Literature DB >> 16972714

Confirmatory seamless phase II/III clinical trials with hypotheses selection at interim: general concepts.

Frank Bretz1, Heinz Schmidli, Franz König, Amy Racine, Willi Maurer.   

Abstract

Traditional drug development consists of a sequence of independent trials organized in different phases. Full development typically involves (i) a learning phase II trial and (ii) one or two confirmatory phase III trial(s). For example, in the phase II trials several doses of the new compound might be compared to a control and/or placebo with the goal of deciding whether to stop or continue development and, in the latter case, selecting one or two "best" doses to carry forward into the confirmatory phase. The phase III trials are then conducted as stand-alone confirmatory studies, not incorporating in their statistical analyses data collected in the previous phases. Seamless phase II/III designs are aimed at interweaving the two phases of full development by combining them into one single, uninterrupted study conducted in two stages. In the dose-finding example above, one (or more) dose(s) are selected after the first stage based on the available data at interim, and are then observed further in the second stage. The final analysis of the selected dose(s) includes patients from both stages and is performed such that the overall type I error rate is controlled at a prespecified level regardless of the dose selection rule used at interim. The adequacy of the dose selection at interim is obviously a critical step for the success of a seamless phase II/III trial. In this paper we focus on the description of flexible test procedures allowing for adaptively selecting hypotheses at interim and thus allowing the combination of learning and confirming in a single seamless trial. We review the statistical background, introduce different test procedures and compare them in a power study. In a subsequent paper (Schmidli et al., 2006) we give several applications from our daily practice and discuss related implementation issues in conducting adaptive seamless designs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16972714     DOI: 10.1002/bimj.200510232

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biom J        ISSN: 0323-3847            Impact factor:   2.207


  42 in total

1.  Design issues in randomized phase II/III trials.

Authors:  Edward L Korn; Boris Freidlin; Jeffrey S Abrams; Susan Halabi
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2012-01-23       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 2.  Integrating predictive biomarkers and classifiers into oncology clinical development programmes.

Authors:  Robert A Beckman; Jason Clark; Cong Chen
Journal:  Nat Rev Drug Discov       Date:  2011-09-30       Impact factor: 84.694

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

Authors:  Munyaradzi Dimairo; Philip Pallmann; James Wason; Susan Todd; Thomas Jaki; Steven A Julious; Adrian P Mander; Christopher J Weir; Franz Koenig; Marc K Walton; Jon P Nicholl; Elizabeth Coates; Katie Biggs; Toshimitsu Hamasaki; Michael A Proschan; John A Scott; Yuki Ando; Daniel Hind; Douglas G Altman
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2020-06-17

Review 4.  The future of drug development: advancing clinical trial design.

Authors:  John Orloff; Frank Douglas; Jose Pinheiro; Susan Levinson; Michael Branson; Pravin Chaturvedi; Ene Ette; Paul Gallo; Gigi Hirsch; Cyrus Mehta; Nitin Patel; Sameer Sabir; Stacy Springs; Donald Stanski; Matthias R Evers; Edd Fleming; Navjot Singh; Tony Tramontin; Howard Golub
Journal:  Nat Rev Drug Discov       Date:  2009-10-09       Impact factor: 84.694

5.  Adaptive Clinical Trials: Advantages and Disadvantages of Various Adaptive Design Elements.

Authors:  Edward L Korn; Boris Freidlin
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2017-06-01       Impact factor: 13.506

6.  Using Bayesian modeling in frequentist adaptive enrichment designs.

Authors:  Noah Simon; Richard Simon
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2018-01-01       Impact factor: 5.899

7.  Interim analyses in diagnostic versus treatment studies: differences and similarities.

Authors:  Oke Gerke; Poul Flemming Høilund-Carlsen; Mads Hvid Poulsen; Werner Vach
Journal:  Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2012-07-10

8.  Seamless Phase IIa/IIb and enhanced dose-finding adaptive design.

Authors:  Jiacheng Yuan; Herbert Pang; Tiejun Tong; Dong Xi; Wenzhao Guo; Peter Mesenbrink
Journal:  J Biopharm Stat       Date:  2015-09-21       Impact factor: 1.051

9.  Bias, Operational Bias, and Generalizability in Phase II/III Trials.

Authors:  Boris Freidlin; Edward L Korn; Jeffrey S Abrams
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2018-04-26       Impact factor: 44.544

10.  Advances in Statistical Approaches Oncology Drug Development.

Authors:  Anastasia Ivanova; Gary L Rosner; Olga Marchenko; Tom Parke; Inna Perevozskaya; Yanping Wang
Journal:  Ther Innov Regul Sci       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 1.778

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.