Adaptive designs in clinical trials: a systematic review-part I.
Adaptive designs
Challenges
Child health
Clinical trials
Descriptive analysis
Systematic reviews
Journal
BMC medical research methodology
ISSN: 1471-2288
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Res Methodol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968545
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 Oct 2024
04 Oct 2024
Historique:
received:
02
01
2024
accepted:
28
06
2024
medline:
5
10
2024
pubmed:
5
10
2024
entrez:
4
10
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
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. 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. 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. 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 .
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
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
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
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
CONCLUSIONS
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 .
Identifiants
pubmed: 39367313
doi: 10.1186/s12874-024-02272-9
pii: 10.1186/s12874-024-02272-9
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
229Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
FDA. Adaptive Designs for Clinical Trials of Drugs and Biologics; Food and Drug Administration; Guidance for Industry. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/adaptive-design-clinical-trials-drugs-and-biologics-guidance-industry . Last Accessed 04 July 2024.
Mahajan R, Gupta K. Adaptive design clinical trials: Methodology, challenges and prospect. Indian J Pharmacol. 2010;42(4):201–7.
doi: 10.4103/0253-7613.68417
pubmed: 20927243
pmcid: 2941608
Afolabi MO, Kelly LE. Non-static framework for understanding adaptive designs: an ethical justification in paediatric trials. J Med Ethics. 2022;48(11):825–31.
doi: 10.1136/medethics-2021-107263
pubmed: 34362828
SaeidDelshad AK. Adaptive Design of Personalized Dose-Finding Clinical Trials. Service Science. 2022;14(4):273–352 (C273).
doi: 10.1287/serv.2022.0306
Robertson DS, Lee KM, Lopez-Kolkovska BC, Villar SS. Response-adaptive randomization in clinical trials: from myths to practical considerations. Stat Sci. 2023;38(2):185–208.
pubmed: 37324576
pmcid: 7614644
Viele K, Broglio K, McGlothlin A, Saville BR. Comparison of methods for control allocation in multiple arm studies using response adaptive randomization. Clin Trials. 2020;17(1):52–60.
doi: 10.1177/1740774519877836
pubmed: 31630567
Kelly PJ, Sooriyarachchi MR, Stallard N, Todd S. A practical comparison of group-sequential and adaptive designs. J Biopharm Stat. 2005;15(4):719–38.
doi: 10.1081/BIP-200062859
pubmed: 16022175
McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel DM, Cogo E, Foerster V, Lefebvre C. PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;75:40–6.
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.01.021
pubmed: 27005575
Glimm E, Hampson LV. Group Sequential and Adaptive Designs. In Handbook of Multiple Comparisons. New York: Chapman and Hall/CRC Publication. 2021. p. 235–68.
Jiang L, Yuan Y. Seamless phase II/III design: a useful strategy to reduce the sample size for dose optimization. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2023;115(9):1092–8.
doi: 10.1093/jnci/djad103
pubmed: 37243720
pmcid: 10483325
Hackshaw A: A concise guide to clinical trials. Chapter 5. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. 2024. p. 79.
Lin R, Yang Z, Yuan Y, Yin G. Sample size re-estimation in adaptive enrichment design. Contemp Clin Trials. 2021;100:106216.
doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2020.106216
pubmed: 33246098
Kelly LE, Dyson MP, Butcher NJ, Balshaw R, London AJ, Neilson CJ, Junker A, Mahmud SM, Driedger SM, Wang X. Considerations for adaptive design in pediatric clinical trials: study protocol for a systematic review, mixed-methods study, and integrated knowledge translation plan. Trials. 2018;19(1):572.
doi: 10.1186/s13063-018-2934-7
pubmed: 30340624
pmcid: 6194696
Neilson CJ. Literature Search Documentation - Considerations for adaptive design in pediatric clinical trials. MSpace. 2020. URI: http://hdl.handle.net/1993/36502 .
