Abstract
Adaptive design (AD) clinical trials use accumulating subject data to modify the parameters of the design of an ongoing study, without compromising the validity and integrity of the study. The 2010 US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Draft Guidance on Adaptive Design Clinical Trials described a subset of 7 primary design types as “less well-understood.” FDA defined these designs as those with limited regulatory experience. To better understand the properties of these less well-understood ADs and to promote their use when applicable, the Best Practices Subteam for DIA’s Adaptive Design Scientific Working Group conducted an extensive nonsystematic search and reviewed trials from multiple sponsors who had employed these designs. Here, we review 10 specific case studies for which less well-understood ADs were employed and share feedback about their challenges and successes, as well as details about the regulatory interactions from these trials. We learned that these designs and associated statistical methodologies can make difficult research situations more amenable for study and, therefore, are needed in our toolbox. While they can be used to study many diseases, they are particularly valuable for rare diseases, small populations, studies involving terminal illnesses, and vaccine trials, in which it is important to find efficient ways to bring effective treatments to market more rapidly. It is imperative, however, that these methodologies be utilized appropriately, which requires careful planning and precise operational execution.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
US Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for Industry: Adaptive Design Clinical Trials for Drugs and Biologics. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2010.
He W, Gallo P, Miller E, et al. Addressing challenges and opportunities of “less well-understood” adaptive designs. Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science. 2016.
Quinlan J, Gaydos B, Maca J, Krams M. Barriers and opportunities for implementation of adaptive designs in pharmaceutical product development. Clin Trials. 2010;7:167–173.
Lin M, Lee S, Zhen B, et al. CBER’s experience with adaptive design clinical trials. Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science. 2016;50(2):195–203.
Yang X, Thompson L. Adaptive design practice at CDRH, January 2007–May 2013. Paper presented at JSM 2015.
Morgan C, Huyck S, Jenkins M, et al. Adaptive design: Results of 2012 survey on perception and use. Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science. 2014;48:473–481.
Chaturvedi PR, Antonijevic Z, Mehta C. Practical considerations of a two-stage confirmatory adaptive clinical trial design and its implementation: ADVENT trial. In: He W, Pinheiro J, Kuznetsova OM, eds. Practical Considerations for Adaptive Trial Design and Implementation. New York, NY: Springer; 2014:383–411.
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.
Ravandi F, Ritch E, Sayar H, et al. VALOR, an adaptive design, pivotal phase 3 trial of vosaroxin or placebo in combination with cytarabine in first relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia. http://www.sunesis.com/data-pdf/595/sunesis-valor-vosaroxin-201206-ASCO.pdf. Accessed May 27, 2015.
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.
Cui L, Hung HM, Wang SJ. Modification of sample size in group sequential clinical trials. Biometrics. 1999;55:853–857.
Goede V, Fischer K, Busch R, et al. Obinutuzumab plus chlorambucil in patients with CLL and coexisting conditions. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:1101–1110.
US Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Application number: 125486Orig1s000, Statistical Reviews. BLA/serial number: BLA 125486/00. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2013/125486Orig1s000StatR.pdf. Completed August 29, 2013. Accessed October 15, 2015.
Ko C-W, Nie L, Sridhara R. Sequential stage design in the GAZYVA Registration Trial. Presented at the FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research Office of Biostatistics/Division of Biometrics 5, Joint Adaptive Design and Bayesian Statistics Conference; February 11–12, 2015; Washington DC.
US Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Application number: 125486Orig1s000, Medical Reviews. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2013/125486Orig1s000MedR.pdf. Completed October 1, 2013. Accessed October 15, 2015.
Langman CB, Greenbaum LA, Sarwal M, et al. A randomized controlled crossover trial with delayed-release cysteamine bitartrate in nephropathic cystinosis: effectiveness on white blood cell cystine levels and comparison of safety. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2012;7:1112–1120.
