Search

Basket trials are a novel clinical trial design in which a single intervention is investigated in multiple patient subgroups, or "baskets." They offer the opportunity to share information between subgroups, potentially increasing power to detect treatment effects. Basket trials offer several advantages over running a series of separate trials, including reduced sample sizes, increased efficiency, and reduced costs. Primarily, basket trials have been undertaken in Phase II oncology settings, but could be a promising design in other areas where a shared underlying biological mechanism drives different diseases. One such area is chronic aging‐related diseases. However, trials in this area frequently have longitudinal outcomes, and therefore suitable methods are needed to share information in this setting. In this paper, we extend three Bayesian borrowing methods for a basket design with continuous longitudinal endpoints. We demonstrate our methods on a real‐world dataset and in a simulation study where the aim is to detect positive basketwise treatment effects. Methods are compared with standalone analysis of each basket without borrowing. Our results confirm that methods that share information can improve power to detect positive treatment effects and increase precision over independent analysis in many scenarios. In highly heterogeneous scenarios, there is a trade‐off between increased power and increased risk of type I errors. Our proposed methods for basket trials with continuous longitudinal outcomes aim to facilitate their applicability in the area of aging related diseases. Choice of method should be made based on trial priorities and the expected basketwise distribution of treatment effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper develops Bayesian sample size formulae for experiments comparing two groups, where relevant preexperimental information from multiple sources can be incorporated in a robust prior to support both the design and analysis. We use commensurate predictive priors for borrowing of information and further place Gamma mixture priors on the precisions to account for preliminary belief about the pairwise (in)commensurability between parameters that underpin the historical and new experiments. Averaged over the probability space of the new experimental data, appropriate sample sizes are found according to criteria that control certain aspects of the posterior distribution, such as the coverage probability or length of a defined density region. Our Bayesian methodology can be applied to circumstances that compare two normal means, proportions, or event times. When nuisance parameters (such as variance) in the new experiment are unknown, a prior distribution can further be specified based on preexperimental data. Exact solutions are available based on most of the criteria considered for Bayesian sample size determination, while a search procedure is described in cases for which there are no closed‐form expressions. We illustrate the application of our sample size formulae in the design of clinical trials, where pretrial information is available to be leveraged. Hypothetical data examples, motivated by a rare‐disease trial with an elicited expert prior opinion, and a comprehensive performance evaluation of the proposed methodology are presented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The existing cross-validated risk scores (CVRS) design has been proposed for developing and testing the efficacy of a treatment in a high-efficacy patient group (the sensitive group) using high-dimensional data (such as genetic data). The design is based on computing a risk score for each patient and dividing them into clusters using a nonparametric clustering procedure. In some settings, it is desirable to consider the tradeoff between two outcomes, such as efficacy and toxicity, or cost and effectiveness. With this motivation, we extend the CVRS design (CVRS2) to consider two outcomes. The design employs bivariate risk scores that are divided into clusters. We assess the properties of the CVRS2 using simulated data and illustrate its application on a randomized psychiatry trial. We show that CVRS2 is able to reliably identify the sensitive group (the group for which the new treatment provides benefit on both outcomes) in the simulated data. We apply the CVRS2 design to a psychology clinical trial that had offender status and substance use status as two outcomes and collected a large number of baseline covariates. The CVRS2 design yields a significant treatment effect for both outcomes, while the CVRS approach identified a significant effect for the offender status only after prefiltering the covariates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Basket trials are an innovative precision medicine clinical trial design evaluating a single targeted therapy across multiple diseases that share a common characteristic. To date, most basket trials have been conducted in early‐phase oncology settings, for which several Bayesian methods permitting information sharing across subtrials have been proposed. With the increasing interest of implementing randomised basket trials, information borrowing could be exploited in two ways; considering the commensurability of either the treatment effects or the outcomes specific to each of the treatment groups between the subtrials. In this article, we extend a previous analysis model based on distributional discrepancy for borrowing over the subtrial treatment effects ('treatment effect borrowing', TEB) to borrowing over the subtrial groupwise responses ('treatment response borrowing', TRB). Simulation results demonstrate that both modelling strategies provide substantial gains over an approach with no borrowing. TRB outperforms TEB especially when subtrial sample sizes are small on all operational characteristics, while the latter has considerable gains in performance over TRB when subtrial sample sizes are large, or the treatment effects and groupwise mean responses are noticeably heterogeneous across subtrials. Further, we notice that TRB, and TEB can potentially lead to different conclusions in the analysis of real data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simon's two-stage design is a widely used adaptive design, particularly in phase II oncology trials due to its simplicity and efficiency. However, its efficiency can be adversely affected when the primary end-point takes time to observe, as is common in practice. We propose an optimal design, taking the delay in observing treatment outcome into consideration and compare the efficiency gained from using Simon's design over a single-stage design for real-life oncology trials. Based on the results, we provide a general rule-of-thumb for determining whether a two-stage single-arm design can provide any added advantage over a single-stage design, given the recruitment rate and primary end-point length. We observed an average 15–30% loss in the estimated efficiency gain in real oncology trials that used Simon's design due to the delay in observing the treatment outcome. The delay-optimal design provides some advantage over Simon's design in terms of reduced sample size when the delay is large compared to the recruitment length. Simon's two-stage design provides large benefit over a single-stage design, in terms of reduced sample size, when the primary end-point length is no more than 10% of the total recruitment time. It provides no efficiency advantage when this ratio is above 50%. • The delay in observing treatment outcome reduces the efficiency of an adaptive trial. • Oncology trials using Simon's design lost 15–30% efficiency on average due to delay. • A delay-optimal design helps to overcome these issues if the delay is moderate. • Simon's design maximises gain if delay is less than 10% of total recruitment time. • Simon's design is inefficient when delay is more than 50% of total recruitment time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Efficient trial designs are required to prioritise promising drugs within Phase II trials. Adaptive designs are examples of such designs, but their efficiency is reduced if there is a delay in assessing patient responses to treatment.Methods: Motivated by the WIRE trial in renal cell carcinoma (NCT03741426), we compare three trial approaches to testing multiple treatment arms: (1) single-arm trials in sequence with interim analyses; (2) a parallel multi-arm multi-stage trial and (3) the design used in WIRE, which we call the Multi-Arm Sequential Trial with Efficient Recruitment (MASTER) design. The MASTER design recruits patients to one arm at a time, pausing recruitment to an arm when it has recruited the required number for an interim analysis. We conduct a simulation study to compare how long the three different trial designs take to evaluate a number of new treatment arms.Results: The parallel multi-arm multi-stage and the MASTER design are much more efficient than separate trials. The MASTER design provides extra efficiency when there is endpoint delay, or recruitment is very quick.Conclusions: We recommend the MASTER design as an efficient way of testing multiple promising cancer treatments in non-comparative Phase II trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Basket trials have emerged as a new class of efficient approaches in oncology to evaluate a new treatment in several patient subgroups simultaneously. In this article, we extend the key ideas to disease areas outside of oncology, developing a robust Bayesian methodology for randomized, placebo-controlled basket trials with a continuous endpoint to enable borrowing of information across subtrials with similar treatment effects. After adjusting for covariates, information from a complementary subtrial can be represented into a commensurate prior for the parameter that underpins the subtrial under consideration. We propose using distributional discrepancy to characterize the commensurability between subtrials for appropriate borrowing of information through a spike-and-slab prior, which is placed on the prior precision factor. When the basket trial has at least three subtrials, commensurate priors for point-to-point borrowing are combined into a marginal predictive prior, according to the weights transformed from the pairwise discrepancy measures. In this way, only information from subtrial(s) with the most commensurate treatment effect is leveraged. The marginal predictive prior is updated to a robust posterior by the contemporary subtrial data to inform decision making. Operating characteristics of the proposed methodology are evaluated through simulations motivated by a real basket trial in chronic diseases. The proposed methodology has advantages compared to other selected Bayesian analysis models, for (i) identifying the most commensurate source of information and (ii) gauging the degree of borrowing from specific subtrials. Numerical results also suggest that our methodology can improve the precision of estimates and, potentially, the statistical power for hypothesis testing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

External pilot trials of complex interventions are used to help determine if and how a confirmatory trial should be undertaken, providing estimates of parameters such as recruitment, retention, and adherence rates. The decision to progress to the confirmatory trial is typically made by comparing these estimates to pre-specified thresholds known as progression criteria, although the statistical properties of such decision rules are rarely assessed. Such assessment is complicated by several methodological challenges, including the simultaneous evaluation of multiple endpoints, complex multi-level models, small sample sizes, and uncertainty in nuisance parameters. In response to these challenges, we describe a Bayesian approach to the design and analysis of external pilot trials. We show how progression decisions can be made by minimizing the expected value of a loss function, defined over the whole parameter space to allow for preferences and trade-offs between multiple parameters to be articulated and used in the decision-making process. The assessment of preferences is kept feasible by using a piecewise constant parametrization of the loss function, the parameters of which are chosen at the design stage to lead to desirable operating characteristics. We describe a flexible, yet computationally intensive, nested Monte Carlo algorithm for estimating operating characteristics. The method is used to revisit the design of an external pilot trial of a complex intervention designed to increase the physical activity of care home residents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We describe and compare two methods for the group sequential design of two-arm experiments with Poisson distributed data, which are based on a normal approximation and exact calculations respectively. A framework to determine near-optimal stopping boundaries is also presented. Using this framework, for a considered example, we demonstrate that a group sequential design could reduce the expected sample size under the null hypothesis by as much as 44% compared to a fixed sample approach. We conclude with a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of the two presented procedures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When simultaneously testing multiple hypotheses, the usual approach in the context of confirmatory clinical trials is to control the familywise error rate (FWER), which bounds the probability of making at least one false rejection. In many trial settings, these hypotheses will additionally have a hierarchical structure that reflects the relative importance and links between different clinical objectives. The graphical approach of Bretz et al (2009) is a flexible and easily communicable way of controlling the FWER while respecting complex trial objectives and multiple structured hypotheses. However, the FWER can be a very stringent criterion that leads to procedures with low power, and may not be appropriate in exploratory trial settings. This motivates controlling generalized error rates, particularly when the number of hypotheses tested is no longer small. We consider the generalized familywise error rate (k-FWER), which is the probability of making k or more false rejections, as well as the tail probability of the false discovery proportion (FDP), which is the probability that the proportion of false rejections is greater than some threshold. We also consider asymptotic control of the false discovery rate, which is the expectation of the FDP. In this article, we show how to control these generalized error rates when using the graphical approach and its extensions. We demonstrate the utility of the resulting graphical procedures on three clinical trial case studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Multi-arm designs provide an effective means of evaluating several treatments within the same clinical trial. Given the large number of treatments now available for testing in many disease areas, it has been argued that their utilisation should increase. However, for any given clinical trial there are numerous possible multi-arm designs that could be used, and choosing between them can be a difficult task. This task is complicated further by a lack of available easy-to-use software for designing multi-arm trials.Results: To aid the wider implementation of multi-arm clinical trial designs, we have developed a web application for sample size calculation when using a variety of popular multiple comparison corrections. Furthermore, the application supports sample size calculation to control several varieties of power, as well as the determination of optimised arm-wise allocation ratios. It is built using the Shiny package in the R programming language, is free to access on any device with an internet browser, and requires no programming knowledge to use. It incorporates a variety of features to make it easier to use, including help boxes and warning messages. Using design parameters motivated by a recently completed phase II oncology trial, we demonstrate that the application can effectively determine and evaluate complex multi-arm trial designs.Conclusions: The application provides the core information required by statisticians and clinicians to review the operating characteristics of a chosen multi-arm clinical trial design. The range of designs supported by the application is broader than other currently available software solutions. Its primary limitation, particularly from a regulatory agency point of view, is its lack of validation. However, we present an approach to efficiently confirming its results via simulation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Phase II oncology trials are conducted to evaluate whether the tumour activity of a new treatment is promising enough to warrant further investigation. The most commonly used approach in this context is a two-stage single-arm design with binary endpoint. As for all designs with interim analysis, its efficiency strongly depends on the relation between recruitment rate and follow-up time required to measure the patients' outcomes. Usually, recruitment is postponed after the sample size of the first stage is achieved up until the outcomes of all patients are available. This may lead to a considerable increase of the trial length and with it to a delay in the drug development process. We propose a design where an intermediate endpoint is used in the interim analysis to decide whether or not the study is continued with a second stage. Optimal and minimax versions of this design are derived. The characteristics of the proposed design in terms of type I error rate, power, maximum and expected sample size as well as trial duration are investigated. Guidance is given on how to select the most appropriate design. Application is illustrated by a phase II oncology trial in patients with advanced angiosarcoma, which motivated this research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Phase II oncology trials are carried out to assess whether an experimental anti-cancer treatment shows sufficient signs of effectiveness to justify being tested in a phase III trial. Traditionally such trials are conducted as single-arm studies using a binary response rate as the primary endpoint. In this article, we review and contrast