Adaptive Design Practice at the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), January 2007 to May 2013

A landscape of methodology and implementation of adaptive designs in cancer clinical trials

BACKGROUND

The use of adaptive designs in cancer trials has considerably increased worldwide in recent years, along with the release of various guidelines for their application. This systematic review aims to comprehensively summarize the key methodological and executive features of adaptive designs in cancer clinical trials.

METHODS

A comprehensive search from PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was conducted to screen eligible clinical trials that employed adaptive designs and were conducted in cancer patients. The methodological and executive characteristics of adaptive designs were the main measurements extracted. Descriptive analyses, primarily consisting of frequency and percentage, were employed to analyzed and reported the data.

RESULTS

A total of 180 cancer clinical trials with adaptive designs were identified. The first three most common type of adaptive design was the group sequential design (n=114, 63.3 %), adaptive dose-finding design (n=22, 12.2 %), and adaptive platform design (n=16, 8.9 %). The results showed that 4.4 % (n=8) of trials conducted post hoc modifications, and around 29.4 % (n=53) did not provide the methods for controlling type I errors. Among phase II or above trials, 79.9 % (112/140) applied the surrogate endpoint as the primary outcome in these trials. Importantly, 27.2 % (49/180) of trials did not report clear information on the independent data monitoring committee (iDMC), and 13.3 % (n=24) without clear information on interim analyses. Interim analyses suggested 34.4 % (62/180) of trials being stopped for futility, 10.6 % (n=19) for efficacy, and 2.2 % (n=4) for safety concerns in the early stage.

CONCLUSIONS

This study emphasizes adaptive designs in cancer trials face significant challenges in their design or strict implementation according to protocol, which might significantly compromise the validity and integrity of trials. It is thus important for researchers, sponsors, and policymakers to actively oversee and guide their application.

Adaptive designs in dermatology clinical trials: Current status and future perspectives

Current drug development strategies present many challenges that can impede drug approval by regulatory agencies. Alternative study models, such as adaptive trial designs, have recently sparked interest, as they provide a flexible and more efficient approach in conducting clinical trials. Adaptive trial designs offer several potential benefits over traditional randomized controlled trials, which include decrease in costs, reduced clinical development time and limiting exposure of patients to potentially ineffective treatments allowing completion of studies with fewer patients. This article explores the current use of adaptive trial designs in non-oncologic skin diseases and highlights the most common types of adaptive designs used in the field. We also review the operational challenges and statistical considerations associated with such designs and propose clinical development strategies to successfully implement adaptive designs. The article also proposes instances where adaptive trial designs are particularly beneficial, and other situations where they may not be very useful.

Bayesian Statistics for Medical Devices: Progress Since 2010

The use of Bayesian statistics to support regulatory evaluation of medical devices began in the late 1990s. We review the literature, focusing on recent developments of Bayesian methods, including hierarchical modeling of studies and subgroups, borrowing strength from prior data, effective sample size, Bayesian adaptive designs, pediatric extrapolation, benefit-risk decision analysis, use of real-world evidence, and diagnostic device evaluation. We illustrate how these developments were utilized in recent medical device evaluations. In Supplementary Material, we provide a list of medical devices for which Bayesian statistics were used to support approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), including those since 2010, the year the FDA published their guidance on Bayesian statistics for medical devices. We conclude with a discussion of current and future challenges and opportunities for Bayesian statistics, including artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML) Bayesian modeling, uncertainty quantification, Bayesian approaches using propensity scores, and computational challenges for high dimensional data and models.