Dohil R, Fidler M, Gongoiti JA, Kaskel F, Schneider JA, Barshop BA. Twice-daily cysteamine bitartrate therapy for children with cystinosis. J Pediatr. 2010;156:71–75.
Friede T, Kieser M. Sample size recalculation in internal pilot study designs: a review. Biom J. 2006;48:537–555.
Joura E, Giuliano A, Iversen O, et al. A 9-valent HPV vaccine against infection and intraepithelial neoplasia in women. N Engl J Med. 2015; 372:711–723.
Wassmer G. On sample size determination in multi-armed confirmatory adaptive designs. J Biopharm Stat. 2011;21:802–817.
Chen Y, Gesser R, Luxembourg A. A seamless Phase IIB/III adaptive outcome trial: design rationale and implementation challenges. Clin Trials. 2015; 12:84–90.
Lin M, Lee S, Zhen B, et al. CBER’s experience with adaptive design clinical trials. Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science. 2016;50(2):195–203.
Barnes PJ, Pocock SJ, Magnussen H, et al. Integrating indacaterol dose selection in a clinical study in COPD using an adaptive seamless design. Pulmon Pharmacol Ther. 2010;23:165–171.
Donohue JF, Fogarty C, Lötvall J, et al. Once-daily bronchodilators for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: indacaterol versus tiotropium. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2010;182:155–162.
Durmowicz AG. September 29, 2009 cross-discipline team leader review. In: Arcapta Neohaler FDA medical review document. Food and Drug Administration website. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2011/022383Orig1s000MedR.pdf. Accessed April 19, 2016.
Léauté-Labrèze C, Hoeger P, Mazereeuw-Hautier J, et al. A randomized, controlled trial of oral propranolol in infantile hemangioma. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:735–746.
Heritier S, Morgan-Bouniol CC, Lo S, Gautier S, Voisard JJ. A single pivotal adaptive trial in infants with proliferating hemangioma: rationale, statistical challenges, experience and recommendations. In: Sverdlov O, ed. Modern Adaptive Randomized Clinical Trials: Statistical, Operational, and Regulatory Aspects. New York, NY: Chapman & Hall/CRC Press; 2015:453.
Harrington RA, Stone GW, McNulty S, et al. Platelet inhibition with cangrelor in patients undergoing PCI. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:2318–2329.
Mehta CR, Gao P. Population enrichment designs: case study of a large multinational trial. J Biopharm Stat. 2011;21:831–845.
Bhatt DL, Stone GW, Mahaffey KW, et al. Effect of platelet inhibition with cangrelor during PCI on ischemic events. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:1303–1313.
Taylor AL, Ziesche S, Yancy C, et al. Combination of isosorbide dinitrate and hydralazine in blacks with heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:2049–2057.
Sydes MR, Parmar MK, James ND, et al. Issues in applying multi-arm multi-stage methodology to a clinical trial in prostate cancer: the MRC STAMPEDE trial. Trials. 2009;10:39.
Sydes MR, Parmar MK, Mason MD, et al. Flexible trial design in practice—stopping arms for lack-of-benefit and adding research arms mid-trial in STAMPEDE: a multi-arm multi-stage randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2012;13:168.
Parker CC, Sydes MR, Mason MD, et al. Prostate radiotherapy for men with metastatic disease: a new comparison in the Systemic Therapy in Advancing or Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Evaluation of Drug Efficacy (STAMPEDE) trial. BJU Int. 2013;111:697–699.
Attard G, Sydes MR, Mason MD, et al. Combining enzalutamide with abiraterone, prednisone, and androgen deprivation therapy in the STAMPEDE trial. Eur Urol. 2014;66:799–802.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Miller, E., Gallo, P., He, W. et al. DIA’s Adaptive Design Scientific Working Group (ADSWG): Best Practices Case Studies for “Less Well-understood” Adaptive Designs. Ther Innov Regul Sci 51, 77–88 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479016665434
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479016665434