Search

Background: There is a growing interest in the use of Bayesian adaptive designs in late-phase clinical trials. This includes the use of stopping rules based on Bayesian analyses in which the frequentist type I error rate is controlled as in frequentist group-sequential designs.Methods: This paper presents a practical comparison of Bayesian and frequentist group-sequential tests. Focussing on the setting in which data can be summarised by normally distributed test statistics, we evaluate and compare boundary values and operating characteristics.Results: Although Bayesian and frequentist group-sequential approaches are based on fundamentally different paradigms, in a single arm trial or two-arm comparative trial with a prior distribution specified for the treatment difference, Bayesian and frequentist group-sequential tests can have identical stopping rules if particular critical values with which the posterior probability is compared or particular spending function values are chosen. If the Bayesian critical values at different looks are restricted to be equal, O'Brien and Fleming's design corresponds to a Bayesian design with an exceptionally informative negative prior, Pocock's design to a Bayesian design with a non-informative prior and frequentist designs with a linear alpha spending function are very similar to Bayesian designs with slightly informative priors.This contrasts with the setting of a comparative trial with independent prior distributions specified for treatment effects in different groups. In this case Bayesian and frequentist group-sequential tests cannot have the same stopping rule as the Bayesian stopping rule depends on the observed means in the two groups and not just on their difference. In this setting the Bayesian test can only be guaranteed to control the type I error for a specified range of values of the control group treatment effect.Conclusions: Comparison of frequentist and Bayesian designs can encourage careful thought about design parameters and help to ensure appropriate design choices are made. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The need for efficient clinical trial designs has led to the development of flexible multi-arm designs. In this paper, we investigated sample size re-estimation (SSR) methods for fully flexible designs that allow for any unplanned treatment selection, early stopping for efficacy or futility. Even though SSR methods for two-arm trials are well developed, they are not directly applicable to certain fully flexible multi-arm trials due to the application of the closed test procedure. We derive SSR procedures based on the conditional power approach in the context of confirmatory multi-arm trials for three designs: inverse normal combination test, Fisher's combination test and flexible group sequential design. We conduct extensive simulation studies to evaluate the performance of the three designs with and without SSR. Results show that the relative performance of the three designs depends on many factors. In practice, simulation studies are usually necessary to help determine the most appropriate design. [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]

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 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]

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]