Sample size re-estimation for pivotal clinical trials

It is well known that if the hypothesis test is left unchanged, the Type I error rate may be inflated for sample size re-estimation (SSR) designs. To address this issue, three main approaches have been proposed in the literature: combination test, conditional error and conventional test with sample size increase in the allowable region (AR) only. These three seemingly different approaches are in fact connected. For each combination test, there is a corresponding conditional error function and AR. Designing adaptation rules in this AR with conventional test guarantees the Type I error rate control but at the same time always leads to smaller power comparing to the corresponding combination test (or conditional error) approach. In cases where conventional test is still preferable, step-wise type adaptation rules that do not fully reside in the AR can be alternatively considered. We believe controversies in the statistical community on the efficiency comparisons between group sequential (GS) and SSR design stem partially from the misalignment of performance metrics and conditional versus unconditional evaluations. We advocate summary metrics, such as median, variance or tail probabilities of the sample size in addition to expectation and personalizing efficiency definition for each trial sponsor. Conditional metrics by favorable, promising and unfavorable zones of the interim results provide additional insights and should always be incorporated into the decision-making process.

The adaptive designs CONSORT extension (ACE) statement: a checklist with explanation and elaboration guideline for reporting randomised trials that use an adaptive design

Adaptive designs (ADs) allow pre-planned changes to an ongoing trial without compromising the validity of conclusions and it is essential to distinguish pre-planned from unplanned changes that may also occur. The reporting of ADs in randomised trials is inconsistent and needs improving. Incompletely reported AD randomised trials are difficult to reproduce and are hard to interpret and synthesise. This consequently hampers their ability to inform practice as well as future research and contributes to research waste. Better transparency and adequate reporting will enable the potential benefits of ADs to be realised.This extension to the Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statement was developed to enhance the reporting of randomised AD clinical trials. We developed an Adaptive designs CONSORT Extension (ACE) guideline through a two-stage Delphi process with input from multidisciplinary key stakeholders in clinical trials research in the public and private sectors from 21 countries, followed by a consensus meeting. Members of the CONSORT Group were involved during the development process.The paper presents the ACE checklists for AD randomised trial reports and abstracts, as well as an explanation with examples to aid the application of the guideline. The ACE checklist comprises seven new items, nine modified items, six unchanged items for which additional explanatory text clarifies further considerations for ADs, and 20 unchanged items not requiring further explanatory text. The ACE abstract checklist has one new item, one modified item, one unchanged item with additional explanatory text for ADs, and 15 unchanged items not requiring further explanatory text.The intention is to enhance transparency and improve reporting of AD randomised trials to improve the interpretability of their results and reproducibility of their methods, results and inference. We also hope indirectly to facilitate the much-needed knowledge transfer of innovative trial designs to maximise their potential benefits. In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on the BMJ and Trials journal websites."To maximise the benefit to society, you need to not just do research but do it well" Douglas G Altman.

The Adaptive designs CONSORT Extension (ACE) statement: a checklist with explanation and elaboration guideline for reporting randomised trials that use an adaptive design

Adaptive designs (ADs) allow pre-planned changes to an ongoing trial without compromising the validity of conclusions and it is essential to distinguish pre-planned from unplanned changes that may also occur. The reporting of ADs in randomised trials is inconsistent and needs improving. Incompletely reported AD randomised trials are difficult to reproduce and are hard to interpret and synthesise. This consequently hampers their ability to inform practice as well as future research and contributes to research waste. Better transparency and adequate reporting will enable the potential benefits of ADs to be realised.This extension to the Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statement was developed to enhance the reporting of randomised AD clinical trials. We developed an Adaptive designs CONSORT Extension (ACE) guideline through a two-stage Delphi process with input from multidisciplinary key stakeholders in clinical trials research in the public and private sectors from 21 countries, followed by a consensus meeting. Members of the CONSORT Group were involved during the development process.The paper presents the ACE checklists for AD randomised trial reports and abstracts, as well as an explanation with examples to aid the application of the guideline. The ACE checklist comprises seven new items, nine modified items, six unchanged items for which additional explanatory text clarifies further considerations for ADs, and 20 unchanged items not requiring further explanatory text. The ACE abstract checklist has one new item, one modified item, one unchanged item with additional explanatory text for ADs, and 15 unchanged items not requiring further explanatory text.The intention is to enhance transparency and improve reporting of AD randomised trials to improve the interpretability of their results and reproducibility of their methods, results and inference. We also hope indirectly to facilitate the much-needed knowledge transfer of innovative trial designs to maximise their potential benefits.

