A novel composite web service selection based on quality of service

Using the internet, as a dynamic environment thanks to its distributed characteristic, for web service deployment has become a crucial issue in QoS-driven service composition. An accurate adaption should be undertaken to provide a reliable service composition which enables the composited services are being executed appropriately. That is, the critical aspect of service composition is the proper execution of combination of web services while the appropriate service adaption performed with respect to predetermined functional and non-functional characteristics. In this paper, we attempts to deliberate the optimization approaches to devise the appropriate scheme for QoS-based composite web service selection

Point estimation for adaptive trial designs II: Practical considerations and guidance

In adaptive clinical trials, the conventional end-of-trial point estimate of a treatment effect is prone to bias, that is, a systematic tendency to deviate from its true value. As stated in recent FDA guidance on adaptive designs, it is desirable to report estimates of treatment effects that reduce or remove this bias. However, it may be unclear which of the available estimators are preferable, and their use remains rare in practice. This article is the second in a two-part series that studies the issue of bias in point estimation for adaptive trials. Part I provided a methodological review of approaches to remove or reduce the potential bias in point estimation for adaptive designs. In part II, we discuss how bias can affect standard estimators and assess the negative impact this can have. We review current practice for reporting point estimates and illustrate the computation of different estimators using a real adaptive trial example (including code), which we use as a basis for a simulation study. We show that while on average the values of these estimators can be similar, for a particular trial realization they can give noticeably different values for the estimated treatment effect. Finally, we propose guidelines for researchers around the choice of estimators and the reporting of estimates following an adaptive design. The issue of bias should be considered throughout the whole lifecycle of an adaptive design, with the estimation strategy prespecified in the statistical analysis plan. When available, unbiased or bias-reduced estimates are to be preferred

Testing many treatments within a single protocol over 10 years at MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL: Multi-arm, multi-stage platform, umbrella and basket protocols

There is real need to change how we do some of our clinical trials, as currently the testing and development process is too slow, too costly and too failure-prone often we find that a new treatment is no better than the current standard. Much of the focus on the development and testing pathway has been in improving the design of phase I and II trials. In this article, we present examples of new methods for improving the design of phase III trials (and the necessary lead up to them) as they are the most time-consuming and expensive part of the pathway. Key to all these methods is the aim to test many treatments and/or pose many therapeutic questions within one protocol

Point estimation for adaptive trial designs

Recent FDA guidance on adaptive clinical trial designs defines bias as "a systematic tendency for the estimate of treatment effect to deviate from its true value", and states that it is desirable to obtain and report estimates of treatment effects that reduce or remove this bias. In many adaptive designs, the conventional end-of-trial point estimates of the treatment effects are prone to bias, because they do not take into account the potential and realised trial adaptations. While much of the methodological developments on adaptive designs have tended to focus on control of type I error rates and power considerations, in contrast the question of biased estimation has received less attention. This article addresses this issue by providing a comprehensive overview of proposed approaches to remove or reduce the potential bias in point estimation of treatment effects in an adaptive design, as well as illustrating how to implement them. We first discuss how bias can affect standard estimators and critically assess the negative impact this can have. We then describe and compare proposed unbiased and bias-adjusted estimators of treatment effects for different types of adaptive designs. Furthermore, we illustrate the computation of different estimators in practice using a real trial example. Finally, we propose a set of guidelines for researchers around the choice of estimators and the reporting of estimates following an adaptive design

Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency’s “Consultation on proposals for legislative changes for clinical trials”: a response from the Trials Methodology Research Partnership Adaptive Designs Working Group, with a focus on data sharing

