Timothy C Guetterman1, Michael D Fetters1, Laurie J Legocki1, Samkeliso Mawocha2, William G Barsan2, Roger J Lewis3, Donald A Berry4, William J Meurer2. 1. Department of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 2. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 3. Department of Emergency Medicine, Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA; Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute; David Geffen School of Medicine-University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA; and Berry Consultants, Austin, TX, USA. 4. Department of Biostatistics, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; and Berry Consultants, Austin, TX, USA.
Abstract
CONTEXT: The context for this study was the Adaptive Designs Advancing Promising Treatments Into Trials (ADAPT-IT) project, which aimed to incorporate flexible adaptive designs into pivotal clinical trials and to conduct an assessment of the trial development process. Little research provides guidance to academic institutions in planning adaptive trials. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore the perspectives and experiences of stakeholders as they reflected back about the interactive ADAPT-IT adaptive design development process, and to understand their perspectives regarding lessons learned about the design of the trials and trial development. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with ten key stakeholders and observations of the process. We employed qualitative thematic text data analysis to reduce the data into themes about the ADAPT-IT project and adaptive clinical trials. RESULTS: The qualitative analysis revealed four themes: education of the project participants, how the process evolved with participant feedback, procedures that could enhance the development of other trials, and education of the broader research community. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: While participants became more likely to consider flexible adaptive designs, additional education is needed to both understand the adaptive methodology and articulate it when planning trials.
CONTEXT: The context for this study was the Adaptive Designs Advancing Promising Treatments Into Trials (ADAPT-IT) project, which aimed to incorporate flexible adaptive designs into pivotal clinical trials and to conduct an assessment of the trial development process. Little research provides guidance to academic institutions in planning adaptive trials. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore the perspectives and experiences of stakeholders as they reflected back about the interactive ADAPT-IT adaptive design development process, and to understand their perspectives regarding lessons learned about the design of the trials and trial development. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with ten key stakeholders and observations of the process. We employed qualitative thematic text data analysis to reduce the data into themes about the ADAPT-IT project and adaptive clinical trials. RESULTS: The qualitative analysis revealed four themes: education of the project participants, how the process evolved with participant feedback, procedures that could enhance the development of other trials, and education of the broader research community. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: While participants became more likely to consider flexible adaptive designs, additional education is needed to both understand the adaptive methodology and articulate it when planning trials.
Entities:
Keywords:
adaptive clinical trials; emergency medicine; neurological emergencies; qualitative research
Authors: R L Lalonde; K G Kowalski; M M Hutmacher; W Ewy; D J Nichols; P A Milligan; B W Corrigan; P A Lockwood; S A Marshall; L J Benincosa; T G Tensfeldt; K Parivar; M Amantea; P Glue; H Koide; R Miller Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 2007-05-23 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: William J Meurer; Roger J Lewis; Danilo Tagle; Michael D Fetters; Laurie Legocki; Scott Berry; Jason Connor; Valerie Durkalski; Jordan Elm; Wenle Zhao; Shirley Frederiksen; Robert Silbergleit; Yuko Palesch; Donald A Berry; William G Barsan Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2012-03-15 Impact factor: 5.721
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
Authors: Samkeliso C Mawocha; Michael D Fetters; Laurie J Legocki; Timothy C Guetterman; Shirley Frederiksen; William G Barsan; Roger J Lewis; Donald A Berry; William J Meurer Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2017-01-31 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Rebecca S Slack Tidwell; S Andrew Peng; Minxing Chen; Diane D Liu; Ying Yuan; J Jack Lee Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2019-08-26 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: William J Meurer; Laurie Legocki; Samkeliso Mawocha; Shirley M Frederiksen; Timothy C Guetterman; William Barsan; Roger Lewis; Donald Berry; Michael Fetters Journal: Trials Date: 2016-07-29 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Timothy C Guetterman; Michael D Fetters; Samkeliso Mawocha; Laurie J Legocki; William G Barsan; Roger J Lewis; Donald A Berry; William J Meurer Journal: SAGE Open Med Date: 2017-10-16
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: Trials Date: 2020-06-17 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Munyaradzi Dimairo; Elizabeth Coates; Philip Pallmann; Susan Todd; Steven A Julious; Thomas Jaki; James Wason; Adrian P Mander; Christopher J Weir; Franz Koenig; Marc K Walton; Katie Biggs; Jon Nicholl; Toshimitsu Hamasaki; Michael A Proschan; John A Scott; Yuki Ando; Daniel Hind; Douglas G Altman Journal: BMC Med Date: 2018-11-16 Impact factor: 8.775