Development process of a consensus-driven CONSORT extension for randomised trials using an adaptive design

BACKGROUND

Adequate reporting of adaptive designs (ADs) maximises their potential benefits in the conduct of clinical trials. Transparent reporting can help address some obstacles and concerns relating to the use of ADs. Currently, there are deficiencies in the reporting of AD trials. To overcome this, we have developed a consensus-driven extension to the CONSORT statement for randomised trials using an AD. This paper describes the processes and methods used to develop this extension rather than detailed explanation of the guideline.

METHODS

We developed the guideline in seven overlapping stages: 1) Building on prior research to inform the need for a guideline; 2) A scoping literature review to inform future stages; 3) Drafting the first checklist version involving an External Expert Panel; 4) A two-round Delphi process involving international, multidisciplinary, and cross-sector key stakeholders; 5) A consensus meeting to advise which reporting items to retain through voting, and to discuss the structure of what to include in the supporting explanation and elaboration (E&E) document; 6) Refining and finalising the checklist; and 7) Writing-up and dissemination of the E&E document. The CONSORT Executive Group oversaw the entire development process.

RESULTS

Delphi survey response rates were 94/143 (66%), 114/156 (73%), and 79/143 (55%) in rounds 1, 2, and across both rounds, respectively. Twenty-seven delegates from Europe, the USA, and Asia attended the consensus meeting. The main checklist has seven new and nine modified items and six unchanged items with expanded E&E text to clarify further considerations for ADs. The abstract checklist has one new and one modified item together with an unchanged item with expanded E&E text. The E&E document will describe the scope of the guideline, the definition of an AD, and some types of ADs and trial adaptations and explain each reporting item in detail including case studies.

CONCLUSIONS

We hope that making the development processes, methods, and all supporting information that aided decision-making transparent will enhance the acceptability and quick uptake of the guideline. This will also help other groups when developing similar CONSORT extensions. The guideline is applicable to all randomised trials with an AD and contains minimum reporting requirements.

Adaptive design clinical trials: a review of the literature and ClinicalTrials.gov

OBJECTIVES

This review investigates characteristics of implemented adaptive design clinical trials and provides examples of regulatory experience with such trials.

DESIGN

Review of adaptive design clinical trials in EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Registry of Controlled Clinical Trials, Web of Science and ClinicalTrials.gov. Phase I and seamless Phase I/II trials were excluded. Variables extracted from trials included basic study characteristics, adaptive design features, size and use of independent data monitoring committees (DMCs) and blinded interim analyses. We also examined use of the adaptive trials in new drug submissions to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) and recorded regulators' experiences with adaptive designs.

RESULTS

142 studies met inclusion criteria. There has been a recent growth in publicly reported use of adaptive designs among researchers around the world. The most frequently appearing types of adaptations were seamless Phase II/III (57%), group sequential (21%), biomarker adaptive (20%), and adaptive dose-finding designs (16%). About one-third (32%) of trials reported an independent DMC, while 6% reported blinded interim analysis. We found that 9% of adaptive trials were used for FDA product approval consideration, and 12% were used for EMA product approval consideration. International regulators had mixed experiences with adaptive trials. Many product applications with adaptive trials had extensive correspondence between drug sponsors and regulators regarding the adaptive designs, in some cases with regulators requiring revisions or alterations to research designs.

CONCLUSIONS

Wider use of adaptive designs will necessitate new drug application sponsors to engage with regulatory scientists during planning and conduct of the trials. Investigators need to more consistently report protections intended to preserve confidentiality and minimise potential operational bias during interim analysis.