Adaptive designs from a Data Safety Monitoring Board perspective: Some controversies and some case studies

Clinical Trials

Volumn 14, Issue 5, 2017, Pages 462-469

  Turnbull, Bruce W ^a  

^a Cornell University   (United States)

Author keywords

Adaptive design; enrichment design; flexible design; group sequential test; multi arm multi stage trial; optimal design; promising zone; sample size re estimation; seamless Phase II III design

Indexed keywords

BAYES THEOREM; CASE STUDY; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONFERENCE PAPER; DECISION MAKING; DOSE RESPONSE; HOSPITALIZATION; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INTERVENTION STUDY; OVERALL SURVIVAL; PATIENT MONITORING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REPRODUCIBILITY; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; SAMPLE SIZE; BIOASSAY; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); DRUG DESIGN; ETHICS; METHODOLOGY; PROCEDURES; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; STANDARDS; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

BAYES THEOREM; CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; CLINICAL TRIALS DATA MONITORING COMMITTEES; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; DRUG DESIGN; ENDPOINT DETERMINATION; HUMANS; RESEARCH DESIGN; SAMPLE SIZE;

EID: 85021087924     PISSN: 17407745     EISSN: 17407753     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1740774516689261     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (40)

1. Bauer P, Bretz F, Dragalin V, et al. Twenty-five years of confirmatory adaptive designs: opportunities and pitfalls. Stat Med 2016; 30: 325-347.
2. Jennison C, Turnbull BW,. Adaptive seamless designs: selection and prospective testing of hypotheses J Biopharm Stat. 2007; 17: 1135-1161.
3. Schmidli H, Bretz F, Racine A, et al. Confirmatory seamless phase II/III clinical trials with hypotheses selection at interim: applications and practical considerations. Biometrical J 2006; 48: 635-643.
4. Fleming TR,. Standard versus adaptive monitoring procedures: a commentary. Stat Med 2006; 25: 3305-3312.
5. Clark LC, Combs GF, Turnbull BW, et al. Effects of selenium supplementation for cancer prevention in patients with carcinoma of the skin: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 1996; 276: 1957-1963 (Editorial: pp. 1984-1985.)
6. Fontanarosa PB, Flanagan A, DeAngelis CD,. Reporting conflicts of interest, financial aspects of research, and role of sponsors in funded studies. JAMA 2005; 296: 110-111.
7. Fowler VG, Allen KB, Moreira ED, et al. Effect of an investigational vaccine for preventing staphylococcus aureus infections after cardiothoracic surgery: a randomized trial. JAMA 2013; 309: 1368-1378.
8. Luo X, Turnbull BW, Clark LC,. Likelihood ratio tests for a changepoint with survival data. Biometrika 1997; 84: 555-565.
9. The National Lung Screening Trial Research Team. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med 2011; 365: 395-409.
10. Grieve AP, Krams M,. ASTIN: a Bayesian adaptive dose-response trial in acute stroke. Clin Trials 2005; 2: 340-351.
11. US Food and Drug Administration. Draft guidance for industry adaptive design clinical trials for drugs and biologics. Rockville, MD: Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER); Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), 2010, Sec.VIID.
12. US Food and Drug Administration. Adaptive designs for medical device clinical studies, draft guidance. Rockville, MD: Center for Devices and Radiological Health; Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), 2015, p. 26.
13. Saville BR, Berry SM,. Efficiencies of platform clinical trials: a vision of the future. Clin Trials 2016; 13: 358-366.
14. CAPRICORN Investigators. Effect of carvedilol on outcome after myocardial infarction in patients with left-ventricular dysfunction: the CAPRICORN randomised trial. Lancet 2001; 357: 1385-1390.
