From adaptive design to modern protocol design for drug development: Part II. Success probabilities and effect estimates for phase 3 development programs

Drug Information Journal

Volumn 44, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 333-342

  Bretz, Frank ^a   Wang, Sue Jane ^b  

^a HANNOVER MEDICAL SCHOOL   (Germany)

^b JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Bias; Clinical trial simulation; Power; Treatment selection

Indexed keywords

PLACEBO;

CLINICAL TRIAL; DECISION MAKING; DRUG DEVELOPMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT; REVIEW; SIMULATION; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STUDY DESIGN;

EID: 78249268948     PISSN: 00928615     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (21)

1. International Conference on Harmonization. ICH Topic E9: statistical principles for clinical trials. 1998. www.ich.org/LOB/media/MEDIA485.pdf.
2. US Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry: providing clinical evidence of effectiveness for human drug and biological products. 1998.
3. Senn S, Bretz F. Power and sample size when multiple endpoints are considered. Pharm Stat. 2007; 6:161-170.
4. Bauer P, Koenig F, Brannath W, Posch M. Selection and bias - two hostile brothers. Stat Med. 2010;29(1):1-13.
5. Westfall PH, Tsai K, Ogenstad S, Tomoiaga A, Moseley S, Lu Y. Clinical trials simulation: a statistical approach. J Biopharm Stat. 2008;18: 611-630.
6. Wang SJ, Hung HMJ, O'Neill R. Impact on type I error rate with inappropriate use of learn and confirm in confirmatory adaptive design trials. 2010. Manuscript submitted for publication.
7. Hochberg Y, Tamhane AC. Multiple Comparison Procedures. Wiley: New York; 1987.
8. Cui L, Hung HMJ, Wang SJ. Modification of sample size in group sequential clinical trials. Biometrics. 1999;55:853-857. (Pubitemid 29427088)
9. Chuang-Stein C, Anderson K, Gallo P, Collins S. Sample size re-estimation: a review and recommendations. Drug Inf J. 2006;40:475-484. (Pubitemid 44721125)
10. Bauer P, Kieser M. Combining different phases in the development of medical treatments within a single trial. Stat Med. 1999;18:1833-1848.
11. Hommel G. Adaptive modifications of hypotheses after an interim analysis. Biometric J. 2001; 43:581-589. (Pubitemid 33588682)
12. Posch M, Koenig F, Branson M, Brannath W, Dunger-Baldauf C, Bauer P. Testing and estimation in flexible group sequential designs with adaptive treatment selection. Stat Med. 2005; 24:3697-3714.
13. Bauer P, Koehne K. Evaluation of experiments with adaptive interim analyses. Biometrics. 1994; 50:1029-1041. Correction: Biometrics. 1996;52: 380.
14. Mueller HH, Schaefer H. Adaptive group sequential designs for clinical trials: combining the advantages of adaptive and of classical group sequential approaches. Biometrics. 2001;57:886-891.
15. Bretz F, König F, Brannath W, Glimm E, Posch M. Adaptive designs for confirmatory clinical trials. Stat Med. 2009;28:1181-1217.
16. European Medicines Agency. Reflection paper on methodological issues in confirmatory clinical trials planned with an adaptive design. EMEA CHMP/EWP/2459/02, October 2007.
17. US Food and Drug Administration. Draft guidance for industry: adaptive design clinical trials for drugs and biologics. http://www.fda.gov/ downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegu latoryInformation/Guidances/UCM201790. pdf. Released February 25, 2010, for public comment.
18. Holm S. A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand J Stat. 1979;6:65-70.
19. Lehmacher W, Wassmer G. Adaptive sample size calculations in group sequential trials. Biometrics. 1999;55:1286-1290.
20. Bretz F, Schmidli H, König F, Racine A, Maurer W. Confirmatory seamless phase II/III clinical trials with hypotheses selection at interim: general concepts (with discussion). Biometric J. 2006; 48(4):623-634. (Pubitemid 44367905)
21. Antonijevic Z, Pinheiro J, Fardipour P, Lewis RJ. Impact of dose selection strategies used in phase II on the probability of success in phase III. Stat Biopharm Res. In press.