Search

Conditional power (CP) is a commonly used tool to inform interim decision‐making in clinical trials, but the conventional approach using only primary endpoint data to calculate CP may not perform well when the primary endpoint requires a long follow‐up period, or the treatment effect size changes during the trial. Several methods have been proposed to use additional short term auxiliary data observed at the interim analysis to improve the CP estimation in these situations, however, they may rely on strong assumptions, have limited applications, or use ad hoc choices of information fraction. In this paper we propose a general framework where the true CP formula is first derived in the presence of auxiliary data, and CP estimation is obtained by substituting the unknown parameters with consistent estimators. We conducted extensive simulations to examine the performance of both proposed and conventional approaches using the true CP as the benchmark. As the proposed approach is based on the true underlying CP, the simulations confirmed its superiority over the conventional approach in terms of efficiency and accuracy, especially if observed auxiliary data reflect the change of treatment effect size. The simulations also indicate that the magnitude of improvement in CP estimation is associated with the correlation between auxiliary and primary endpoints and/or the magnitude of the effect size change during the trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Traditional vaccine efficacy trials usually use fixed designs with fairly large sample sizes. Recruiting a large number of subjects requires longer time and higher costs. Furthermore, vaccine developers are more than ever facing the need to accelerate vaccine development to fulfill the public's medical needs. A possible approach to accelerate development is to use the method of dynamic borrowing of historical controls in clinical trials. In this paper, we evaluate the feasibility and the performance of this approach in vaccine development by retrospectively analyzing two real vaccine studies: a relatively small immunological trial (typical early phase study) and a large vaccine efficacy trial (typical Phase 3 study) assessing prophylactic human papillomavirus vaccine. Results are promising, particularly for early development immunological studies, where the adaptive design is feasible, and control of type I error is less relevant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Adaptive designs offer added flexibility in the execution of clinical trials, including the possibilities of allocating more patients to the treatments that turned out more successful, and early stopping due to either declared success or futility. Commonly applied adaptive designs, such as group sequential methods, are based on the frequentist paradigm and on ideas from statistical significance testing. Interim checks during the trial will have the effect of inflating the Type 1 error rate, or, if this rate is controlled and kept fixed, lowering the power.Results: The purpose of the paper is to demonstrate the usefulness of the Bayesian approach in the design and in the actual running of randomized clinical trials during phase II and III. This approach is based on comparing the performance of the different treatment arms in terms of the respective joint posterior probabilities evaluated sequentially from the accruing outcome data, and then taking a control action if such posterior probabilities fall below a pre-specified critical threshold value. Two types of actions are considered: treatment allocation, putting on hold at least temporarily further accrual of patients to a treatment arm, and treatment selection, removing an arm from the trial permanently. The main development in the paper is in terms of binary outcomes, but extensions for handling time-to-event data, including data from vaccine trials, are also discussed. The performance of the proposed methodology is tested in extensive simulation experiments, with numerical results and graphical illustrations documented in a Supplement to the main text. As a companion to this paper, an implementation of the methods is provided in the form of a freely available R package 'barts'.Conclusion: The proposed methods for trial design provide an attractive alternative to their frequentist counterparts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Unblinded sample size re‐estimation (SSR) is often planned in a clinical trial when there is large uncertainty about the true treatment effect. For Proof‐of Concept (PoC) in a Phase II dose finding study, contrast test can be adopted to leverage information from all treatment groups. In this article, we propose two‐stage SSR designs using frequentist conditional power (CP) and Bayesian predictive power (PP) for both single and multiple contrast tests. The Bayesian SSR can be implemented under a wide range of prior settings to incorporate different prior knowledge. Taking the adaptivity into account, all type I errors of final analysis in this paper are rigorously protected. Simulation studies are carried out to demonstrate the advantages of unblinded SSR in multi‐arm trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Current dose-finding designs for phase I clinical trials can correctly select the MTD in a range of 30-80% depending on various conditions based on a sample of 30 subjects. However, there is still an unmet need for efficiency and cost saving.Methods: We propose a novel dose-finding design based on Bayesian stochastic approximation. The design features utilization of dose level information through local adaptive modelling and free assumption of toxicity probabilities and hyper-parameters. It allows a flexible target toxicity rate and varying cohort size. And we extend it to accommodate historical information via prior effective sample size. We compare the proposed design to some commonly used methods in terms of accuracy and safety by simulation.Results: On average, our design can improve the percentage of correct selection to about 60% when the MTD resides at a early or middle position in the search domain and perform comparably to other competitive methods otherwise. A free online software package is provided to facilitate the application, where a simple decision tree for the design can be pre-printed beforehand.Conclusion: The paper proposes a novel dose-finding design for phase I clinical trials. Applying the design to future cancer trials can greatly improve the efficiency, consequently save cost and shorten the development period. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Covariate‐adaptive randomization (CAR) is widely used in clinical trials to balance treatment allocation over covariates. Over the past decade, significant progress has been made on the theoretical properties of covariate‐adaptive design and associated inference. However, most results are established under the assumption that the covariates are correctly measured. In practice, measurement error is inevitable, resulting in misclassification for discrete covariates. When covariate misclassification is present in a clinical trial conducted using CAR, the impact is twofold: it impairs the intended covariate balance, and raises concerns over the validity of test procedures. In this paper, we consider the impact of misclassification on covariate‐adaptive randomized trials from the perspectives of both design and inference. We derive the asymptotic normality, and thereby the convergence rate, of the imbalance of the true covariates for a general family of covariate‐adaptive randomization methods, and show that a superior covariate balance can still be attained compared to complete randomization. We also show that the two sample t‐test is conservative, with a reduced Type I error, but that this can be corrected using a bootstrap method. Moreover, if the misclassified covariates are adjusted in the model used for analysis, the test maintains its nominal Type I error, with an increased power. Our results support the use of covariate‐adaptive randomization in clinical trials, even when the covariates are subject to misclassification. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The delayed outcome issue is common in early phase dose-finding clinical trials. This problem becomes more intractable in phase I/II clinical trials because both toxicity and efficacy responses are subject to the delayed outcome issue. The existing methods applying for the phase I trials cannot be used directly for the phase I/II trial due to a lack of capability to model the joint toxicity–efficacy distribution. In this paper, we propose a conditional weighted likelihood (CWL) method to circumvent this issue. The key idea of the CWL method is to decompose the joint probability into the product of marginal and conditional probabilities and then weight each probability based on each patient's actual follow-up time. The CWL method makes no parametric model assumption on either the dose–response curve or the toxicity–efficacy correlation and therefore can be applied to any existing phase I/II trial design. Numerical trial applications show that the proposed CWL method yields desirable operating characteristics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Multi-arm multi-stage clinical trials in which more than two drugs are simultaneously investigated provide gains over separate single- or two-arm trials. In this paper we propose a generic Bayesian adaptive decision-theoretic design for multi-arm multi-stage clinical trials with K (K ≥ 2) arms. The basic idea is that after each stage a decision about continuation of the trial and accrual of patients for an additional stage is made on the basis of the expected reduction in loss. For this purpose, we define a loss function that incorporates the patient accrual costs as well as costs associated with an incorrect decision at the end of the trial. An attractive feature of our loss function is that its estimation is computationally undemanding, also when K > 2. We evaluate the frequentist operating characteristics for settings with a binary outcome and multiple experimental arms. We consider both the situation with and without a control arm. In a simulation study, we show that our design increases the probability of making a correct decision at the end of the trial as compared to nonadaptive designs and adaptive two-stage designs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: For many disease areas, there are often treatments in different stages of the development process. We consider the design of a two-arm parallel group trial where it is planned to add a new experimental treatment arm during the trial. This could potentially save money, patients, time and resources; however, the addition of a treatment arm creates a multiple comparison problem. Current practice in trials when a new treatment arm has been added is to compare the new treatment only to controls randomised concurrently, and this is the setting we consider here. Furthermore, for standard multi-arm trials, optimal allocation randomises a larger number of patients to the control arm than to each experimental treatment arm.Methods: In this paper we propose an adaptive design, the aim of which is to adapt the sample size of the trial when the new treatment arm is added to control the family-wise error rate (FWER) in the strong sense, whilst maintaining the marginal power of each treatment-to-control comparison at the level of the original study. We explore optimal allocation for designs where a treatment arm is added with the aim of increasing the overall power of the study, where we define the overall power to be the probability of detecting all treatments that are better than the control.Results and Conclusions: An increase in sample size is required to maintain the marginal power for each pairwise comparison when adding a treatment arm if control of the FWER is required at the level of the type I error in the original study. When control of the FWER is required in a single trial which adds an additional experimental treatment arm, but control of the FWER is not required in separate trials, depending on the design characteristics, it may be better to run a separate trial for each experimental treatment, in terms of the number of patients required. An increase in overall power can be achieved when optimal allocation is used once a treatment arm has been added to the trial, rather than continuing with equal allocation to all treatment arms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper aims to investigate whether any bridge is possible between so-called best intention and D-optimum designs. It introduces combined criteria for dose optimisation in seamless phase I/II adaptive clinical trials. Each of the optimality criteria considers efficacy and toxicity as endpoints and is based on the probability of a successful outcome and on the determinant of the Fisher information matrix for estimation of the dose-response parameters. In addition, one of the criteria incorporates penalties for choosing a toxic or inefficacious dose. Starting with the lowest dose, the adaptive design selects the dose for each subsequent cohort that maximises the respective defined criterion. The methodology is illustrated with a dose-response model that assumes trinomial responses. Simulation studies show that the method is capable of identifying the optimal dose accurately without exposing many patients to toxic doses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The application of adaptive design methodology within a clinical trial setting is becoming increasingly popular. However the application of these methods within trials is not being reported as adaptive designs hence making it more difficult to capture the emerging use of these designs. Within this review, we aim to understand how adaptive design methodology is being reported, whether these methods are explicitly stated as an 'adaptive design' or if it has to be inferred and to identify whether these methods are applied prospectively or concurrently.Methods: Three databases; Embase, Ovid and PubMed were chosen to conduct the literature search. The inclusion criteria for the review were phase II, phase III and phase II/III randomised controlled trials within the field of Oncology that published trial results in 2015. A variety of search terms related to adaptive designs were used.Results: A total of 734 results were identified, after screening 54 were eligible. Adaptive designs were more commonly applied in phase III confirmatory trials. The majority of the papers performed an interim analysis, which included some sort of stopping criteria. Additionally only two papers explicitly stated the term 'adaptive design' and therefore for most of the papers, it had to be inferred that adaptive methods was applied. Sixty-five applications of adaptive design methods were applied, from which the most common method was an adaptation using group sequential methods.Conclusions: This review indicated that the reporting of adaptive design methodology within clinical trials needs improving. The proposed extension to the current CONSORT 2010 guidelines could help capture adaptive design methods. Furthermore provide an essential aid to those involved with clinical trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is well known that the treatment effect of a molecularly targeted agent (MTA) may vary dramatically, depending on each patient's biomarker profile. Therefore, for a clinical trial evaluating MTA, it is more reasonable to evaluate its treatment effect within different marker subgroups rather than evaluating the average treatment effect for the overall population. The marker-stratified design (MSD) provides a useful tool to evaluate the subgroup treatment effects of MTAs. Under the Bayesian framework, the beta-binomial model is conventionally used under the MSD to estimate the response rate and test the hypothesis. However, this conventional model ignores the fact that the biomarker used in the MSD is, in general, predictive only for the MTA. The response rates for the standard treatment can be approximately consistent across different subgroups stratified by the biomarker. In this paper, we proposed a Bayesian hierarchical model incorporating this biomarker information into consideration. The proposed model uses a hierarchical prior to borrow strength across different subgroups of patients receiving the standard treatment and, therefore, improve