A novel adaptive design strategy increases the efficiency of clinical trials in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis

Multiple Sclerosis Journal

Volumn 17, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 81-88

  Chataway, Jeremy ^a,b   Nicholas, Richard ^b   Todd, Susan ^c   Miller, David H ^a,d   Parsons, Nicholas ^e   Valdés Márquez, Elsa ^c   Stallard, Nigel ^e   Friede, Tim ^e  

^a NATIONAL HOSPITAL FOR NEUROLOGY AND NEUROSURGERY   (United Kingdom)

^b IMPERIAL COLLEGE HEALTHCARE NHS TRUST   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF READING   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^e UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

adaptive seamless design; biomarker; computer simulations; interim analysis; secondary progressive multiple sclerosis

Indexed keywords

ADAPTIVE SEAMLESS DESIGNS; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; EXPANDED DISABILITY STATUS SCALE; EXPERIMENTAL THERAPY; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PHASE 2 CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); PHASE 3 CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); SAMPLE SIZE; SECONDARY PROGRESSIVE MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STUDY DESIGN; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC);

EID: 78650993786     PISSN: 13524585     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1352458510382129     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Clerico M., Faggiano F., Palace J., et al. Recombinant interferon beta or glatiramer acetate for delaying conversion of the first demyelinating event to multiple sclerosis. Cochrane Database Systematic Rev 2008 ; 2: CD005278.
2. Menge T., Weber MS, Hemmer B., et al. Disease-modifying agents for multiple sclerosis: recent advances and future prospects. Drugs 2008 ; 68: 2445-2468.
3. Compston A. and Coles A. Multiple sclerosis. Lancet 2008 ; 372: 1502-1517.
4. DiMasi JA, Hansen RW and Grabowski HG The price of innovation: New estimates of drug development costs. J Health Econ 2003 ; 22: 151-185.
5. Bauer P. and Kieser M. Combining different phases in the development of medical treatments within a single trial. Statist Med 1999 ; 18: 1833-1848.
6. Bretz F., Schmidli H., Koenig F., et al. Confirmatory seamless phase II/III clinical trials with hypo-theses selection at interim: general concepts. Biometrical J 2006 ; 48: 623-634. (Pubitemid 44367905)
7. Friede T. and Stallard N. A comparison of methods for adaptive treatment selection. Biometrical J 2008 ; 50: 767-781.
8. Burzykowski T., Molenberghs G. and Buyse ME The Evaluation of Surrogate Endpoints. New York: Springer, 2005.
9. Kurtzke JF Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: an Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS). Neurology 1983 ; 33: 1444-1452.
10. Hobart J., Lamping D., Fitzpatrick R., et al. The Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29): a new patient-based outcome measure. Brain 2001 ; 124: 962-973.
11. Whitaker JN, McFarland HF, Rudge P., et al. Outcomes assessment in multiple sclerosis clinical trials: a critical analysis. Mult Scler 1995 ; 1: 37-47.
12. Rudick R., Fischer J., Antel J., et al. Clinical outcomes assessment in multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol 1996 ; 40: 469-479. (Pubitemid 26304809)
13. Friede T., Parsons N., Stallard N., et al. Designing a seamless phase II/III clinical trial using early outcomes for treatment selection: an application in multiple sclerosis. Statist Med 2010 ; (submitted).
14. Benda N., Branson M., Maurer W., et al. Aspects of modernizing drug development using clinical scenario planning and evaluation. Drug Inform J 2010 ; 44: 299-315.
15. Friede T., Nicholas R., Stallard N., et al. Refinement of the clinical scenario evaluation framework for assessment of competing development strategies with an application to multiple sclerosis. Drug Inform J 2010 ; (in press).
16. Emea. Guidelines on clinical investigation of medicinal products for the treatment of multiple sclerosis. European Medicines Agency, 2005. Available at http://www.emea.europa.eu/pdfs/human/ewp/056198en.pdf (accessed 24 November 2009 ).
17. Barkhof F., Calabresi PA, Miller DH, et al. Imaging outcomes for neuroprotection and repair in multiple sclerosis trials. Nat Rev Neurol 2009 ; 5: 256-266.
18. Altmann DR, Jasperse B., Barkhof F., et al. Sample sizes for brain atrophy outcomes in trials for secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. Neurology 2009 ; 72: 595-601.
19. Cohen JA Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2 nd ed. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1988.
20. Sormani MP, Bruzzi P., Beckmann K., et al. MRI metrics as surrogate endpoints for EDSS progression in SPMS patients treated with IFN beta-1b. Neurology 2003 ; 60: 1462-1466.
21. Li DK, Zhao GJ and Paty DW, University of British Columbia MS / MRI Analysis Research Group: The SPECTRIMS Study Group. Randomized controlled trial of iterferon-beta-1a in secondary progressive MS: MRI results. Neurology 2001 ; 56: 1505-1513.
22. North American Study group on Interferon beta-1b in Secondary Progressive MS. Interferon beta-1b in secondary progressive MS: results from 3-year controlled study. Neurology 2004 ; 63: 1788-1795.
23. Krams M., Lees KR and Berry DA The past is the future: innovative designs in acute stroke therapy trials. Stroke 2005 ; 36: 1341-1347.
24. Maca J., Bhattacharya S., Dragalin V., et al. Adaptive seamless phase II/III designs - Background, operational aspects, and examples. Drug Inform J 2006 ; 40: 463-473.
25. Freedman MS, Verco T., Ossanna M., et al. A double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-center study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of dirucotide in patients with secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 2009 ; 15: S272 - S273.