Background: There is emerging evidence of the increasing uptake of response-adaptive randomization (RAR) in clinical trials. However, a systematic review of RAR trials, their context of use, characteristics, and stakeholder acceptance has been lacking.
Methods: We performed a systematic review of clinical trials that utilized elements of RAR, identified via the Cortellis Regulatory Intelligence database following a pre-specified selection process. We report a summary of relevant characteristics of the identified trials.
Results: Out of 170 records, 39 RAR trials were identified (22 completed, 17 ongoing as of October 2024). The majority were Phase 2-focused studies (phases 1/2, 2, 2b, and 2/3), academically sponsored, and concentrated in oncology, neurology, and infectious diseases. Small molecules and biologics were the most common investigational products. Among the 22 completed trials, seven reported positive outcomes. Notably, two of these trials provided pivotal data that informed the further development and subsequent regulatory approval of the investigational compounds.
Conclusion: Over the past two decades, RAR has been increasingly utilized in complex adaptive trials across diverse therapeutic areas and clinical research phases. This systematic review provides a critical “baseline” for tracing the dynamics of RAR applications and should help the clinical research community recognize RAR as a valuable methodology for optimizing future trial designs.
RobertsonDSLeeKMLópez-KolkovskaBC, et al.Response-adaptive randomization in clinical trials: from myths to practical considerations. Stat Sci2023; 38: 185–208.
2.
HuFRosenbergerWF. The theory of response-adaptive randomization in clinical trials. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2006.
SverdlovO. Modern adaptive randomized clinical trials: statistical and practical aspects. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2015.
5.
DragalinV. Adaptive designs: terminology and classification. Drug Inf J2006; 40: 425–435.
6.
BretzFGalloPMaurerW. Adaptive designs: the Swiss Army knife among clinical trial designs?Clin Trials2017; 14: 417–424.
7.
Food and Drug AdministrationAdaptive designs for medical device clinical studies: guidance for industry and food and drug administration staff, July 27, 2016. https://www.fda.gov/media/92671/download.
8.
Food and Drug AdministrationAdaptive designs for clinical trials of drugs and biologics: guidance for industry, November 2019. https://www.fda.gov/media/78495/download.
9.
CarlinBPNollevauxF. Bayesian complex innovative trial designs (CIDs) and their use in drug development for rare disease. J Clin Pharmacol2022; 62: S56–S71.
10.
Adaptive Platform Trials Coalition. Adaptive platform trials: definition, design, conduct and reporting considerations. Nat Rev Drug Discovery2019; 18: 797–807.
11.
WoodcockJLaVangeLM. Master protocols to study multiple therapies, multiple diseases, or both. N Engl J Med2017; 377: 62–70.
12.
SudhopTBrunNCRiedelC, et al.Master protocols in clinical trials: a universal Swiss Army knife?Lancet Oncol2019; 20: e336–e342.
13.
GalloPKramsM. PhRMA working group on adaptive designs: introduction to the full white paper. Drug Inf J2006; 40: 421–423.
14.
PritchettYLMenonSMarchenkoO, et al.Sample size re-estimation designs in confirmatory clinical trials—current state, statistical considerations, and practical guidance. Stat Biopharm Res2015; 7: 309–321.
15.
StallardNHamborgTParsonsN, et al.Adaptive designs for confirmatory clinical trials with subgroup selection. J Biopharm Stat2014; 24: 168–187.
16.
JennisonCTurnbullB. Group sequential methods with applications to clinical trials. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC Press, 2000.
17.
WassmerGBrannathW. Group sequential and confirmatory adaptive designs in clinical trials. Cham: Springer, 2016.
18.
HommelGKropfS. Clinical trials with an adaptive choice of hypotheses. Drug Inf J2001; 35: 1423–1429.
19.
BerryDAFristedtB. Bandit problems: sequential allocation of experiments. Dordrecht: Springer, 1985.
20.