15. Coats AJ,. CAPRICORN: a story of alpha allocation and beta-blockers in left ventricular dysfunction post-MI. Int J Cardiol 2001; 78: 109-113.
16. Cui L, Hung HMJ, Wang SJ,. Modification of sample size in group sequential clinical trials. Biometrics 1999; 55: 853-857.
17. Mehta CR, Pocock SJ,. Adaptive increase in sample size when interim results are promising: a practical guide with examples. Stat Med 2011; 30: 3267-3284.
18. Jennison C, Turnbull BW,. Adaptive sample size modification in clinical trials: start small then ask for more? Stat Med 2015; 34: 3793-3810.
19. Emerson SS, Levin GP, Emerson SC,. Comments on "adaptive increase in sample size when interim results are promising: a practical guide with examples." Stat Med 2011; 30: 3285-3301.
20. Jennison C, Turnbull BW,. Efficient group sequential designs when there are several effect sizes under consideration. Stat Med 2006; 25: 917-932.
21. Jennison C, Turnbull BW,. Adaptive and non-adaptive group sequential tests. Biometrika 2006; 93: 1-21.
22. Glimm E,. Comments on "Adaptive increase in sample size when interim results are promising: a practical guide with examples" by C. R. Mehta and S. J. Pocock. Stat Med 2012; 31: 98-99.
23. Wittes JT,. Adaptive designs: gaming the System. In: Proceedings of the conference for innovative designs of clinical trials and related topics, Stanford, CA, 20 June 2009.
24. Wittes JT,. On changing a long-term clinical trial midstream. Stat Med 2002; 27: 2789-2795.
25. DeMets DL, Fleming TR, Rockhold F, et al. Liability issues for data monitoring committee members. Clin Trials 2004; 1: 525-531.
26. DeMets DL, Ellenberg SS,. Data monitoring committees-expecting the unexpected. N Engl J Med 2016; 375: 1365-1371.
27. Bone HG, Dempster DW, Eisman JA, et al. Odanacatib for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis: development history and design and participant characteristics of LOFT, the Long-Term Odanacatib Fracture Trial. Osteoporos Int 2015; 26: 699-712.
28. Eckstein L,. Building a more connected DSMB: better integrating ethics review and safety monitoring. Account Res 2015; 22: 81-105.
29. Droppert P,. J & J prostate cancer trial shouldn't have been stopped early. Xconomy, http://www.xconomy.com/national/2012/06/03/jj-prostate-cancer-trial-shouldnt-have-been-stopped-early/ (2012,. accessed 12 December 2016).
30. Berry SM, Broglio KR, Groshen S, et al. Bayesian hierarchical modeling of patient subpopulations: efficient designs of Phase II oncology clinical trials. Clin Trials 2013; 10: 720-734.
31. Lo AC, Guarino PD, Richards LG, et al. Robot-assisted therapy for long-term upper-limb impairment after stroke. N Engl J Med 2010; 362: 1772-1783.
32. Lan KKG, Trost DC,. Estimation of parameters and sample size re-estimation. In: Proc Am Stat Assoc Biopharm Sect 1997; 32: 48-51.
33. Mehta C, Tsiatis A,. Flexible sample size considerations using information based interim monitoring. Drug Inf J 2001; 35: 1095-112.
34. Tsiatis AA,. Information-based monitoring of clinical trials. Stat Med 2006; 25: 3236-3244.
35. Boden WE, O'Rourke RA, Teo KK, et al. Optimal medical therapy with or without PCI for stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med 2007; 356: 1503-1516.
36. Wang SJ, Hung HMJ, Tsong Y, et al. Group sequential test strategies for superiority and non-inferiority hypotheses in active controlled clinical trials. Stat Med 2001; 20: 1903-1912.
37. Brannath W, Bauer P, Maurer W, et al. Sequential tests for non-inferiority and superiority. Biometrics 2003; 59: 106-114.
38. Koyama T, Sampson AR, Gleser LJ,. A framework for two-stage adaptive procedures to simultaneously test non-inferiority and superiority. Stat Med 2005; 24: 2439-2456.
39. Öhrn F, Jennison C,. Optimal group-sequential designs for simultaneous testing of superiority and non-inferiority. Stat Med 2010; 29: 743-759.
40. Jennison C, Turnbull BW,. Meta-analyses and adaptive group sequential designs in the clinical development process. J Biopharm Stat 2005; 15: 537-558.