The Utility of Adaptive Designs in Publicly Funded Confirmatory Trials

Introduction: Adaptive designs (ADs) are underused, particularly in publicly funded confirmatory trials, despite their promising benefits and methodological prominence given in the statistical literature. Research Question: This thesis investigates why ADs are underused in the publicly funded setting, explores facilitators, and proposes recommendations to improve their appropriate use. Methods: Confirmatory ADs are reviewed from a statistical and practical perspective. Cross-disciplinary key stakeholders are then interviewed to explore roadblocks to the use of ADs. Based on the interview findings, follow-up quantitative surveys are undertaken to explore wider perceptions on barriers, concerns, and facilitators aimed to generalise the findings. The surveys targeted CTUs (Clinical Trials Units), private sector organisations, and Public Funders in the UK. In view of some of the findings, case studies of applied confirmatory ADs are reviewed to highlight their scope and characteristic, and to investigate the state of reporting of the most common AD. The design and implementation of selected ADs is demonstrated using retrospective and prospective planned case studies. Lessons learned are highlighted to enhance the design of future trials of similar characteristics. Results: The main barriers to the use of ADs include the lack of funding support accessible to UK CTUs to aid their design; limited practical knowledge; preference for traditional mainstream designs; difficulties in marketing ADs to key stakeholders; limited time to support ADs relative to other competing priorities; lack of applied training; and insufficient access to case studies of undertaken ADs, which would facilitate practical learning and successful implementation. Researchers’ inadequate description of AD-related aspects (such as rationale, scope, and decision-making criteria to guide the planned AD) in grant proposals was viewed among the major obstacles by Public Funders. Suboptimal reporting of the design and conduct of undertaken ADs appears to influence concerns about their robustness in decision-making and credibility to change practice. Conclusions: Most obstacles appear connected to a lack of practical implementation knowledge and applied training, and limited access to adequately reported case studies to facilitate practical learning. Assurance of scientific rigour through transparent adequate reporting is paramount to the credibility of findings from adaptive trials. There is a need for a consensus guidance document on ADs and an AD-tailored CONSORT statement to enhance their reporting and conduct. This thesis provides detailed recommendations to improve the appropriate use of ADs and areas for future related research

Exploring the relationship between baseline physical activity levels and mortality reduction associated with increases in physical activity : a modelling study

Background Increasing physical activity (PA) levels among the general adult population of developed nations is important for reducing premature mortality and the burdens of preventable illness. Assessing how effective PA interventions are as health interventions often involves categorising participants as either ‘active’ or ‘sedentary’ after the interventions. A model was developed showing that doing this could significantly misestimate the health effect of PA interventions. Methods A life table model was constructed combining evidence on baseline PA levels with evidence indicating the non-linear relationship between PA levels and all-cause mortality risks. PA intervention scenarios were modelled which had the same mean increase in PA but different levels of take-up by people who were more active or more sedentary to begin with. Results The model simulations indicated that, compared with a scenario where already-active people did most of the additional PA, a scenario where the least active did the most additional PA was around a third more effective in preventing deaths between the ages of 50 and 60 years. The relationship between distribution of PA take-up and health effect was explored systematically and appeared non-linear. Conclusions As the health gains of a given PA increase are greatest among people who are most sedentary, smaller increases in PA in the least active may have the same health benefits as much larger PA increases in the most active. To help such health effects to be assessed, PA studies should report changes in the distribution of PA level between the start and end of the study

A review of perspectives on the use of randomization in phase II oncology trials

Historically, phase II oncology trials assessed a treatment’s efficacy by examining its tumor response rate in a single-arm trial. Then, approximately 25 years ago, certain statistical and pharmacological considerations ignited a debate around whether randomized designs should be utilized instead. Here, based upon an extensive literature review, we review the arguments on either side of this debate. In particular, we describe the numerous factors that relate to the reliance of single-arm trials on historical control data, and detail the trial scenarios in which there was general agreement on preferential utilization of single-arm or randomized design frameworks, such as the use of single-arm designs when investigating treatments for rare cancers. We then summarize the latest figures on phase II oncology trial design, contrasting current design choices against historical recommendations on best practice. Ultimately, we find several ways in which the design of recently completed phase II trials does not appear to align with said recommendations. For example, despite advice to the contrary, only 66.2% of the assessed trials that employed progression-free survival as a primary or co-primary outcome used a randomized comparative design. In addition, we identify that just 28.2% of the considered randomized comparative trials came to a positive conclusion, as opposed to 72.7% of the single-arm trials. We conclude by describing a selection of important issues influencing contemporary design, framing this discourse in light of current trends in phase II, such as the increased use of biomarkers and recent interest in novel adaptive designs

The Risk and Timing of Tuberculosis Diagnosed in Smear-Negative TB Suspects: A 12 Month Cohort Study in Harare, Zimbabwe

