Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Bothwell LE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5829673 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Bothwell Laura E LE Avorn Jerry J Khan Nazleen F NF Kesselheim Aaron S AS

BMJ open 20180210 2

<h4>Objectives</h4>This review investigates characteristics of implemented adaptive design clinical trials and provides examples of regulatory experience with such trials.<h4>Design</h4>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 ...[more]

PMID: 29440155

Similar Datasets

Project description:Rationale & objectiveAdaptive design methods are intended to improve the efficiency of clinical trials and are relevant to evaluating interventions in dialysis populations. We sought to determine the use of adaptive designs in dialysis clinical trials and quantify trends in their use over time.Study designWe completed a novel full-text systematic review that used a machine learning classifier (RobotSearch) for filtering randomized controlled trials and adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines.Setting & study populationsWe searched MEDLINE (PubMed) and ClinicalTrials.gov using sensitive dialysis search terms.Selection criteria for studiesWe included all randomized clinical trials with patients receiving dialysis or clinical trials with dialysis as a primary or secondary outcome. There was no restriction of disease type or intervention type.Data extraction & analytical approachWe performed a detailed data extraction of trial characteristics and a completed a narrative synthesis of the data.Results57 studies, available as 68 articles and 7 ClinicalTrials.gov summaries, were included after full-text review (initial search, 209,033 PubMed abstracts and 6,002 ClinicalTrials.gov summaries). 31 studies were conducted in a dialysis population and 26 studies included dialysis as a primary or secondary outcome. Although the absolute number of adaptive design methods is increasing over time, the relative use of adaptive design methods in dialysis trials is decreasing over time (6.12% in 2009 to 0.43% in 2019, with a mean of 1.82%). Group sequential designs were the most common type of adaptive design method used. Adaptive design methods affected the conduct of 50.9% of trials, most commonly resulting in stopping early for futility (41.2%) and early stopping for safety (23.5%). Acute kidney injury was studied in 32 trials (56.1%), kidney failure requiring dialysis was studied in 24 trials (42.1%), and chronic kidney disease was studied in 1 trial (1.75%). 27 studies (47.4%) were supported by public funding. 44 studies (77.2%) did not report their adaptive design method in the title or abstract and would not be detected by a standard systematic review.LimitationsWe limited our search to 2 databases (PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov) due to the scale of studies sourced (209,033 and 6,002 results, respectively).ConclusionsAdaptive design methods are used in dialysis trials but there has been a decline in their relative use over time.

Project description:BackgroundWell-designed trials are of paramount importance in improving the delivery of care to patients with kidney disease. However, it remains unknown whether contemporary clinical trials within nephrology are of sufficient quality and quantity to meet this need.Study designSystematic review.Setting & populationStudies registered with ClinicalTrials.gov.Selection criteria for studiesInterventional (ie, nonobservational) studies (both randomized and nonrandomized) registered between October 2007 and September 2010 were included for analysis. Studies were reviewed independently by physicians and classified by clinical specialty.PredictorNephrology versus cardiology versus other trials.OutcomesSelect clinical trial characteristics.ResultsOf 40,970 trials overall, 1,054 (2.6%) were classified as nephrology. Most nephrology trials were for treatment (75.4%) or prevention (15.7%), with very few diagnostic, screening, or health services research studies. Most nephrology trials were randomized (72.3%). Study designs included 24.9% with a single study group, 64.0% that included parallel groups, and 9.4% that were crossover trials. Nephrology trials, compared with 2,264 cardiology trials (5.5% overall), were more likely to be smaller (64.5% vs 48.0% enrolling≤100 patients), phases 1-2 (29.0% vs 19.7%), and unblinded (66.2% vs 53.3%; P<0.05 for all). Nephrology trials also were more likely than cardiology trials to include a drug intervention (72.4% vs 41.9%) and less likely to report having a data monitoring committee (40.3% vs 48.5%; P<0.05 for all). Finally, there were few trials funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH; 3.3%, nephrology; 4.2%, cardiology).LimitationsDoes not include all trials performed worldwide, and frequent categorization of funding source as university may underestimate NIH support.ConclusionsCritical differences remain between clinical trials in nephrology and other specialties. Improving care for patients with kidney disease will require a concerted effort to increase the scope, quality, and quantity of clinical trials within nephrology.

Dataset Information

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

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets