The advantages and disadvantages of adaptive designs for clinical trials

Drug Discovery Today

Volumn 9, Issue 8, 2004, Pages 351-357

  Bauer, Peter ^a   Brannath, Werner ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA   (Austria)

Author keywords

Clinical trial selection of endpoints; Conditional power; Dose selection; Drug Discovery; Flexible design; Group sequential trial; Interim analysis; Molecular Medicine; Pharmaceutical Science; Sample size; Treatment selection; Type I error rate

Indexed keywords

ANALYTICAL ERROR; CALCULATION; METHODOLOGY; REVIEW; SAMPLE SIZE; STANDARDIZATION; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL CONCEPTS; TREATMENT PLANNING;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; CLINICAL TRIALS; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; HUMANS; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 1842736272     PISSN: 13596446     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S1359-6446(04)03023-5     Document Type: Review

References (56)

1. European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (1998) ICH Topic E9: Notes for Guidance on Statistical Principles for Clinical Trials, London, UK
2. Robbins H. Some aspects of the sequential design of experiments. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 58:1952;527-535.
3. Zelen M. Play-the-winner rule and the controlled clinical trial. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 64:1969;131-146.
4. Rosenberger W.F. Randomized play-the-winner clinical trials: review and recommendations. Control. Clin. Trials. 20:1999;328-342.
5. Jennison J., Turnbull B.W. Group Sequential Methods with Applications to Clinical Trials. 2000;Chapman and Hall.
6. Bauer P. Sequential tests of hypotheses in consecutive trials. Biom. J. 31:1989;663-676.
7. Bauer P., Köhne K. Evaluation of experiments with adaptive interim analyses. Biometrics. 50:1994;1029-1041.
8. Lehmacher W., Wassmer G. Adaptive sample size calculations in group sequential trials. Biometrics. 55:1999;1286-1290.
9. + exchange inhibitor eniporide as an adjunct to early reperfusion therapy for acute myocardial infarction. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 38:2001;1644-1650.
10. Bauer P., Kieser M. Combining different phases in the development of medical treatments within a single trial. Stat. Med. 18:1999;1833-1848.
11. Brannath W., et al. Recursive combination tests. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 97:2002;236-244.
12. Cui L., et al. Modification of sample size in group sequential clinical trials. Biometrics. 55:1999;853-857.
13. Banik N., et al. On the power of Fisher's combination test for two stage sampling in the presence of nuisance parameters. Biom. J. 38:1996;25-37.
14. Posch M., et al. Issues in designing flexible trials. Stat. Med. 22:2003;953-969.
15. Denne J.S. Sample size recalculation using conditional power. Stat. Med. 20:2001;2645-2660.
16. Tsiatis A.A., Metha C. On the inefficiency of the adaptive design for monitoring clinical trials. Biometrika. 90:2002;367-378.
17. Müller H-H., Schäfer H. Adaptive group sequential designs for clinical trials: combining the advantages of adaptive and classical group sequential approaches. Biometrics. 57:2001;886-891.
18. Proschan M.A., Hunsberger S.A. Designed extension of studies based on conditional power. Biometrics. 51:1995;1315-1324.
19. Posch M., Bauer P. Adaptive two stage designs and the conditional error function. Biom. J. 41:1999;689-696.
20. Fisher D.L. Self-designing clinical trials. Stat. Med. 17:1998;1551-1562.
21. Shen Y., Fisher L. Statistical inference for self-designing clinical trials with a one-sided hypothesis. Biometrics. 55:1999;190-197.
22. Hartung J., Knapp G. A new class of completely self-designing clinical trials. Biom. J. 45:2003;3-19.
23. Lawrence J., Hung H.M. Estimation and confidence intervals after adjusting the maximum information. Biom. J. 45:2003;143-152.
24. Brannath W., et al. Improved repeated confidence bounds in trials with a maximal goal. Biom. J. 45:2003;311-324.
