BACKGROUND: The interest in adaptive study design is evident from the growing amount of clinical research employing this model in the mid to later stages of medicines development. Little has been published on the practical application and merits of adaptive study design in early phase clinical research. METHODS: This paper describes a retrospective analysis performed on a sample of 29 industry lead adaptive early phase studies commencing between 1 January 2006 and 31 December 2010 in a clinical trials unit in London, England. All studies containing at least one adaptive feature in the original protocol were included in the analysis. The scope of the analysis was to assess whether the use of adaptive study designs provided tangible benefits over the use of conventional study designs using time savings as the main measure. CONCLUSION: We conclude that the use of adaptive study design saves time in early phase research programs. This is achieved by abolishing the need for substantial amendments or by mitigating their impact on timelines and by using adaptive scheduling efficiencies.
BACKGROUND: The interest in adaptive study design is evident from the growing amount of clinical research employing this model in the mid to later stages of medicines development. Little has been published on the practical application and merits of adaptive study design in early phase clinical research. METHODS: This paper describes a retrospective analysis performed on a sample of 29 industry lead adaptive early phase studies commencing between 1 January 2006 and 31 December 2010 in a clinical trials unit in London, England. All studies containing at least one adaptive feature in the original protocol were included in the analysis. The scope of the analysis was to assess whether the use of adaptive study designs provided tangible benefits over the use of conventional study designs using time savings as the main measure. CONCLUSION: We conclude that the use of adaptive study design saves time in early phase research programs. This is achieved by abolishing the need for substantial amendments or by mitigating their impact on timelines and by using adaptive scheduling efficiencies.
Authors: Paul Gallo; Christy Chuang-Stein; Vladimir Dragalin; Brenda Gaydos; Michael Krams; José Pinheiro Journal: J Biopharm Stat Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 1.051
Authors: André Rogatko; David Schoeneck; William Jonas; Mourad Tighiouart; Fadlo R Khuri; Alan Porter Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-11-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Philip Pallmann; Alun W Bedding; Babak Choodari-Oskooei; Munyaradzi Dimairo; Laura Flight; Lisa V Hampson; Jane Holmes; Adrian P Mander; Lang'o Odondi; Matthew R Sydes; Sofía S Villar; James M S Wason; Christopher J Weir; Graham M Wheeler; Christina Yap; Thomas Jaki Journal: BMC Med Date: 2018-02-28 Impact factor: 8.775
Authors: Jörg Täubel; Georg Ferber; Gabriel Fox; Sara Fernandes; Ulrike Lorch; A John Camm Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2016-10-21 Impact factor: 4.335