In the UK, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency consulted on proposals “to improve and strengthen the UK clinical trials legislation to help us make the UK the best place to research and develop safe and innovative medicines”. The purpose of the consultation was to help finalise the proposals and contribute to the drafting of secondary legislation. We discussed these proposals as members of the Trials Methodology Research Partnership Adaptive Designs Working Group, which is jointly funded by the Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health and Care Research. Two topics arose frequently in the discussion: the emphasis on legislation, and the absence of questions on data sharing. It is our opinion that the proposals rely heavily on legislation to change practice. However, clinical trials are heterogeneous, and as a result some trials will struggle to comply with all of the proposed legislation. Furthermore, adaptive design clinical trials are even more heterogeneous than their non-adaptive counterparts, and face more challenges. Consequently, it is possible that increased legislation could have a greater negative impact on adaptive designs than non-adaptive designs. Overall, we are sceptical that the introduction of legislation will achieve the desired outcomes, with some exceptions. Meanwhile the topic of data sharing — making anonymised individual-level clinical trial data available to other investigators for further use — is entirely absent from the proposals and the consultation in general. However, as an aspect of the wider concept of open science and reproducible research, data sharing is an increasingly important aspect of clinical trials. The benefits of data sharing include faster innovation, improved surveillance of drug safety and effectiveness and decreasing participant exposure to unnecessary risk. There are already a number of UK-focused documents that discuss and encourage data sharing, for example, the Concordat on Open Research Data and the Medical Research Council’s Data Sharing Policy. We strongly suggest that data sharing should be the norm rather than the exception, and hope that the forthcoming proposals on clinical trials invite discussion on this important topic

RAMPART: A phase III multi-arm multi-stage trial of adjuvant checkpoint inhibitors in patients with resected primary renal cell carcinoma (RCC) at high or intermediate risk of relapse

Background: 20–60% of patients with initially locally advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma (RCC) develop metastatic disease despite optimal surgical excision. Adjuvant strategies have been tested in RCC including cytokines, radiotherapy, hormones and oral tyrosine-kinase inhibitors (TKIs), with limited success. The predominant global standard-of-care after nephrectomy remains active monitoring. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are effective in the treatment of metastatic RCC; RAMPART will investigate these agents in the adjuvant setting. // Methods/design: RAMPART is an international, UK-led trial investigating the addition of ICIs after nephrectomy in patients with resected locally advanced RCC. RAMPART is a multi-arm multi-stage (MAMS) platform trial, upon which additional research questions may be addressed over time. The target population is patients with histologically proven resected locally advanced RCC (clear cell and non-clear cell histological subtypes), with no residual macroscopic disease, who are at high or intermediate risk of relapse (Leibovich score 3–11). Patients with fully resected synchronous ipsilateral adrenal metastases are included. Participants are randomly assigned (3,2:2) to Arm A - active monitoring (no placebo) for one year, Arm B - durvalumab (PD-L1 inhibitor) 4-weekly for one year; or Arm C - combination therapy with durvalumab 4-weekly for one year plus two doses of tremelimumab (CTLA-4 inhibitor) at day 1 of the first two 4-weekly cycles. The co-primary outcomes are disease-free-survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes include safety, metastasis-free survival, RCC specific survival, quality of life, and patient and clinician preferences. Tumour tissue, plasma and urine are collected for molecular analysis (TransRAMPART)

RAMPART: A model for a regulatory-ready academic-led phase III trial in the adjuvant renal cell carcinoma setting

The development of therapeutics in oncology is a highly active research area for the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, but also has a strong academic base. Many new agents have been developed in recent years, most with specific biological targets. This has mandated the need to look at different ways to streamline the evaluation of new agents. One solution has been the development of adaptive trial designs that allow the evaluation of multiple agents, concentrating on the most promising agents while screening out those which are unlikely to benefit patients. Another way forward has been the growth of partnerships between academia and industry with the shared goal of designing and conducting high quality clinical trials which answer important clinical questions as efficiently as possible. The RAMPART trial (NCT03288532) brings together both of these processes in an attempt to improve outcomes for patients with locally advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC), where no globally acceptable adjuvant strategy after nephrectomy currently exist. RAMPART is led by the MRC CTU at University College London (UCL), in collaboration with other international academic groups and industry. We aim to facilitate the use of data from RAMPART, (dependent on outcomes), for a future regulatory submission that will extend the license of the agents being investigated. We share our experience in order to lay the foundations for an effective trial design and conduct framework and to guide others who may be considering similar collaborations