25. Frick H. On confidence bounds for the Bauer-Köhne two-stage test. Biom. J. 44:2002;241-249.
26. Coburger S., Wassmer G. Conditional point estimation in adaptive group sequential test designs. Biom. J. 43:2001;821-833.
27. Coburger S., Wassmer G. Sample size reassessment in adaptive clinical trials using a bias corrected estimate. Biom. J. 45:2003;812-825.
28. Schäfer H., Müller H-H. Modification of the sample size and the schedule of interim analyses in survival trials based on data inspections. Stat. Med. 20:2001;3741-3751.
29. Bauer, P. and Posch, M. A letter to the editor. Stat. Med. (in press)
30. Wittes J., Brittain E. The role of internal pilot studies in increasing the efficiency of clinical trials. Stat. Med. 9:1990;65-72.
31. Birkett M.A., Day S.J. Internal pilot studies for estimating sample size. Stat. Med. 13:1994;2455-2463.
32. Denne J.S., Jennison C. Estimating the sample size for a t-test using an internal pilot study. Stat. Med. 18:1999;1575-1585.
33. Wittes J., et al. Internal pilot studies I: type I error rate of the naive t test. Stat. Med. 18:1999;3481-3491.
34. Zucker D.M., et al. Internal pilot studies II: comparison of various procedures. Stat. Med. 18:1999;3493-3509.
35. Gould A.L., Shi W. Modifying the design of ongoing trials without unblinding. Stat. Med. 17:1998;89-100.
36. Coffey C.S., Muller K.E. Exact test size and power of a Gaussian error linear model for an internal pilot study. Stat. Med. 18:1999;1199-1214.
37. Kieser M., Friede T. Re-calculating the sample size in internal pilot study designs with control of the type I error rate. Stat. Med. 19:2000;901-911.
38. Wüst K., Kieser M. Blinded sample size recalculation for normally distributed outcomes using long- and short-term data. Biom. J. 45:2003;915-930.
39. Wang S.J., et al. Group sequential test strategies for superiority and non-inferiority hypotheses in active controlled clinical trials. Stat. Med. 20:2001;1903-1912.
40. Brannath W., et al. Sequential tests for noninferiority and superiority. Biometrics. 59:2003;106-114.
41. Jennison C., Turnbull B.W. Mid-course sample size modification in clinical trials based on the observed treatment effect. Stat. Med. 22:2003;971-993.
42. Bauer P., Röhmel J. An adaptive method for establishing a dose-response relationship. Stat. Med. 14:1995;1595-1607.
43. Hommel G. Adaptive modifications of hypotheses after an interim analysis. Biom. J. 43:2001;581-589.
44. Friede T., et al. A note on change point estimation in dose-response trials. Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 37:2001;219-232.
45. Bauer P. Statistical methodology relevant to the overall drug development program. Drug Inf. J. 37:2003;81-89.
46. Kieser M., et al. Inference on multiple endpoints in clinical trials with adaptive interim analyses. Biom. J. 41:1999;261-277.
47. Lan G., DeMets D.L. Discrete sequential boundaries for clinical trials. Biometrika. 70:1983;659-663.
48. Schmitz, N. (1997) Optimal Sequentially Planned Decision Procedures, Lecture Notes in Statistics 79, Springer
49. Pocock S.J. Group sequential methods in the design and analysis of clinical trials. Biometrika. 64:1977;191-199.
50. O'Brien P.C., Fleming T.R. A multiple testing procedure for clinical trials. Biometrics. 5:1979;549-556.
51. Lang T., et al. Trendtests with adaptive scoring. Biom. J. 42:2000;1007-1020.
52. Neuhäuser M. An adaptive location-scale test. Biom. J. 43:2001;809-819.
53. Kieser M., et al. A bootstrap procedure for adaptive selection of the test statistics in flexible two-stage designs. Biom. J. 44:2002;641-652.
54. Friede T., et al. A comparison of procedures for adaptive choice of location tests in flexible two-stage designs. Biom. J. 45:2003;292-310.
55. Lawrence J. Strategies for changing the test statistics during a clinical trial. J. Biopharm. Stat. 12:2002;193-205.
56. European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (1998) Concept Paper on the Development of a Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Product (CPMP): Points to Consider on the Methodological Issues in Confirmatory Clinical Trials with Flexible Design and Analysis Plan, London, UK