RosenbergerWFSverdlovO. Handling covariates in the design of clinical trials. Stat Sci2008; 23: 404–419.
21.
HuF. Statistical issues in trial design and personalized medicine. Clin Investig (Lond)2012; 2: 121–124.
22.
CarterKScheffoldALRenteriaJ, et al.Regulatory guidance on randomization and the use of randomization tests in clinical trials: a systematic review. Stat Biopharm Res2023; 16: 428–440.
Food and Drug AdministrationGood review practice: clinical review of investigational new drug applications, December 2013. https://www.fda.gov/media/87621/download.
25.
MoherDLiberatiATetzlaffJ, et al.Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med2009; 6: e1000097.
26.
AnderssonBSValdezBCde LimaM, et al.Clofarabinefludarabine with once daily i.v. busulfan as pretransplant conditioning therapy for advanced myeloid leukemia and MDS. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant2011; 17: 893–900.
27.
ATTACC Investigators; ACTIV-4a Investigators; REMAP-CAP Investigators, et al.Therapeutic anticoagulation with heparin in noncritically ill patients with Covid-19. N Engl J Med2021; 385: 790–802.
28.
BarkerADSigmanCCKelloffGJ, et al.I-SPY 2: an adaptive breast cancer trial design in the setting of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Clin Pharmacol Ther2009; 86: 97–100.
29.
HuFZhangLX. Asymptotic properties of doubly adaptive biased coin designs for multitreatment clinical trials. Ann Stat2004; 32: 268–301.
30.
IvanovaA. A play-the-winner-type urn design with reduced variability. Metrika2003; 58: 1–13.
31.
MorrisAFitzpatrickMBertoletM, et al.Use of rosuvastatin in HIV-associated chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. AIDS2017; 31: 539–544.
32.
GuXChenNWeiC, et al.Bayesian two-stage biomarker-based adaptive design for targeted therapy development. Stat Biosci2014; 8: 99–128.
33.
PapadimitrakopoulouVLeeJJWistubaII, et al.The BATTLE-2 study: a biomarker-integrated targeted therapy study in previously treated patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol2016; 34: 3638–3647.
34.
AlexanderBMTrippaLGaffeyS, et al.Individualized screening trial of innovative glioblastoma therapy (INSIGhT): a Bayesian adaptive platform trial to develop precision medicines for patients with glioblastoma. JCO Preci Oncol2019; 3: 1–13.
35.
AlexanderBMBaSBergerMS, et al.Adaptive global innovative learning environment for glioblastoma: GBM AGILE. Clin Cancer Res2018; 24: 737–743.
36.
van SteenwijkMPJvan RosmalenJKraemerCVE, et al.A randomized embedded multifactorial adaptive platform for extra corporeal membrane oxygenation (REMAP ECMO) – design and rationale of the left ventricular unloading trial domain. Am Heart J2024; 279: 81–93.
37.
KrishnasamyRJardineM. Adaptive designs for clinical trials in nephrology. J Am Soc Nephrol2024; 36: 147–149.
38.
MurphyPMolineMMaylebenD, et al.Lemborexant, a dual orexin receptor antagonist (DORA) for the treatment of insomnia disorder: results from a Bayesian, adaptive, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. J Clin Sleep Med2017; 13: 1289–1299.
39.
SatlinAWangJLogovinskyV, et al.Design of a Bayesian adaptive phase 2 proof-of-concept trial for BAN2401, a putative disease-modifying monoclonal antibody for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement2016; 2: 1–12.
40.
SwansonCJZhangYDhaddaS, et al.A randomized, double-blind, phase 2b proof-of-concept clinical trial in early Alzheimer’s disease with lecanemab, an anti-A protofibril antibody. Alzheimer’s Res Therapy2021; 13: 80.
41.
BackonjaMWilliamsLMiaoX, et al.Safety and efficacy of neublastin in painful lumbosacral radiculopathy: a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial using Bayesian adaptive design (the SPRINT trial). Pain2017; 158: 1802–1812.