the efficiency of the design. Prior informativeness is determined by solving a "customized" equation reflecting the physician's professional opinion. We developed a Bayesian adaptive design based on the proposed hierarchical model to guide the treatment allocation and test the subgroup treatment effect as well as the predictive marker effect. Simulation studies and a real trial application demonstrate that the proposed design yields desirable operating characteristics and outperforms the existing designs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Adequate reporting of adaptive designs (ADs) maximises their potential benefits in the conduct of clinical trials. Transparent reporting can help address some obstacles and concerns relating to the use of ADs. Currently, there are deficiencies in the reporting of AD trials. To overcome this, we have developed a consensus-driven extension to the CONSORT statement for randomised trials using an AD. This paper describes the processes and methods used to develop this extension rather than detailed explanation of the guideline.Methods: We developed the guideline in seven overlapping stages: 1) Building on prior research to inform the need for a guideline; 2) A scoping literature review to inform future stages; 3) Drafting the first checklist version involving an External Expert Panel; 4) A two-round Delphi process involving international, multidisciplinary, and cross-sector key stakeholders; 5) A consensus meeting to advise which reporting items to retain through voting, and to discuss the structure of what to include in the supporting explanation and elaboration (E&E) document; 6) Refining and finalising the checklist; and 7) Writing-up and dissemination of the E&E document. The CONSORT Executive Group oversaw the entire development process.Results: Delphi survey response rates were 94/143 (66%), 114/156 (73%), and 79/143 (55%) in rounds 1, 2, and across both rounds, respectively. Twenty-seven delegates from Europe, the USA, and Asia attended the consensus meeting. The main checklist has seven new and nine modified items and six unchanged items with expanded E&E text to clarify further considerations for ADs. The abstract checklist has one new and one modified item together with an unchanged item with expanded E&E text. The E&E document will describe the scope of the guideline, the definition of an AD, and some types of ADs and trial adaptations and explain each reporting item in detail including case studies.Conclusions: We hope that making the development processes, methods, and all supporting information that aided decision-making transparent will enhance the acceptability and quick uptake of the guideline. This will also help other groups when developing similar CONSORT extensions. The guideline is applicable to all randomised trials with an AD and contains minimum reporting requirements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sample size plays a crucial role in clinical trials. Flexible sample-size designs, as part of the more general category of adaptive designs that utilize interim data, have been a popular topic in recent years. In this paper, we give a comparative review of four related methods for such a design. The likelihood method uses the likelihood ratio test with an adjusted critical value. The weighted method adjusts the test statistic with given weights rather than the critical value. The dual test method requires both the likelihood ratio statistic and the weighted statistic to be greater than the unadjusted critical value. The promising zone approach uses the likelihood ratio statistic with the unadjusted value and other constraints. All four methods preserve the type-I error rate. In this paper we explore their properties and compare their relationships and merits. We show that the sample size rules for the dual test are in conflict with the rules of the promising zone approach. We delineate what is necessary to specify in the study protocol to ensure the validity of the statistical procedure and what can be kept implicit in the protocol so that more flexibility can be attained for confirmatory phase III trials in meeting regulatory requirements. We also prove that under mild conditions, the likelihood ratio test still preserves the type-I error rate when the actual sample size is larger than the re-calculated one. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper deals with the design of the likelihood continual reassessment method, which is an increasingly widely used model-based method for dose-finding studies. It is common to implement the method in a two-stage approach, whereby the model-based stage is activated after an initial sequence of patients has been treated. While this two-stage approach is practically appealing, it lacks a theoretical framework, and it is often unclear how the design components should be specified. This paper develops a general framework based on the coherence principle, from which we derive a design calibration process. A real clinical-trial example is used to demonstrate that the proposed process can be implemented in a timely and reproducible manner, while offering competitive operating characteristics. We explore the operating characteristics of different models within this framework and show the performance to be insensitive to the choice of dose-toxicity model. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Seamless phase II/III clinical trials have attracted increasing attention recently. They mainly use Bayesian response adaptive randomization (RAR) designs. There has been little research into seamless clinical trials using frequentist RAR designs because of the difficulty in performing valid statistical inference following this procedure. The well-designed frequentist RAR designs can target theoretically optimal allocation proportions, and they have explicit asymptotic results. In this paper, we study the asymptotic properties of frequentist RAR designs with adjusted target allocation proportions, and investigate statistical inference for this procedure. The properties of the proposed design provide an important theoretical foundation for advanced seamless clinical trials. Our numerical studies demonstrate that the design is ethical and efficient. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With the development of molecular targeted drugs, predictive biomarkers have played an increasingly important role in identifying patients who are likely to receive clinically meaningful benefits from experimental drugs (i.e., sensitive subpopulation) even in early clinical trials. For continuous biomarkers, such as mRNA levels, it is challenging to determine cutoff value for the sensitive subpopulation, and widely accepted study designs and statistical approaches are not currently available. In this paper, we propose the Bayesian adaptive patient enrollment restriction (BAPER) approach to identify the sensitive subpopulation while restricting enrollment of patients from the insensitive subpopulation based on the results of interim analyses, in a randomized phase 2 trial with time-to-endpoint outcome and a single biomarker. Applying a four-parameter change-point model to the relationship between the biomarker and hazard ratio, we calculate the posterior distribution of the cutoff value that exhibits the target hazard ratio and use it for the restriction of the enrollment and the identification of the sensitive subpopulation. We also consider interim monitoring rules for termination because of futility or efficacy. Extensive simulations demonstrated that our proposed approach reduced the number of enrolled patients from the insensitive subpopulation, relative to an approach with no enrollment restriction, without reducing the likelihood of a correct decision for next trial (no-go, go with entire population, or go with sensitive subpopulation) or correct identification of the sensitive subpopulation. Additionally, the four-parameter change-point model had a better performance over a wide range of simulation scenarios than a commonly used dichotomization approach. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simon's optimal two-stage design has been widely used in early phase clinical trials for Oncology and AIDS studies with binary endpoints. With this approach, the second-stage sample size is fixed when the trial passes the first stage with sufficient activity. Adaptive designs, such as those due to Banerjee and Tsiatis (2006) and Englert and Kieser (2013), are flexible in the sense that the second-stage sample size depends on the response from the first stage, and these designs are often seen to reduce the expected sample size under the null hypothesis as compared with Simon's approach. An unappealing trait of the existing designs is that they are not associated with a second-stage sample size, which is a non-increasing function of the first-stage response rate. In this paper, an efficient intelligent process, the branch-and-bound algorithm, is used in extensively searching for the optimal adaptive design with the smallest expected sample size under the null, while the type I and II error rates are maintained and the aforementioned monotonicity characteristic is respected. The proposed optimal design is observed to have smaller expected sample sizes compared to Simon's optimal design, and the maximum total sample size of the proposed adaptive design is very close to that from Simon's method. The proposed optimal adaptive two-stage design is recommended for use in practice to improve the flexibility and efficiency of early phase therapeutic development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper is motivated by a phase I-II clinical trial of a targeted agent for advanced solid tumors. We study a stylized version of this trial with the goal to determine optimal actions in each of two cycles of therapy. A design is presented that generalizes the decision-theoretic two-cycle design of Lee and others (2015. Bayesian dose-finding in two treatment cycles based on the joint utility of efficacy and toxicity. Journal of the American Statistical Association, to appear) to accommodate ordinal outcomes. Backward induction is used to jointly optimize the actions taken for each patient in each of the two cycles, with the second action accounting for the patient's cycle 1 dose and outcomes. A simulation study shows that simpler designs obtained by dichotomizing the ordinal outcomes either perform very similarly to the proposed design, or have much worse performance in some scenarios. We also compare the proposed design with the simpler approaches of optimizing the doses in each cycle separately, or ignoring the distinction between cycles 1 and 2. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Adaptive designs have the potential to improve efficiency in the evaluation of new medical treatments in comparison to traditional fixed sample size designs. However, they are still not widely used in practice in clinical research. Little research has been conducted to investigate what adaptive designs are being undertaken. This review highlights the current state of registered adaptive designs and their characteristics. The review looked at phase II, II/III and III trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov from 29 February 2000 to 1 June 2014, supplemented with trials from the National Institute for Health Research register and known adaptive trials. A range of adaptive design search terms were applied to the trials extracted from each database. Characteristics of the adaptive designs were then recorded including funder, therapeutic area and type of adaptation. The results in the paper suggest that the use of adaptive designs has increased. They seem to be most often used in phase II trials and in oncology. In phase III trials, the most popular form of adaptation is the group sequential design. The review failed to capture all trials with adaptive designs, which suggests that the reporting of adaptive designs, such as in clinical trials registers, needs much improving. We recommend that clinical trial registers should contain sections dedicated to the type and scope of the adaptation and that the term 'adaptive design' should be included in the trial title or at least in the brief summary or design sections. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, we present the dfcomb R package for the implementation of a single prospective clinical trial or simulation studies of phase I combination trials in oncology. The aim is to present the features of the package and to illustrate how to use it in practice though different examples. The use of combination clinical trials is growing, but the implementation of existing model-based methods is complex, so this package should promote the use of innovative adaptive designs for early phases combination trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Time to event is the clinically definitive endpoint in Phase III trials of new treatments of cancer, cardiovascular and many other diseases. Because these trials involve relatively long follow-up, their protocols usually incorporate periodic interim analyses of the data by a Data and Safety Monitoring Board/Committee. This paper gives a review of the major developments in the design of these trials in the 21st century, spurred by the need for better clinical trial designs to cope with the remarkable advances in cancer biology, genomics and imaging that can help predict patients' sensitivity or resistance to certain treatments. In addition to this overview and discussion of related issues and challenges, we also introduce a new approach to address some of these issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simon's two-stage designs are widely used in cancer phase II clinical trials for assessing the efficacy of a new treatment. However in practice, the actual sample size for the second stage is often different from the planned sample size, and the original inference procedure is no longer valid. Previous work on this problem has certain limitations in computation. In this paper, we attempt to maximize the unconditional power while controlling for the type I error for the modified second stage sample size. A normal approximation is used for computing the power, and the numerical results show that the approximation is accurate even under small sample sizes. The corresponding confidence intervals for the response rate are constructed by inverting the hypothesis test, and they have reasonable coverage while preserving the type I error. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Adaptive population enrichment designs enable the data-driven selection of one or more pre-specified subpopulations in an interim analysis, and the confirmatory proof of efficacy in the selected subset at the end of the trial. Sample size reassessment and other adaptive design changes can be performed as well. Strong control of the experimentwise Type I error rate is guaranteed by use of the combination testing principle together with the closed testing argument. In this paper the general methodology and designing issues when planning such a design are reviewed. It is shown how to derive overall confidence intervals andp-values. Criteria for assessing the operating characteristics of these designs are given, and the application is illustrated by examples. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Incorporating an emerging therapy as a new randomisation arm in a clinical trial that is open to recruitment would be desirable to researchers, regulators and patients to ensure that the trial remains current, new treatments are evaluated as quickly as possible, and the time and cost for determining optimal therapies is minimised. It may take many years to run a clinical trial from concept to reporting within a rapidly changing drug development environment; hence, in order for trials to be most useful to inform policy and practice, it is advantageous for them to be able to adapt to emerging therapeutic developments. This paper reports a comprehensive literature review on methodologies for, and practical examples of, amending an ongoing clinical trial by adding a new treatment arm. Relevant methodological literature describing statistical considerations required when making this specific type of amendment is identified, and the key statistical concepts when planning the addition of a new treatment arm are extracted, assessed and summarised. For completeness, this includes an