Harris PA, Taylor R, Minor BL, Elliott V, Fernandez M, O’Neal L, McLeod L, Delacqua G, Delacqua F, Kirby J, et al. The REDCap consortium: Building an international community of software platform partners. J Biomed Inform. 2019;95:103208.
doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103208
pubmed: 31078660
pmcid: 7254481
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM, Akl EA, Brennan SE, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71
pubmed: 33782057
pmcid: 8005924
Chow SC, Corey R. Benefits, challenges and obstacles of adaptive clinical trial designs. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2011;6:79.
doi: 10.1186/1750-1172-6-79
pubmed: 22129361
pmcid: 3248853
Pallmann P, Bedding AW, Choodari-Oskooei B, Dimairo M, Flight L, Hampson LV, Holmes J, Mander AP, Odondi L, Sydes MR, et al. Adaptive designs in clinical trials: why use them, and how to run and report them. BMC Med. 2018;16(1):29.
doi: 10.1186/s12916-018-1017-7
pubmed: 29490655
pmcid: 5830330
Bhandari N, Upadhyay RP, Chowdhury R, Taneja S. Challenges of adopting new trial designs in LMICs. Lancet Glob Health. 2021;9(5):e575–6.
doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(21)00168-6
pubmed: 33865466
Alemayehu C, Mitchell G, Nikles J. Barriers for conducting clinical trials in developing countries- a systematic review. Int J Equity Health. 2018;17(1):37.
doi: 10.1186/s12939-018-0748-6
pubmed: 29566721
pmcid: 5863824
Varse F, Janani L, Moradi Y, Solaymani-Dodaran M, Baradaran HR, Rimaz S. Challenges in the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting in randomized clinical trial studies: A systematic review. Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2019;33:37.
pubmed: 31456961
pmcid: 6708114
Fogel DB. Factors associated with clinical trials that fail and opportunities for improving the likelihood of success: A review. Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2018;11:156–64.
doi: 10.1016/j.conctc.2018.08.001
pubmed: 30112460
pmcid: 6092479
Adaptive Platform Trials C. Adaptive platform trials: definition, design, conduct and reporting considerations. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2019;18(10):797–807.
doi: 10.1038/s41573-019-0034-3
Dimairo M, Pallmann P, Wason J, Todd S, Jaki T, Julious SA, Mander AP, Weir CJ, Koenig F, Walton MK, et al. The Adaptive designs CONSORT Extension (ACE) statement: a checklist with explanation and elaboration guideline for reporting randomised trials that use an adaptive design. BMJ. 2020;369:m115.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.m115
pubmed: 32554564
pmcid: 7298567
Korn EL, Freidlin B. Outcome–adaptive randomization: is it useful? J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(6):771–6.
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2010.31.1423
pubmed: 21172882
Giovagnoli A. The Bayesian Design of Adaptive Clinical Trials. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(2):530.
doi: 10.3390/ijerph18020530
pubmed: 33435249
pmcid: 7826635
Korn EL, Freidlin B. Adaptive Clinical Trials: Advantages and Disadvantages of Various Adaptive Design Elements. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2017;109(6):djx013.
doi: 10.1093/jnci/djx013
pubmed: 28376148
pmcid: 6279284
Cuffe RL, Lawrence D, Stone A, Vandemeulebroecke M. When is a seamless study desirable? Case studies from different pharmaceutical sponsors. Pharm Stat. 2014;13(4):229–37.
doi: 10.1002/pst.1622
pubmed: 24891148
Cerqueira FP, Jesus AMC, Cotrim MD. Adaptive Design: A Review of the Technical, Statistical, and Regulatory Aspects of Implementation in a Clinical Trial. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2020;54(1):246–58.
doi: 10.1007/s43441-019-00052-y
pubmed: 32008232
Posch M, Maurer W, Bretz F. Type I error rate control in adaptive designs for confirmatory clinical trials with treatment selection at interim. Pharm Stat. 2011;10(2):96–104.
doi: 10.1002/pst.413
pubmed: 22328314
Gilholm P, Ergetu E, Gelbart B, Raman S, Festa M, Schlapbach LJ, Long D, Gibbons KS. Australian, New Zealand Intensive Care Society Paediatric Study G: Adaptive Clinical Trials in Pediatric Critical Care: A Systematic Review. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2023;24(9):738–49.
Jackson GH, Davies FE, Pawlyn C, Cairns DA, Striha A, Collett C, Morgan GJ. Response-adapted intensification with cyclophosphamide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone versus no intensification in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (Myeloma XI): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Haematol. 2019;6(12):e616–29.
doi: 10.1016/S2352-3026(19)30167-X
pubmed: 31624047
pmcid: 7043012