alternative approaches for such studies. Each approach uses only data that are necessary for the traditional analysis. We consider two broad classes of methods: ones that aim to improve the efficiency using novel design ideas, such as multi-stage and multi-arm multi-stage designs; and ones that aim to improve the analysis, by making better use of the richness of the data that is ignored in the traditional analysis. The former class of methods provides considerable gains in efficiency but also increases the administrative and logistical issues in running the trial. The second class consists of viable alternatives to the standard analysis that come with little additional requirements and provide considerable gains in efficiency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/Aims: The stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial design has received substantial attention in recent years. Although various extensions to the original design have been proposed, no guidance is available on the design of stepped-wedge cluster randomised trials with interim analyses. In an individually randomised trial setting, group sequential methods can provide notable efficiency gains and ethical benefits. We address this by discussing how established group sequential methodology can be adapted for stepped-wedge designs. Methods: Utilising the error spending approach to group sequential trial design, we detail the assumptions required for the determination of stepped-wedge cluster randomised trials with interim analyses. We consider early stopping for efficacy, futility, or efficacy and futility. We describe first how this can be done for any specified linear mixed model for data analysis. We then focus on one particular commonly utilised model and using a recently completed stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial, compare the performance of several designs with interim analyses to the classical stepped-wedge design. Finally, the performance of a quantile substitution procedure for dealing with the case of unknown variance is explored. Results: We demonstrate that the incorporation of early stopping in stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial designs could reduce the expected sample size under the null and alternative hypotheses by up to 31% and 22%, respectively, with no cost to the trial's type-I and type-II error rates. The use of restricted error maximum likelihood estimation was found to be more important than quantile substitution for controlling the type-I error rate. Conclusion: The addition of interim analyses into stepped-wedge cluster randomised trials could help guard against time-consuming trials conducted on poor performing treatments and also help expedite the implementation of efficacious treatments. In future, trialists should consider incorporating early stopping of some kind into stepped-wedge cluster randomised trials according to the needs of the particular trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Multi-arm multi-stage trials can improve the efficiency of the drug development process when multiple new treatments are available for testing. A group-sequential approach can be used in order to design multi-arm multi-stage trials, using an extension to Dunnett's multiple-testing procedure. The actual sample size used in such a trial is a random variable that has high variability. This can cause problems when applying for funding as the cost will also be generally highly variable. This motivates a type of design that provides the efficiency advantages of a group-sequential multi-arm multi-stage design, but has a fixed sample size. One such design is the two-stage drop-the-losers design, in which a number of experimental treatments, and a control treatment, are assessed at a prescheduled interim analysis. The best-performing experimental treatment and the control treatment then continue to a second stage. In this paper, we discuss extending this design to have more than two stages, which is shown to considerably reduce the sample size required. We also compare the resulting sample size requirements to the sample size distribution of analogous group-sequential multi-arm multi-stage designs. The sample size required for a multi-stage drop-the-losers design is usually higher than, but close to, the median sample size of a group-sequential multi-arm multi-stage trial. In many practical scenarios, the disadvantage of a slight loss in average efficiency would be overcome by the huge advantage of a fixed sample size. We assess the impact of delay between recruitment and assessment as well as unknown variance on the drop-the-losers designs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The stepped wedge (SW) cluster randomized controlled trial (CRCT) design is being used with increasing frequency. However, there is limited published research on the quality of reporting of SW-CRCTs. We address this issue by conducting a literature review.Methods: Medline, Ovid, Web of Knowledge, the Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, the ISRCTN registry, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched to identify investigations employing the SW-CRCT design up to February 2015. For each included completed study, information was extracted on a selection of criteria, based on the CONSORT extension to CRCTs, to assess the quality of reporting.Results: A total of 123 studies were included in our review, of which 39 were completed trial reports. The standard of reporting of SW-CRCTs varied in quality. The percentage of trials reporting each criterion varied to as low as 15.4%, with a median of 66.7%.Conclusions: There is much room for improvement in the quality of reporting of SW-CRCTs. This is consistent with recent findings for CRCTs. A CONSORT extension for SW-CRCTs is warranted to standardize the reporting of SW-CRCTs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Potential predictive biomarkers are often measured on a continuous scale, but in practice, a threshold value to divide the patient population into biomarker 'positive' and 'negative' is desirable. Early phase clinical trials are