia.

Background Multi-arm multi-stage (MAMS) randomised trial designs have been proposed to evaluate multiple research questions in the confirmatory setting. In designs with several interventions, such as the 8-arm 3-stage ROSSINI-2 trial for preventing surgical wound infection, there are likely to be strict limits on the number of individuals that can be recruited or the funds available to support the protocol. These limitations may mean that not all research treatments can continue to accrue the required sample size for the definitive analysis of the primary outcome measure at the final stage. In these cases, an additional treatment selection rule can be applied at the early stages of the trial to restrict the maximum number of research arms that can progress to the subsequent stage(s). This article provides guidelines on how to implement treatment selection within the MAMS framework. It explores the impact of treatment selection rules, interim lack-of-benefit stopping boundaries and the timing of treatment selection on the operating characteristics of the MAMS selection design. Methods We outline the steps to design a MAMS selection trial. Extensive simulation studies are used to explore the maximum/expected sample sizes, familywise type I error rate (FWER), and overall power of the design under both binding and non-binding interim stopping boundaries for lack-of-benefit. Results Pre-specification of a treatment selection rule reduces the maximum sample size by approximately 25% in our simulations. The familywise type I error rate of a MAMS selection design is smaller than that of the standard MAMS design with similar design specifications without the additional treatment selection rule. In designs with strict selection rules - for example, when only one research arm is selected from 7 arms - the final stage significance levels can be relaxed for the primary analyses to ensure that the overall type I error for the trial is not underspent. When conducting treatment selection from several treatment arms, it is important to select a large enough subset of research arms (that is, more than one research arm) at early stages to maintain the overall power at the pre-specified level. Conclusions Multi-arm multi-stage selection designs gain efficiency over the standard MAMS design by reducing the overall sample size. Diligent pre-specification of the treatment selection rule, final stage significance level and interim stopping boundaries for lack-of-benefit are key to controlling the operating characteristics of a MAMS selection design. We provide guidance on these design features to ensure control of the operating characteristics.

Purpose of ReviewInnovative clinical trial designs for glioblastoma (GBM) are needed to expedite drug discovery. Phase 0, window of opportunity, and adaptive designs have been proposed, but their advanced methodologies and underlying biostatistics are not widely known. This review summarizes phase 0, window of opportunity, and adaptive phase I–III clinical trial designs in GBM tailored to physicians.Recent FindingsPhase 0, window of opportunity, and adaptive trials are now being implemented for GBM. These trials can remove ineffective therapies earlier during drug development and improve trial efficiency. There are two ongoing adaptive platform trials: GBM Adaptive Global Innovative Learning Environment (GBM AGILE) and the INdividualized Screening trial of Innovative GBM Therapy (INSIGhT).SummaryThe future clinical trials landscape in GBM will increasingly involve phase 0, window of opportunity, and adaptive phase I–III studies. Continued collaboration between physicians and biostatisticians will be critical for implementing these trial designs.