A systematic survey of adaptive trials shows substantial improvement in methods is needed
Yuning Wang,Minghong Yao,Jiali Liu,Yanmei Liu,Yu Ma,Xiaochao Luo,Fan Mei,Hunong Xiang,Kang Zou,Xin Sun,Ling Li
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111257
IF: 7.407
2024-01-12
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Abstract:Objectives To investigate the design, conduct, and analysis of adaptive trials through a systematic survey and provide recommendations for future adaptive trials. Study Design and Setting We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases up to January 2020. We included trials that were self-described as adaptive trials or applied adaptive designs. We identified three frequently used adaptive designs and summarized their methodological details in terms of design, conduct, and analysis. Lastly, we provided recommendations for future adaptive trials. Results We included a total of 128 trials in this study. The primary motivations for using adaptive design were to speed up the trials and facilitate decision-making (n=29, 31.5%). The three most frequently used methods were group sequential design (GSD) (n=71, 55.5%), adaptive dose-finding design (ADFD) (n=35, 27.3%), and adaptive randomization design (ARD) (n=26, 20.3%). The timing and frequency of interim analysis were detailed in three-fourths of the GSD trials (n=55, 77.5%) and in half of the ADFD trials (n=19, 54.3%); however, more than half of the ARD trials (n=15, 57.7%) did not provide this information. Some trials selected a different outcome than the primary outcome for interim analysis (GSD: n=7, 12.7%; ADFD: n=8, 27.6%; ARD: n=7, 50.0%), but the majority of these trials did not provide explicit reasons for this choice (GSD: n=7, 100.0%; ADFD: n=7, 87.5%; ARD: n=5, 71.4%). More than half (n=76, 59.4%) of trials did not mention the accessibility of supporting documents, and two-thirds (n=86, 67.2%) did not state the establishment of independent data monitoring committees (IDMCs). Moreover, unplanned adjustments were observed during the conduct of one-sixth adaptive trials (n=22, 17.2%). Based on our findings, we provide 14 recommendations for improving adaptive trials in the future. Conclusions Substantial improvements were needed in methods of adaptive trials, particularly in the areas of interim analysis, the establishment of IDMCs, and unplanned adjustments. In this study, we offer recommendations fr0m both general and specific aspects for researchers to carefully design, conduct, and analyze adaptive trials.
public, environmental & occupational health,health care sciences & services