Designs for clinical trials with time-to-event outcomes based on stopping guidelines for lack of benefit

<p>Abstract</p> <p>background</p> <p>The pace of novel medical treatments and approaches to therapy has accelerated in recent years. Unfortunately, many potential therapeutic advances do not fulfil their promise when subjected to randomized controlled trials. It is therefore highly desirable to speed up the process of evaluating new treatment options, particularly in phase II and phase III trials. To help realize such an aim, in 2003, Royston and colleagues proposed a class of multi-arm, two-stage trial designs intended to eliminate poorly performing contenders at a first stage (point in time). Only treatments showing a predefined degree of advantage against a control treatment were allowed through to a second stage. Arms that survived the first-stage comparison on an intermediate outcome measure entered a second stage of patient accrual, culminating in comparisons against control on the definitive outcome measure. The intermediate outcome is typically on the causal pathway to the definitive outcome (i.e. the features that cause an intermediate event also tend to cause a definitive event), an example in cancer being progression-free and overall survival. Although the 2003 paper alluded to multi-arm trials, most of the essential design features concerned only two-arm trials. Here, we extend the two-arm designs to allow an arbitrary number of stages, thereby increasing flexibility by building in several 'looks' at the accumulating data. Such trials can terminate at any of the intermediate stages or the final stage.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We describe the trial design and the mathematics required to obtain the timing of the 'looks' and the overall significance level and power of the design. We support our results by extensive simulation studies. As an example, we discuss the design of the STAMPEDE trial in prostate cancer.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The mathematical results on significance level and power are confirmed by the computer simulations. Our approach compares favourably with methodology based on beta spending functions and on monitoring only a primary outcome measure for lack of benefit of the new treatment.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The new designs are practical and are supported by theory. They hold considerable promise for speeding up the evaluation of new treatments in phase II and III trials.</p

Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency's "Consultation on proposals for legislative changes for clinical trials": a response from the Trials Methodology Research Partnership Adaptive Designs Working Group, with a focus on data sharing

In the UK, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency consulted on proposals “to improve and strengthen the UK clinical trials legislation to help us make the UK the best place to research and develop safe and innovative medicines”. The purpose of the consultation was to help finalise the proposals and contribute to the drafting of secondary legislation. We discussed these proposals as members of the Trials Methodology Research Partnership Adaptive Designs Working Group, which is jointly funded by the Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health and Care Research. Two topics arose frequently in the discussion: the emphasis on legislation, and the absence of questions on data sharing. It is our opinion that the proposals rely heavily on legislation to change practice. However, clinical trials are heterogeneous, and as a result some trials will struggle to comply with all of the proposed legislation. Furthermore, adaptive design clinical trials are even more heterogeneous than their non-adaptive counterparts, and face more challenges. Consequently, it is possible that increased legislation could have a greater negative impact on adaptive designs than non-adaptive designs. Overall, we are sceptical that the introduction of legislation will achieve the desired outcomes, with some exceptions. Meanwhile the topic of data sharing — making anonymised individual-level clinical trial data available to other investigators for further use — is entirely absent from the proposals and the consultation in general. However, as an aspect of the wider concept of open science and reproducible research, data sharing is an increasingly important aspect of clinical trials. The benefits of data sharing include faster innovation, improved surveillance of drug safety and effectiveness and decreasing participant exposure to unnecessary risk. There are already a number of UK-focused documents that discuss and encourage data sharing, for example, the Concordat on Open Research Data and the Medical Research Council’s Data Sharing Policy. We strongly suggest that data sharing should be the norm rather than the exception, and hope that the forthcoming proposals on clinical trials invite discussion on this important topic