increasingly using biomarkers for patient selection, but at this stage, it is likely that little will be known about the relationship between the biomarker and the treatment outcome. We describe a single-arm trial design with adaptive enrichment, which can increase power to demonstrate efficacy within a patient subpopulation, the parameters of which are also estimated. Our design enables us to learn about the biomarker and optimally adjust the threshold during the study, using a combination of generalised linear modelling and Bayesian prediction. At the final analysis, a binomial exact test is carried out, allowing the hypothesis that 'no population subset exists in which the novel treatment has a desirable response rate' to be tested. Through extensive simulations, we are able to show increased power over fixed threshold methods in many situations without increasing the type-I error rate. We also show that estimates of the threshold, which defines the population subset, are unbiased and often more precise than those from fixed threshold studies. We provide an example of the method applied (retrospectively) to publically available data from a study of the use of tamoxifen after mastectomy by the German Breast Study Group, where progesterone receptor is the biomarker of interest. © 2016 The Authors. Statistics in Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/aims: Many types of telehealth interventions rely on activity from the patient in order to have a beneficial effect on their outcome. Remote monitoring systems require the patient to record regular measurements at home, for example, blood pressure, so clinicians can see whether the patient’s health changes over time and intervene if necessary. A big problem in this type of intervention is non-compliance. Most telehealth trials report compliance rates, but they rarely compare compliance among various options of telehealth delivery, of which there may be many. Optimising telehealth delivery is vital for improving compliance and, therefore, clinical outcomes. We propose a trial design which investigates ways of improving compliance. For efficiency, this trial is embedded in a larger trial for evaluating clinical effectiveness. It employs a technique called micro-randomisation, where individual patients are randomised multiple times throughout the study. The aims of this article are (1) to verify whether the presence of an embedded secondary trial still allows valid analysis of the primary research and (2) to demonstrate the usefulness of the micro-randomisation technique for comparing compliance interventions. Methods: Simulation studies were used to simulate a large number of clinical trials, in which no embedded trial was used, a micro-randomised embedded trial was used, and a factorial embedded trial was used. Each simulation recorded the operating characteristics of the primary and secondary trials. Results: We show that the type I error rate of the primary analysis was not affected by the presence of an embedded secondary trial. Furthermore, we show that micro-randomisation is superior to a factorial design as it reduces the variation caused by within-patient correlation. It therefore requires smaller sample sizes – our simulations showed a requirement of 128 patients for a micro-randomised trial versus 760 patients for a factorial design, in the presence of within-patient correlation. Conclusion: We believe that an embedded, micro-randomised trial is a feasible technique that can potentially be highly useful in telehealth trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In adults with intellectual disability (ID) and epilepsy there are suggestions that improvements in management may follow introduction of epilepsy nurse-led care. However, this has not been tested in a definitive clinical trial and results cannot be generalised from general population studies as epilepsy tends to be more severe and to involve additional clinical comorbidities in adults with ID. This trial investigates whether nurses with expertise in epilepsy and ID, working proactively to a clinically defined role, can improve clinical and quality of life outcomes in the management of epilepsy within this population, compared to treatment as usual. The trial also aims to establish whether any perceived benefits represent good value for money.Methods/design: The EpAID clinical trial is a two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial of nurse-led epilepsy management versus treatment as usual. This trial aims to obtain follow-up data from 320 participants with ID and drug-resistant epilepsy. Participants are randomly assigned either to a 'treatment as usual' control or a 'defined epilepsy nurse role' active arm, according to the cluster site at which they are treated. The active intervention utilises the recently developed Learning Disability Epilepsy Specialist Nurse Competency Framework for adults with ID. Participants undergo 4 weeks of baseline data collection, followed by a minimum of 20 weeks intervention (novel treatment or treatment as usual), followed by 4 weeks of follow-up data collection. The primary outcome is seizure severity, including associated injuries and the level of distress manifest by the patient in the preceding 4 weeks. Secondary outcomes include cost-utility analysis, carer strain, seizure frequency and side effects. Descriptive measures include demographic and clinical descriptors of participants and clinical services in which they receive their epilepsy management. Qualitative study of clinical interactions and semi-structured interviews with clinicians and participants' carers are also undertaken.Discussion: The EpAID clinical trial is the first cluster randomised controlled trial to test possible benefits of a nurse-led intervention in adults with epilepsy and ID. This research will have important implications for ID and epilepsy services. The challenges of undertaking such a trial in this population, and the approaches to meeting these are discussed.Trial Registration: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number: ISRCTN96895428 version 1.1. Registered on 26 March 2013. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Multi-arm multi-stage designs can improve the efficiency of the drug-development process by evaluating multiple experimental arms against a common control within one trial. This reduces the number of patients required compared to a series of trials testing each experimental arm separately against control. By allowing for multiple stages experimental treatments can be eliminated early from the study if they are unlikely to be significantly better than control. Using the TAILoR trial as a motivating example, we explore a broad range of statistical issues related to multi-arm multi-stage trials including a comparison of different ways to power a multi-arm multi-stage trial; choosing the allocation ratio to the control group compared to other experimental arms; the consequences of adding additional experimental arms during a multi-arm multi-stage trial, and how one might control the type-I error rate when this is necessary; and modifying the stopping boundaries of a multi-arm multi-stage design to account for unknown variance in the treatment outcome. Multi-arm multi-stage trials represent a large financial investment, and so considering their design carefully is important to ensure efficiency and that they have a good chance of succeeding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Clinically effective and cost-effective methods for managing problematic sexual behaviour in adolescents are urgently needed. Adolescents who show problematic sexual behaviour have a range of negative psychosocial outcomes, and they and their parents can experience stigma, hostility and rejection from their community. Multisystemic therapy (MST) shows some evidence for helping to reduce adolescent sexual reoffending and is one of the few promising interventions available to young people who show problematic sexual behaviour. This paper describes the protocol for Services for Teens Engaging in Problem Sexual Behaviour (STEPS-B), a feasibility trial of MST for problem sexual behaviour (MST-PSB) in antisocial adolescents at high risk of out-of-home placement due to problematic sexual behaviour.Methods/design: Eighty participants and their families recruited from five London boroughs will be randomized to MST-PSB or management as usual with follow-up to 20 months post-randomization. The primary outcome is out-of-home placement at 20 months. Secondary outcomes include sexual and non-sexual offending rates and antisocial behaviours, participant well-being, educational outcomes and total service and criminal justice sector costs. Feasibility outcomes include mapping the clinical service pathways needed to recruit adolescents displaying problematic sexual behaviour, acceptability of a randomized controlled trial to the key systems involved in managing these adolescents, and acceptability of the research protocol to young people and their families. Data will be gathered from police computer records, the National Pupil Database and interviews and self-report measures administered to adolescents and parents and will be analysed on an intention-to-treat basis.Discussion: The STEPS-B feasibility trial aims to inform policymakers, commissioners of services and professionals about the potential for implementing MST-PSB as an intervention for adolescents showing problem sexual behaviour. Should MST-PSB show potential, STEPS-B will determine what would be necessary to implement the programme more fully and at a scale that would warrant a full trial.Trial Registration: ISRCTN28441235 (registered 25 January 2012). [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]

Bioequivalence (BE) studies are most often conducted as crossover trials, and therefore establishing their required sample size necessitates specification of the within-person variance. Given that this specification is often difficult in practice, there has been great interest in recent years in the use of adaptive designs for BE trials. However, while numerous methods for this have now been presented, their focus has been solely on two-treatment BE studies. In some instances, it will be desired to incorporate more than a single test and reference formulation into a BE trial. It would therefore be useful to establish methodology for the design of adaptive multi-treatment BE trials, to acquire the benefits in the two-treatment setting in this more complex situation. Here, we achieve this for three-treatment studies by extending previously proposed designs for two-treatment trials. First, we discuss the additional design considerations that arise when multiple comparisons are made. Next, an extensive simulation study is employed to compare the performance of the proposed procedures. With this, we demonstrate that two-stage designs with desirable statistical operating characteristics can be readily identified for three-treatment BE trials. for this article are available online. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an unprecedented response in terms of clinical research activity. An important part of this research has been focused on randomized controlled clinical trials to evaluate potential therapies for COVID-19. The results from this research need to be obtained as rapidly as possible. This presents a number of challenges associated with considerable uncertainty over the natural history of the disease and the number and characteristics of patients affected, and the emergence of new potential therapies. These challenges make adaptive designs for clinical trials a particularly attractive option. Such designs allow a trial to be modified on the basis of interim analysis data or stopped as soon as sufficiently strong evidence has been observed to answer the research question, without compromising the trial's scientific validity or integrity. In this article, we describe some of the adaptive design approaches that are available and discuss particular issues and challenges associated with their use in the pandemic setting. Our discussion is illustrated by details of four ongoing COVID-19 trials that have used adaptive designs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]