In this article, we give a general definition of adaptive designs, describe their structure, and provide a classification of adaptive designs, mapping them against the drug development process.
RosenbergerW.F., LachinJ.M.Randomization in Clinical Trials: Theory and Practice.New York: Wiley; 2002.
2.
TavesD.R.Minimization: a new method of assigning patients to treatment and control groups. Clin Pharmacol Ther.1974; 15: 443–453.
3.
ZelenM.The randomization and stratification of patients to clinical trials. J Chronic Dis.1974; 28: 365–375.
4.
PocockS.J., SimonR.Sequential treatment assignment with balancing prognostic factors in the controlled clinical trials. Biometrics.1975; 31: 103–115.
5.
WeiL.J.An application of an urn model to the design of sequential controlled clinical trials. J Am Stat Assoc.1978; 73: 559–563.
6.
AtkinsonA.C.Optimum biased coin designs for sequential clinical trials with prognostic factors. Biometrika.1982; 69: 61–67.
7.
AtkinsonA.C.Optimum biased-coin designs for sequential treatment allocation with covariate information. Stat Med.1999; 18: 1741–1752.
8.
RobbinsH.Some aspects of the sequential design of experiments. Bull Am Math Soc.1952; 58: 527–535.
9.
ZelenM.Play the winner and the controlled clinical trial. J Am Stat Assn.1969; 64: 131–146.
10.
EiseleJ.R.The doubly adaptive biased coin design for sequential clinical trials. J Stat Plann Inference.1994; 38: 249–261.
11.
BerryD.Adaptive trials and Bayesian statistics in drug development. Biopharm Rep.2001; 9: 1–11.
12.
BerryD.Bayesian statistics and the efficiency and ethics of clinical trials. Stat Sci.2004; 19: 175–187.
13.
SampsonA.R., SillM.W.Drop-the-Losers design: normal case. Biometrical J.2005; 47: 257–268.
14.
BirkettM.A., DayS.J.Internal pilot studies for estimating sample size. Stat Med.1994; 13: 2455–2463.
15.
HersonJ., WittesJ.The use of interim analysis for sample size adjustment. Drug Inf J.1993; 27: 753–760.
16.
GouldA.L.Interim analysis for monitoring clinical trials that do not materially affect the type I error rate. Stat Med.1992; 11: 53–66.
17.
GouldA.L., ShihW.J.Sample size reestimation without unblinding for normally distributed outcomes with unknown variance. Commun Stat Theory Methods.1992; 21: 2833–2853.
18.
WittesJ.T., SchabenbergerO., ZuckerD.M., BrittainE., ProschanM.Internal pilot studies I: type 1 error rate of the naive t-test. Stat Med.1999; 18: 3481–3491.
19.
ZuckerD.M., WittesJ.T., SchabenbergerO., BrittainE.Internal pilot studies II: comparison of various procedures. Stat Med.1999; 18: 3493–3509.
20.
KieserM., FriedeT.Re-calculating the sample size in internal pilot study designs with control of the type I error rate. Stat Med.2000; 19: 901–911.
21.
KieserM., FriedeT.Blinded sample size reestimation in multiarmed clinical trials. Drug Inf J.2000; 34: 455–460.
22.
GouldL.Sample-size re-estimation: recent developments and practical considerations. Stat Med.2001; 20: 2625–2643.
23.
FriedeT., KieserM.A comparison of methods for adaptive sample size adjustment. Stat Med.2001; 20: 3861–3873.
24.
MehtaC.R., TsiatisA.A.Flexible sample size considerations using information-based interim monitoring. Drug Inf J.2001; 35: 1095–1112.
25.
LanK.K.G., DeMetsD.L.Discrete sequential boundaries for clinical trials. Biometrika.1983; 70: 659–663.
26.
SchmitzN.Optimal Sequentially Planned Decision Procedures. Lecture Notes in Statistics, vol. 79. New York: Springer; 1993.
27.
CressieN., MorganP.B.The VPRT: a sequential testing procedure dominating the SPRT. Econometric Theory.1993; 9: 431–450.
28.
MorganP.B., CressieN.A comparison of cost-efficiencies of the sequential, group-sequential, and variable-sample-size-sequential probability ratio tests. Scand J Stat.1997; 24: 181–200.
29.
BartroffJ.Optimal multistage sampling in a boundary-crossing problem. Sequential Anal.2006; 25: 59–84.
30.