BACKGROUND: Cases of smear-negative TB have increased dramatically in high prevalence HIV settings and pose considerable diagnostic and management challenges. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Between February 2006 and July 2007, a cohort study nested within a cluster-randomised trial of community-based case finding strategies for TB in Harare, Zimbabwe was undertaken. Participants who had negative sputum smears and remained symptomatic of TB were follow-up for one year with standardised investigations including HIV testing, repeat sputum smears, TB culture and chest radiography. Defaulters were actively traced to the community. The objectives were to investigate the incidence and risk factors for TB. TB was diagnosed in 218 (18.2%) participants, of which 39.4% was bacteriologically confirmed. Most cases (84.2%) were diagnosed within 3 months, but TB incidence remained high thereafter (111.3 per 1000 person-years, 95% CI: 86.6 to 146.3). HIV prevalence was 63.3%, and HIV-infected individuals had a 3.5-fold higher risk of tuberculosis than HIV-negative individuals. CONCLUSION: We found that diagnosis of TB was insensitive and slow, even with early radiography and culture. Until more sensitive and rapid diagnostic tests become widely available, a much more proactive and integrated approach towards prompt initiation of ART, ideally from within TB clinics and without waiting for TB to be excluded, is needed to minimise the risk and consequences of diagnostic delay

A randomised controlled trial and cost-effectiveness evaluation of 'booster' interventions to sustain increases in physical activity in middle-aged adults in deprived urban neighbourhoods

Background: More evidence is needed on the potential role of 'booster' interventions in the maintenance of increases in physical activity levels after a brief intervention in relatively sedentary populations. Objectives: To determine whether objectively measured physical activity, 6 months after a brief intervention, is increased in those receiving physical activity 'booster' consultations delivered in a motivational interviewing (MI) style, either face to face or by telephone. Design: Three-arm, parallel-group, pragmatic, superiority randomised controlled trial with nested qualitative research fidelity and geographical information systems and health economic substudies. Treatment allocation was carried out using a web-based simple randomisation procedure with equal allocation probabilities. Principal investigators and study statisticians were blinded to treatment allocation until after the final analysis only. Setting: Deprived areas of Sheffield, UK. Participants: Previously sedentary people, aged 40-64 years, living in deprived areas of Sheffield, UK, who had increased their physical activity levels after receiving a brief intervention. Interventions: Participants were randomised to the control group (no further intervention) or to two sessions of MI, either face to face ('full booster') or by telephone ('mini booster'). Sessions were delivered 1 and 2 months post-randomisation. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was total energy expenditure (TEE) per day in kcal from 7-day accelerometry, measured using an Actiheart device (CamNtech Ltd, Cambridge, UK). Independent evaluation of practitioner competence was carried out using the Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity assessment. An estimate of the per-participant intervention costs, resource use data collected by questionnaire and health-related quality of life data were analysed to produce a range of economic models from a short-term NHS perspective. An additional series of models were developed that used TEE values to estimate the long-term cost-effectiveness. Results: In total, 282 people were randomised (control = 96; mini booster = 92, full booster = 94) of whom 160 had a minimum of 4 out of 7 days' accelerometry data at 3 months (control = 61, mini booster = 47, full booster = 52). The mean difference in TEE per day between baseline and 3 months favoured the control arm over the combined booster arm but this was not statistically significant (-39 kcal, 95% confidence interval -173 to 95, p = 0.57). The autonomy-enabled MI communication style was generally acceptable, although some participants wanted a more paternalistic approach and most expressed enthusiasm for monitoring and feedback components of the intervention and research. Full boosters were more popular than mini boosters. Practitioners achieved and maintained a consistent level of MI competence. Walking distance to the nearest municipal green space or leisure facilities was not associated with physical activity levels. Two alternative modelling approaches both suggested that neither intervention was likely to be cost-effective. Conclusions: Although some individuals do find a community-based, brief MI 'booster' intervention supportive, the low levels of recruitment and retention and the lack of impact on objectively measured physical activity levels in those with adequate outcome data suggest that it is unlikely to represent a clinically effective or cost-effective intervention for the maintenance of recently acquired physical activity increases in deprived middle-aged urban populations. Future research with middle-aged and relatively deprived populations should explore interventions to promote physical activity that require less proactive engagement from individuals, including environmental interventions

SPIRIT and CONSORT extensions for early phase dose-finding clinical trials:the DEFINE (DosE FIndiNg Extensions) study protocol