42.
LenzRAPritchettYLBerrySM, et al.Adaptive, dose-finding phase 2 trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of ABT-089 in mild to moderate Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord2015; 29: 192–199.
43.
EjskjaerNDimcevskiGWoJ, et al.Safety and efficacy of ghrelin agonist TZP-101 in relieving symptoms in patients with diabetic gastroparesis: a randomized, placebo-controlled study. Neurogastroenterol Motil2010; 22: 1069-e281.
44.
WoJMEjskjaerNHellströmPM, et al.Randomised clinical trial: ghrelin agonist TZP-101 relieves gastroparesis associated with severe nausea and vomiting–randomised clinical study subset data. Aliment Pharmacol Ther2011; 33: 679–688.
45.
GarcesSKarisEMerrillJT, et al.Improving resource utilisation in SLE drug development through innovative trial design. Lupus Sci Med2023; 10: e000890.
46.
WarnerPWeirCJHansenCH, et al.Low-dose dexamethasone as a treatment for women with heavy menstrual bleeding: protocol for response-adaptive randomised placebo-controlled dose-finding parallel group trial (DexFEM). BMJ Open2015; 5: e006837.
47.
WarnerPWhitakerLHRParkerRA, et al.Low dose dexamethasone as treatment for women with heavy menstrual bleeding: a response-adaptive randomised placebo-controlled dose-finding parallel group trial (DexFEM). EBioMedicine2021; 69: 103434.
48.
O’RiordanWTiffanyCScangarella-OmanN, et al.Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of gepotidacin (GSK2140944) in the treatment of patients with suspected or confirmed Gram-positive acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother2017; 61: e02095-16.
49.
HeinzeGBoulesteixA-LKammerM, et al.Phases of methodological research in biostatistics—building the evidence base for new methods. Biom J2024; 66: 2200222.
50.
RosenbergerWFLachinJM. Randomization in clinical trials: theory and practice, 2nd edn. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2015.
51.
BartlettRHRoloffDWCornellRG, et al.Extracorporeal circulation in neonatal respiratory failure: a prospective randomized study. Pediatrics1985; 76: 479–487.
52.
TamuraRNFariesDEAndersenJS, et al.A case study of an adaptive clinical trial in the treatment of out-patients with depressive disorder. J Am Stat Assoc1994; 89: 768–776.
53.
WeiLJDurhamSD. The randomized play-the-winner rule in medical trials. J Am Stat Assoc1978; 73: 840–843.
54.
BerryDA. Adaptive clinical trials: the promise and the caution. J Clin Oncol2011; 29: 606–609.
55.
BerrySMVieleK. Comment: response adaptive randomization in practice. Stat Sci2023; 38: 229–232.
56.
ScottLJ. Lemborexant: first approval. Drugs2020; 80: 425–432.
57.
van DyckCHSwansonCJAisenP, et al.Lecanemab in early Alzheimer’s disease. N Engl J Med2023; 388: 9–21.
58.
HarrisE. Alzheimer drug lecanemab gains traditional FDA approval. JAMA2023; 330: 495.
59.
HansenCHWarnerPParkerRA, et al.Development of a Bayesian response-adaptive trial design for the dexamethasone for excessive menstruation study. Stat Methods Med Res2017; 26: 2681–2699.
60.
HansenCHWarnerPWalkerA, et al.A practical guide to pre-trial simulations for Bayesian adaptive trials using SAS and BUGS. Pharm Stat2018; 17: 854–865.
61.
LiuSLeeJJ. An overview of the design and conduct of the BATTLE trials. Chin Clin Oncol2015; 4: 33.
62.
KimCGiacconeG. Lessons learned from BATTLE-2 in the war on cancer: the use of Bayesian method in clinical trial design. Ann Transl Med2016; 4: 466.
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