JennisonC., TurnbullB.W.Efficient group sequential designs when there are several effect sizes under consideration. Stat Med.2006; 25: 917–932.
31.
PoschM., BauerP.Adaptive two stage designs and the conditional error function. Biometrical J.1999; 41: 689–696.
32.
PoschM., BauerP.Interim analysis and sample size assessment. Biometrics.2000; 56: 1170–1176.
33.
ProschanM.A., HunsbergerS.A.Designed extension of studies based on conditional power. Biometrics.1995; 51: 1315–1324.
34.
CuiL., HungH.M.J., WangS.J.Modification of sample size in group sequential clinical trials. Biometrics.1999; 55: 853–857.
35.
LiuQ., ChiG.Y.H.On sample size and inference for two-stage adaptive designs. Biometrics.2001; 57: 172–177.
36.
LiG., ShihW.J., XieT., LuJ.A sample size adjustment procedure for clinical trials based on conditional power. Biostatistics.2002; 3: 277–287.
37.
BauerP., KoenigF.The reassessment of trial perspectives from interim data—a critical view. Stat Med.2006; 25: 23–36.
38.
PoschM., BauerP., BrannathW.Issues in designing flexible trials. Stat Med.2003; 22: 953–969.
39.
KittelsonJ.M., EmersonS.S.A unifying family of group sequential test designs. Biometrics.1999; 55: 874–882.
40.
JennisonC., TurnbullB.W.Group Sequential Methods With Applications to Clinical Trials.Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall; 2000.
41.
WhiteheadJ.The Design and Analysis of Sequential Clinical Trials.2nd ed.New York: Wiley; 1997.
SpiegelhalterD.J., AbramsK.R., MylesJ.P.Bayesian Approaches to Clinical Trials and Health-Care Evaluation.New York: Wiley; 2004.
44.
WangSJ., HungH.M.J., TsongY., CuiL.Group sequential test strategies for superiority and non-inferiority hypotheses in active controlled clinical trials. Stat Med.2001; 20: 1903–1912.
45.
BrannathW., BauerP., MaurerW., PoschM.Sequential tests for non-inferiority and superiority. Biometrics.2003; 59: 106–114.
46.
KropfS., HommelG., SchmidtU., BrickwedelJ., JepsenM.S.Multiple comparison of treatments with stable multivariate tests in a two-stage adaptive design, including a test for non-inferiority. Biometrical J.2000; 42: 951–965.
47.
HommelG., KropfS.Clinical trials with an adaptive choice of hypotheses. Drug Inf J.2001; 35: 1423–1429.
HommelG.Adaptive modifications of hypotheses after an interim analysis. Biometrical J.2001; 43: 581–589.
53.
OffenW., Chuang-SteinC., DmitrienkoA.Multiple co-primary endpoints: medical and statistical solutions. Drug Inf J.2006; in press.
54.
KieserM., BauerP., LehmacherW.Inference on multiple endpoints in clinical trials with adaptive interim analyses. Biometrical J.1999; 41: 261–277.
55.
InoueL.Y.T., ThallP.F., BerryD.A.Seamlessly expanding a randomized phase II trial to phase III. Biometrics.2002; 58: 823–831.
56.
MüllerH.H., SchäferH.Adaptive group sequential designs for clinical trials: combining the advantages of adaptive and of classical group sequential approaches. Biometrics.2001; 57: 886–891.
57.
GehanE.A.The determination of number of patients in a follow-up trial of a new chemotherapeutic agent. J Chronic Dis.1961; 13: 346–353.
58.
ChenT.T.Optimal three-stage designs for phase II cancer trials. Biometrics.1997; 43: 865–874.
59.
ChenS., SoongS.J., WheelerR.H.An efficient multistage procedure for phase II clinical trials that have high response rate objectives. Controlled Clin Trials.1994; 15: 277–283.
60.
FlemingT.R.One-sample multiple testing procedure for phase II clinical trials. Biometrics.1982; 38: 143–151.
61.
SimonR.Optimal two-stage designs for phase II clinical trials. Controlled Clin Trials.1989; 10: 1–10.
62.
BanerjeeA., TsiatisA.A.Adaptive two-stage designs in phase II clinical trials. Stat Med.2006; 25: in press.
BauerP.Multistage testing with adaptive designs. Biom Inform Med Biol.1989; 20: 130–148.
71.
BauerP., KöhneK.Evaluation of experiments with adaptive interim analyses. Biometrics.1994; 50: 1029–1041.
