Benjamin R Saville1, Scott M Berry2. 1. Berry Consultants, Austin, TX, USA Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN, USA ben@berryconsultants.com. 2. Berry Consultants, Austin, TX, USA Adjunct faculty, University of Kansas Medical Center, Department of Biostatistics, KS, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A "platform trial" is a clinical trial with a single master protocol in which multiple treatments are evaluated simultaneously. Adaptive platform designs offer flexible features such as dropping treatments for futility, declaring one or more treatments superior, or adding new treatments to be tested during the course of a trial. METHODS: A simulation study explores the efficiencies of various platform trial designs relative to a traditional two-arm strategy. RESULTS: Platform trials can find beneficial treatments with fewer patients, fewer patient failures, less time, and with greater probability of success than a traditional two-arm strategy. CONCLUSION: In an era of personalized medicine, platform trials provide the innovation needed to efficiently evaluate modern treatments.
BACKGROUND: A "platform trial" is a clinical trial with a single master protocol in which multiple treatments are evaluated simultaneously. Adaptive platform designs offer flexible features such as dropping treatments for futility, declaring one or more treatments superior, or adding new treatments to be tested during the course of a trial. METHODS: A simulation study explores the efficiencies of various platform trial designs relative to a traditional two-arm strategy. RESULTS: Platform trials can find beneficial treatments with fewer patients, fewer patient failures, less time, and with greater probability of success than a traditional two-arm strategy. CONCLUSION: In an era of personalized medicine, platform trials provide the innovation needed to efficiently evaluate modern treatments.
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: Christopher C Butler; Jason T Connor; Roger J Lewis; Kristine Broglio; Benjamin R Saville; Johanna Cook; Alike van der Velden; Theo Verheij Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2018-06 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: James D Guest; John D Steeves; M J Mulcahey; Linda A T Jones; Frank Rockhold; Rϋediger Rupp; John L K Kramer; Steven Kirshblum; Andrew Blight; Daniel Lammertse Journal: Spinal Cord Date: 2020-09-16 Impact factor: 2.772
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: Amy Burd; Richard L Schilsky; John C Byrd; Ross L Levine; Vassiliki A Papadimitrakopoulou; Roy S Herbst; Mary W Redman; Brian J Druker; David R Gandara Journal: Blood Adv Date: 2019-07-23