Samkeliso C Mawocha1, Michael D Fetters2, Laurie J Legocki2, Timothy C Guetterman2, Shirley Frederiksen1, William G Barsan1, Roger J Lewis3,4, Donald A Berry4, William J Meurer1,5. 1. 1 Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 2. 2 Department of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 3. 3 Department of Emergency Medicine, Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, CA, USA. 4. 4 Berry Consultants, Austin, TX, USA. 5. 5 Department of Neurology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adaptive clinical trials use accumulating data from enrolled subjects to alter trial conduct in pre-specified ways based on quantitative decision rules. In this research, we sought to characterize the perspectives of key stakeholders during the development process of confirmatory-phase adaptive clinical trials within an emergency clinical trials network and to build a model to guide future development of adaptive clinical trials. METHODS: We used an ethnographic, qualitative approach to evaluate key stakeholders' views about the adaptive clinical trial development process. Stakeholders participated in a series of multidisciplinary meetings during the development of five adaptive clinical trials and completed a Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunities-Threats questionnaire. In the analysis, we elucidated overarching themes across the stakeholders' responses to develop a conceptual model. RESULTS: Four major overarching themes emerged during the analysis of stakeholders' responses to questioning: the perceived statistical complexity of adaptive clinical trials and the roles of collaboration, communication, and time during the development process. Frequent and open communication and collaboration were viewed by stakeholders as critical during the development process, as were the careful management of time and logistical issues related to the complexity of planning adaptive clinical trials. CONCLUSION: The Adaptive Design Development Model illustrates how statistical complexity, time, communication, and collaboration are moderating factors in the adaptive design development process. The intensity and iterative nature of this process underscores the need for funding mechanisms for the development of novel trial proposals in academic settings.
BACKGROUND: Adaptive clinical trials use accumulating data from enrolled subjects to alter trial conduct in pre-specified ways based on quantitative decision rules. In this research, we sought to characterize the perspectives of key stakeholders during the development process of confirmatory-phase adaptive clinical trials within an emergency clinical trials network and to build a model to guide future development of adaptive clinical trials. METHODS: We used an ethnographic, qualitative approach to evaluate key stakeholders' views about the adaptive clinical trial development process. Stakeholders participated in a series of multidisciplinary meetings during the development of five adaptive clinical trials and completed a Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunities-Threats questionnaire. In the analysis, we elucidated overarching themes across the stakeholders' responses to develop a conceptual model. RESULTS: Four major overarching themes emerged during the analysis of stakeholders' responses to questioning: the perceived statistical complexity of adaptive clinical trials and the roles of collaboration, communication, and time during the development process. Frequent and open communication and collaboration were viewed by stakeholders as critical during the development process, as were the careful management of time and logistical issues related to the complexity of planning adaptive clinical trials. CONCLUSION: The Adaptive Design Development Model illustrates how statistical complexity, time, communication, and collaboration are moderating factors in the adaptive design development process. The intensity and iterative nature of this process underscores the need for funding mechanisms for the development of novel trial proposals in academic settings.
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: Thomas Bleck; Hannah Cock; James Chamberlain; James Cloyd; Jason Connor; Jordan Elm; Nathan Fountain; Elizabeth Jones; Daniel Lowenstein; Shlomo Shinnar; Robert Silbergleit; David Treiman; Eugen Trinka; Jaideep Kapur Journal: Epilepsia Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 5.864
Authors: Christopher S Coffey; Bruce Levin; Christina Clark; Cate Timmerman; Janet Wittes; Peter Gilbert; Sara Harris Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Askiel Bruno; Valerie L Durkalski; Christiana E Hall; Rattan Juneja; William G Barsan; Scott Janis; William J Meurer; Amy Fansler; Karen C Johnston Journal: Int J Stroke Date: 2013-03-19 Impact factor: 5.266
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: Kristine Broglio; William J Meurer; Valerie Durkalski; Qi Pauls; Jason Connor; Donald Berry; Roger J Lewis; Karen C Johnston; William G Barsan Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2022-05-02
Authors: Francesca Schiavone; Riya Bathia; Krishna Letchemanan; Lindsey Masters; Claire Amos; Anna Bara; Louise Brown; Clare Gilson; Cheryl Pugh; Nafisah Atako; Fleur Hudson; Mahesh Parmar; Ruth Langley; Richard S Kaplan; Chris Parker; Gert Attard; Noel W Clarke; Silke Gillessen; Nicholas D James; Tim Maughan; Matthew R Sydes Journal: Trials Date: 2019-05-29 Impact factor: 2.279