This article describes vignettes concerning interactions with Data Safety Monitoring Boards during the design and monitoring of some clinical trials with an adaptive design. Most reflect personal experiences by the author.
BauerPBretzFDragalinVet al. Twenty-five years of confirmatory adaptive designs: opportunities and pitfalls. Stat Med2016; 30: 325–347.
2.
JennisonCTurnbullBW. Adaptive seamless designs: selection and prospective testing of hypotheses J Biopharm Stat2007; 17: 1135–1161.
3.
SchmidliHBretzFRacineAet al. Confirmatory seamless phase II/III clinical trials with hypotheses selection at interim: applications and practical considerations. Biometrical J2006; 48: 635–643.
4.
FlemingTR. Standard versus adaptive monitoring procedures: a commentary. Stat Med2006; 25: 3305–3312.
5.
ClarkLCCombsGFTurnbullBWet al. Effects of selenium supplementation for cancer prevention in patients with carcinoma of the skin: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA1996; 276: 1957–1963 (Editorial: pp.1984–1985.)
6.
FontanarosaPBFlanaganADeAngelisCD. Reporting conflicts of interest, financial aspects of research, and role of sponsors in funded studies. JAMA2005; 296: 110–111.
7.
FowlerVGAllenKBMoreiraEDet al. Effect of an investigational vaccine for preventing staphylococcus aureus infections after cardiothoracic surgery: a randomized trial. JAMA2013; 309: 1368–1378.
8.
LuoXTurnbullBWClarkLC. Likelihood ratio tests for a changepoint with survival data. Biometrika1997; 84: 555–565.
9.
The National Lung Screening Trial Research Team. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med2011; 365: 395–409.
10.
GrieveAPKramsM. ASTIN: a Bayesian adaptive dose-response trial in acute stroke. Clin Trials2005; 2: 340–351.
11.
US Food and Drug Administration. Draft guidance for industry adaptive design clinical trials for drugs and biologics. Rockville, MD: Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER); Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), 2010, Sec.VIID.
12.
US Food and Drug Administration. Adaptive designs for medical device clinical studies, draft guidance. Rockville, MD: Center for Devices and Radiological Health; Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), 2015, p. 26.
13.
SavilleBRBerrySM. Efficiencies of platform clinical trials: a vision of the future. Clin Trials2016; 13: 358–366.
14.
CAPRICORN Investigators. Effect of carvedilol on outcome after myocardial infarction in patients with left-ventricular dysfunction: the CAPRICORN randomised trial. Lancet2001; 357: 1385–1390.
15.
CoatsAJ. CAPRICORN: a story of alpha allocation and beta-blockers in left ventricular dysfunction post-MI. Int J Cardiol2001; 78: 109–113.
16.
CuiLHungHMJWangSJ. Modification of sample size in group sequential clinical trials. Biometrics1999; 55: 853–857.
17.
MehtaCRPocockSJ. Adaptive increase in sample size when interim results are promising: a practical guide with examples. Stat Med2011; 30: 3267–3284.
18.
JennisonCTurnbullBW. Adaptive sample size modification in clinical trials: start small then ask for more?Stat Med2015; 34: 3793–3810.
19.
EmersonSSLevinGPEmersonSC. Comments on “adaptive increase in sample size when interim results are promising: a practical guide with examples.”Stat Med2011; 30: 3285–3301.
20.
JennisonCTurnbullBW. Efficient group sequential designs when there are several effect sizes under consideration. Stat Med2006; 25: 917–932.
21.
JennisonCTurnbullBW. Adaptive and non-adaptive group sequential tests. Biometrika2006; 93: 1–21.
22.
GlimmE. Comments on “Adaptive increase in sample size when interim results are promising: a practical guide with examples” by C. R. Mehta and S. J. Pocock. Stat Med2012; 31: 98–99.
23.
WittesJT. Adaptive designs: gaming the System. In: Proceedings of the conference for innovative designs of clinical trials and related topics, Stanford, CA, 20 June 2009.
24.
WittesJT. On changing a long-term clinical trial midstream. Stat Med2002; 27: 2789–2795.
25.
DeMetsDLFlemingTRRockholdFet al. Liability issues for data monitoring committee members. Clin Trials2004; 1: 525–531.
26.
DeMetsDLEllenbergSS. Data monitoring committees—expecting the unexpected. N Engl J Med2016; 375: 1365–1371.
27.
BoneHGDempsterDWEismanJAet al. Odanacatib for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis: development history and design and participant characteristics of LOFT, the Long-Term Odanacatib Fracture Trial. Osteoporos Int2015; 26: 699–712.
28.
EcksteinL. Building a more connected DSMB: better integrating ethics review and safety monitoring. Account Res2015; 22: 81–105.
BerrySMBroglioKRGroshenSet al. Bayesian hierarchical modeling of patient subpopulations: efficient designs of Phase II oncology clinical trials. Clin Trials2013; 10: 720–734.
31.
LoACGuarinoPDRichardsLGet al. Robot-assisted therapy for long-term upper-limb impairment after stroke. N Engl J Med2010; 362: 1772–1783.
32.
LanKKGTrostDC. Estimation of parameters and sample size re-estimation. In: Proc Am Stat Assoc Biopharm Sect1997; 32: 48–51.
33.
MehtaCTsiatisA. Flexible sample size considerations using information based interim monitoring. Drug Inf J2001; 35: 1095–112.
34.
TsiatisAA. Information-based monitoring of clinical trials. Stat Med2006; 25: 3236–3244.
35.
BodenWEO’RourkeRATeoKKet al. Optimal medical therapy with or without PCI for stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med2007; 356: 1503–1516.
36.
WangSJHungHMJTsongYet al. Group sequential test strategies for superiority and non-inferiority hypotheses in active controlled clinical trials. Stat Med2001; 20: 1903–1912.
37.
BrannathWBauerPMaurerWet al. Sequential tests for non-inferiority and superiority. Biometrics2003; 59: 106–114.
38.
KoyamaTSampsonARGleserLJ. A framework for two-stage adaptive procedures to simultaneously test non-inferiority and superiority. Stat Med2005; 24: 2439–2456.
39.
ÖhrnFJennisonC. Optimal group-sequential designs for simultaneous testing of superiority and non-inferiority. Stat Med2010; 29: 743–759.
40.
JennisonCTurnbullBW. Meta-analyses and adaptive group sequential designs in the clinical development process. J Biopharm Stat2005; 15: 537–558.