Introduction Early phase dose-finding (EPDF) studies are critical for the development of new treatments, directly influencing whether compounds or interventions can be investigated in further trials to confirm their safety and efficacy. There exists guidance for clinical trial protocols and reporting of completed trials in the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) 2013 and CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Randomised Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statements. However, neither the original statements nor their extensions adequately cover the specific features of EPDF trials. The DEFINE (DosE-FIndiNg Extensions) study aims to enhance transparency, completeness, reproducibility and interpretation of EPDF trial protocols (SPIRIT-DEFINE) and their reports once completed (CONSORT-DEFINE), across all disease areas, building on the original SPIRIT 2013 and CONSORT 2010 statements. Methods and analysis A methodological review of published EPDF trials will be conducted to identify features and deficiencies in reporting and inform the initial generation of the candidate items. The early draft checklists will be enriched through a review of published and grey literature, real-world examples analysis, citation and reference searches and consultation with international experts, including regulators and journal editors. Development of CONSORT-DEFINE commenced in March 2021, followed by SPIRIT-DEFINE from January 2022. A modified Delphi process, involving worldwide, multidisciplinary and cross-sector key stakeholders, will be run to refine the checklists. An international consensus meeting in autumn 2022 will finalise the list of items to be included in both guidance extensions. Ethics and dissemination This project was approved by ICR’s Committee for Clinical Research. The Health Research Authority confirmed Research Ethics Approval is not required. The dissemination strategy aims to maximise guideline awareness and uptake, including but not limited to dissemination in stakeholder meetings, conferences, peer-reviewed publications and on the EQUATOR Network and DEFINE study websites

Costs and staffing resource requirements for adaptive clinical trials: quantitative and qualitative results from the Costing Adaptive Trials project.

BACKGROUND: Adaptive designs offer great promise in improving the efficiency and patient-benefit of clinical trials. An important barrier to further increased use is a lack of understanding about which additional resources are required to conduct a high-quality adaptive clinical trial, compared to a traditional fixed design. The Costing Adaptive Trials (CAT) project investigated which additional resources may be required to support adaptive trials. METHODS: We conducted a mock costing exercise amongst seven Clinical Trials Units (CTUs) in the UK. Five scenarios were developed, derived from funded clinical trials, where a non-adaptive version and an adaptive version were described. Each scenario represented a different type of adaptive design. CTU staff were asked to provide the costs and staff time they estimated would be needed to support the trial, categorised into specified areas (e.g. statistics, data management, trial management). This was calculated separately for the non-adaptive and adaptive version of the trial, allowing paired comparisons. Interviews with 10 CTU staff who had completed the costing exercise were conducted by qualitative researchers to explore reasons for similarities and differences. RESULTS: Estimated resources associated with conducting an adaptive trial were always (moderately) higher than for the non-adaptive equivalent. The median increase was between 2 and 4% for all scenarios, except for sample size re-estimation which was 26.5% (as the adaptive design could lead to a lengthened study period). The highest increase was for statistical staff, with lower increases for data management and trial management staff. The percentage increase in resources varied across different CTUs. The interviews identified possible explanations for differences, including (1) experience in adaptive trials, (2) the complexity of the non-adaptive and adaptive design, and (3) the extent of non-trial specific core infrastructure funding the CTU had. CONCLUSIONS: This work sheds light on additional resources required to adequately support a high-quality adaptive trial. The percentage increase in costs for supporting an adaptive trial was generally modest and should not be a barrier to adaptive designs being cost-effective to use in practice. Informed by the results of this research, guidance for investigators and funders will be developed on appropriately resourcing adaptive trials

Adaptive designs in clinical trials: why use them, and how to run and report them.

Adaptive designs can make clinical trials more flexible by utilising results accumulating in the trial to modify the trial's course in accordance with pre-specified rules. Trials with an adaptive design are often more efficient, informative and ethical than trials with a traditional fixed design since they often make better use of resources such as time and money, and might require fewer participants. Adaptive designs can be applied across all phases of clinical research, from early-phase dose escalation to confirmatory trials. The pace of the uptake of adaptive designs in clinical research, however, has remained well behind that of the statistical literature introducing new methods and highlighting their potential advantages. We speculate that one factor contributing to this is that the full range of adaptations available to trial designs, as well as their goals, advantages and limitations, remains unfamiliar to many parts of the clinical community. Additionally, the term adaptive design has been misleadingly used as an all-encompassing label to refer to certain methods that could be deemed controversial or that have been inadequately implemented.We believe that even if the planning and analysis of a trial is undertaken by an expert statistician, it is essential that the investigators understand the implications of using an adaptive design, for example, what the practical challenges are, what can (and cannot) be inferred from the results of such a trial, and how to report and communicate the results. This tutorial paper provides guidance on key aspects of adaptive designs that are relevant to clinical triallists. We explain the basic rationale behind adaptive designs, clarify ambiguous terminology and summarise the utility and pitfalls of adaptive designs. We discuss practical aspects around funding, ethical approval, treatment supply and communication with stakeholders and trial participants. Our focus, however, is on the interpretation and reporting of results from adaptive design trials, which we consider vital for anyone involved in medical research. We emphasise the general principles of transparency and reproducibility and suggest how best to put them into practice