assessment of statistical recommendations within general adaptive design guidance documents. Examples of confirmatory ongoing trials designed within the frequentist framework that have added an arm in practice are reported; and the details of the amendment are reviewed. An assessment is made as to how well the relevant statistical considerations were addressed in practice, and the related implications. The literature review confirmed that there is currently no clear methodological guidance on this topic, but that guidance would be advantageous to help this efficient design amendment to be used more frequently and appropriately in practice. Eight confirmatory trials were identified to have added a treatment arm, suggesting that trials can benefit from this amendment and that it can be practically feasible; however, the trials were not always able to address the key statistical considerations, often leading to uninterpretable or invalid outcomes. If the statistical concepts identified within this review are considered and addressed during the design of a trial amendment, it is possible to effectively assess a new treatment arm within an ongoing trial without compromising the original trial outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The field of telehealth and telemedicine is expanding as the need to improve efficiency of health care becomes more pressing. The decision to implement a telehealth system is generally an expensive undertaking that impacts a large number of patients and other stakeholders. It is therefore extremely important that the decision is fully supported by accurate evaluation of telehealth interventions. Objective Numerous reviews of telehealth have described the evidence base as inconsistent. In response they call for larger, more rigorously controlled trials, and trials which go beyond evaluation of clinical effectiveness alone. The aim of this paper is to discuss various ways in which evaluation of telehealth could be improved by the use of adaptive trial designs. Results We discuss various adaptive design options, such as sample size reviews and changing the study hypothesis to address uncertain parameters, group sequential trials and multi-arm multi-stage trials to improve efficiency, and enrichment designs to maximise the chances of obtaining clear evidence about the telehealth intervention. Conclusion There is potential to address the flaws discussed in the telehealth literature through the adoption of adaptive approaches to trial design. Such designs could lead to improvements in efficiency, allow the evaluation of multiple telehealth interventions in a cost-effective way, or accurately assess a range of endpoints that are important in the overall success of a telehealth programme. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Adaptive designs are a wide class of methods focused on improving the power, efficiency and participant benefit of clinical trials. They do this through allowing information gathered during the trial to be used to make changes in a statistically robust manner - the changes could include which treatment arms patients are enrolled to (e.g. dropping non-promising treatment arms), the allocation ratios, the target sample size or the enrolment criteria of the trial. Generally, we are enthusiastic about adaptive designs and advocate their use in many clinical situations. However, they are not always advantageous. In some situations, they provide little efficiency advantage or are even detrimental to the quality of information provided by the trial. In our experience, factors that reduce the efficiency of adaptive designs are routinely downplayed or ignored in methodological papers, which may lead researchers into believing they are more beneficial than they actually are.Main Text: In this paper, we discuss situations where adaptive designs may not be as useful, including situations when the outcomes take a long time to observe, when dropping arms early may cause issues and when increased practical complexity eliminates theoretical efficiency gains.Conclusion: Adaptive designs often provide notable efficiency benefits. However, it is important for investigators to be aware that they do not always provide an advantage. There should always be careful consideration of the potential benefits and disadvantages of an adaptive design. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Once scientific questions are determined, other design features of clinical trials including increasing the power while controlling the type I error rate, planning interim analysis, and achieving treatment balance among subgroups will be either required or preferred. We propose to sequentially monitor the covariate adaptive randomization (CAR) procedures with sample size re-estimation (SSR) to satisfy a variety of design objectives of clinical trials. However, each of the three adaptive designs (sequential monitoring, CAR, and SSR) poses a challenge to the control of the type I error rate. In this paper, we investigated how to utilize the advantages of the three adaptive methods and control the type I error rate. We proved that the asymptotic joint distribution of the sequential statistics follows the asymptotic canonical joint distribution defined in Jennison and Turnbull [14]. Besides, numerical studies demonstrated that our methods could control the type I error rate, increase the power, and lead to much-improved treatment balance across subgroups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]