72.
FisherL.D.Self-designing clinical trials. Stat Med.1998; 17: 1551–1562.
73.
LehmacherW., WassmerG.Adaptive sample size calculations in group sequential trials. Biometrics.1999; 55: 1286–1290.
74.
BrannathW., PoschM., BauerP.Recursive combination tests.)Am Stat Assoc.2002; 97: 236–244.
75.
MüllerH.H., SchäferH.A general statistical principle for changing a design any time during the course of a trial. Stat Med.2004; 23: 2497–2508.
76.
MüllerH.H., SchäferH.Construction of group sequential designs in clinical trials on the basis of detectable treatment differences. Stat Med.2004; 23: 1413–1424.
77.
BauerP., RöhmelJ.An adaptive method for establishing a dose-response relationship. Stat Med.1995; 14: 1595–1607.
78.
BauerP., KieserM.Combining different phases in the development of medical treatments within a single trial. Stat Med.1999; 18: 1833–1848.
79.
LehmacherW., KieserM., HothornL.Sequential and multiple testing for dose-response analysis. Drug Inf J.2000; 34: 591–597.
80.
LiuQ., ProschanM.A., PledgerG.W.A unified theory of two-stage adaptive designs. J Am Stat Assoc.2002; 97: 1034–1041.
81.
FedorovV., HacklP.Model-Oriented Design of Experiments.New York: Springer; 1997.
82.
FedorovV., LeonovS.Optimal design for dose response experiments: a model-oriented approach. Drug Inf J.2001; 35: 1373–1383.
83.
FedorovV., LeonovS.Response driven designs in drug development. In: WongW.K., BergerM., eds. Applied Optimal Designs.New York: Wiley; 2005: 103–136.
84.
O'QuigleyJ., PepeM., FisherL.Continual reassessment method: a practical design for phase I clinical trials in cancer. Biometrics.1990; 46: 33–48.
85.
BabbJ., RogatkoA., ZacksS.Cancer phase I clinical trials: efficient dose escalation with overdose control. Stat Med.1998; 17: 1103–1120.
86.
HainesL.M., PerevozskayaI., RosenbergerW.F.Bayesian optimal designs for phase I clinical trials. Biometrics.2003; 59: 591–600.
87.
WhiteheadJ., WilliamsonD.An evaluation of Bayesian decision procedures for dose-finding studies. J Biopharm Stat.1998; 8: 445–467.
DragalinV., FedorovV.Adaptive designs for dose-finding based on efficacy-toxicity response. J Stat Plann Inference.2006; 136: 1800–1823.
90.
EdlerL.Overview of phase I trials. In: CrowleyJ., ed. Statistics in Clinical Oncology.New York: Dekker; 2001: 1–34.
91.
O'QuigleyJ.Dose-finding designs using continual reassessment method. In: CrowleyJ., ed. Statistics in Clinical Oncology.New York: Dekker; 2001: 35–72.
92.
StorerB.E.Choosing a phase I design. In: CrowleyJ., ed. Statistics in Clinical Oncology.New York: Dekker; 2001: 73–91.
93.
DragalinV., FedorovV., WuY.Adaptive designs for selecting drug combinations based on efficacy-toxicity response. J Stat Plann Inference.2006; in press.
94.
ThallP., RussellK.A strategy for dose-finding and safety monitoring based on efficacy and adverse outcomes in phase I/II clinical trials. Biometrics.1998; 54: 251–264.
95.
ThallP.F., CookJ.D.Dose-finding based on efficacy-toxicity trade-offs. Biometrics.2004: 60: 684–693.
96.
O'QuigleyJ., HughesM., FentonT.Dose finding designs for HIV studies. Biometrics.2001; 57: 1018–1029.
97.
BraunT.The bivariate continual reassessment method: extending the CRM to phase I trials of two competing outcomes. Controlled Clin Trials.2002; 23: 240–256.
98.
WhiteheadJ., ZhouY., StevensJ., BlakeyG.An evaluation of a Bayesian method of dose escalation based on bivariate binary responses. J Biopharm Stat.2004; 14: 969–983.
99.
BekeleB.N., ShenY.A Bayesian approach to jointly modeling toxicity and biomarker expression in a phase I/II dose-finding trial. Biometrics.2005; 61: 343–354.
100.
ThallP., MillikenR.E., MuellerP., LeeS.J.Dose-finding with two agents in phase I oncology trials. Biometrics.2003; 59: 487–496.
