Abstract
There is considerable interest among pharmaceutical and other medical product developers in adaptive clinical trials, in which knowledge learned during the course of a trial affects ongoing conduct or analysis of the trial. When the FDA released a draft Guidance document on adaptive design clinical trials in early 2010, expectations were high that it would lead to an increase in regulatory submissions involving adaptive design features, particularly for confirmatory trials. A 6-year (2008–2013) retrospective survey was performed within the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) at the FDA to gather information regarding the submission and evaluation of adaptive design trial proposals. We present an up-to-date summary of adaptive design proposals seen in CBER and provide an overview of our experiences. We share our concerns regarding the statistical issues and operational challenges raised during the review process for adaptive design trials. We also provide general recommendations for developing proposals for such trials. Our motivation in writing this paper was to encourage the best study design proposals to be submitted to CBER. Sometimes these can be adaptive, and sometimes a simpler design is most efficient.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Chow SC, Chang M. Adaptive Design Methods in Clinical Trials. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Chapman and Hall/CRC, Taylor and Francis; 2011.
Chow SC, Chang M. Adaptive design methods in clinical trials—a review. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2008;3:11.
Coffey CS, Kairalla JA. Adaptive clinical trials—progress and challenges. Drugs R&D. 2008;9:229–242.
Kairalla JA, Coffey CS, Thomann MA, Muller KE. Adaptive trial designs: a review of barriers and opportunities. Trials. 2012;13:145.
FDA. Draft guidance for industry—adaptive design clinical trials for drugs and biologics. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/…/Guidances/ucm201790.pdf. Published 2010.
Dragalin V. Adaptive designs: terminology and classification. Drug Inf J. 2006;40:425–435.
Gaydos B, Krams M, Perevozskaya I, et al. Adaptive dose-response studies. Drug Inf J. 2006;40:451–461.
Hu F, Rosenberger W. The Theory of Response-Adaptive Randomization in Clinical Trials. New York, NY: Wiley; 2006.
Simon R. Optimal two-stage designs for phase II clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1989;10:1–10.
Jennison C, Turnbull BW. Group Sequential Methods With Applications to Clinical Trials. London: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 2000.
Lan KKG, Demets DL. Discrete sequential boundaries for clinical-trials. Biometrika. 1983;70:659–663.
Tsiatis AA, Mehta C. On the inefficiency of the adaptive design for monitoring clinical trials. Biometrika. 2003;90:367–378.
Bauer P, Koenig F. The reassessment of trial perspectives from interim data—a critical view. Stat Med. 2006;25:23–36.
Chen YHJ, DeMets DL, Lan KKG. Increasing the sample size when the unblinded interim result is promising. Stat Med. 2004;23:1023–1038.
Denne JS. Sample size recalculation using conditional power. Stat Med. 2001;20:2645–2660.
Gao P, Ware JH, Mehta C. Sample size re-estimation for adaptive sequential design in clinical trials. J Biopharm Stat. 2008;18:1184–1196.
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.
Proschan MA, Hunsberger SA. Designed extension of studies based on conditional power. Biometrics. 1995;51:1315–1324.
Bretz F, Schmidli H, Konig F, Racine A, Maurer W. Confirmatory seamless phase II/III clinical trials with hypotheses selection at interim: general concepts. Biom J. 2006;48:623–634.
Morgan CC, Huyck S, Jenkins M, et al. Adaptive design: results of 2012 survey on perception and use. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2014;48:473–481.
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.
O’Quigley J, Pepe M, Fisher L. Continual reassessment method: a practical design for phase 1 clinical trials in cancer. Biometrics. 1990;46:33–48.
Fleming TR. One-sample multiple testing procedure for phase-II clinical-trials. Biometrics. 1982;38:143–151.
Ivanova A, Monaco J, Stinchcombe T. Efficient designs for phase II oncology trials with ordinal outcome. Stat Interface. 2012;5:463–469.
Jung SH, Lee T, Kim K, George SL. Admissible two-stage designs for phase II cancer clinical trials. Stat Med. 2004;23:561–569.
FDA. Guidance for industry—clinical considerations for therapeutic cancer vaccines. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/Vaccines/UCM278673.pdf. Published 2011.
Natanegara F, Neuenschwander B, Seaman JW, et al. The current state of Bayesian methods in medical product development: survey results and recommendations from the DIA Bayesian Scientific Working Group. Pharm Stat. 2014;13(1):3–12.
FDA. Guidance for the use of bayesian statistics in medical device clinical trials. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/ucm071121.pdf. Published 2010.
Viele K, Berry S, Neuenschwander B, et al. Use of historical control data for assessing treatment effects in clinical trials. Pharm Stat. 2014;13:41–54.
Elsaesser A, Regnstrom J, Vetter T, et al. Adaptive clinical trial designs for European marketing authorization: a survey of scientific advice letters from the European Medicines Agency. Trials. 2014;15:383.
Heyse JF, Kuter BJ, Dallas MJ, Heaton P, Team RS. Evaluating the safety of a rotavirus vaccine: the REST of the story. Clin Trials. 2008;5:131–139.
Chen YHJ, Gesser R, Luxembourg A. A seamless phase IIB/III adaptive outcome trial: design rationale and implementation challenges. Clin Trials. 2015;12:84–90.
Li P, Zhao Y, Sun X, Chan ISF. Multiplicity adjustment in seamless phase II/III adaptive trials using biomarkers for dose selection. In: Chen Z, Liu A, Qu Y, Tang L, Ting N, Tsong Y, eds. Applied Statistics in Biomedicine and Clinical Trials Design. New York: Springer; 2015:285–299.
Chan ISF, Bohidar NR. Exact power and sample size for vaccine efficacy studies. Commun Stat-Theor M. 1998;27:1305–1322.
FDA. Guidance for enrichment strategies for clinical trials to support approval of human drugs and biological products. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation/guidances/ucm332181.pdf. Published 2012.
FDA. Requests for feedback on medical device submissions: the pre-submission program and meetings with food and drug administration staff. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/medicaldevices/deviceregulationandguidance/guidancedocuments/ucm311176.pdf. Published 2014.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lin, M., Lee, S., Zhen, B. et al. CBER’s Experience With Adaptive Design Clinical Trials. Ther Innov Regul Sci 50, 195–203 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479015604181
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479015604181