Insufficient exploration of the dose-response is a shortcoming of clinical drug development, and failure to characterize dosing early is often cited as a key contributor to the high late-stage attrition rate currently faced by the industry. Adaptive methods, for example, make it feasible to design a proof-of-concept study as an adaptive dose-response trial. Efficient learning about the dose response earlier in development will ultimately reduce overall costs and provide better information on dose in the filing package. This article presents the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America working group's main recommendations regarding adaptive dose-response studies. As background, traditional fixed and adaptive dose-response designs are briefly reviewed. Information on developing a Bayesian adaptive dose design and some monitoring and processing issues are also discussed.
DragalinV.Adaptive designs: terminology and classification. Drug Inf J.2006; 40: 425–435.
2.
MacaJ., BhattacharyaS., DragalinV., GalloP., KramsM.Adaptive seamless phase II/III designs—background, operational aspects, and examples. Drug Inf J.2006; 40: 463–473.
3.
QuinlanJ.A., KramsM.Implementing adaptive designs: logistical and operational considerations. Drug Inf J.2006; 40: 437–444.
4.
GalloP.Confidentiality and trial integrity issues for adaptive designs. Drug Inf J.2006; 40: 445–450.
5.
International Conference on Harmonisation Expert Working Group.Guideline for industry: dose response information to support drug registration. Federal Register59(216): 55,972–55,976 (1994).
6.
TingN., ed. Dose Finding in Drug Development.New York: Springer; 2006.
7.
RubergS.L.Dose response studies. I. Some design considerations. J Biopharm Stat.1995; 5: 1–14.
8.
RubergS.L.Dose response studies. II. Analysis and interpretation. J Biopharm Stat.1995; 5: 15–42.
9.
WhiteheadJ., ZhouY., PattersonS., WebberD., FrancisS.Easy-to-implement Bayesian methods for dose-escalation studies in healthy volunteers. Biostatistics.2001; 2: 47–61.
10.
RosenbergerW.F., HainesL.M.Competing designs for phase I clinical trials: a review. Stat Med.2002; 21: 2757–2770.
11.
ReinerE., PaolettiX., O'QuigleyJ.Operating characteristics of the standard phase I clinical trial design. Comp Stat Data Anal.1999; 30: 303–315.
12.
DurhamS.D., FlournoyN.Random walks for quantile estimation. In GuptaS.S., BergerJ.O., ed. Statistical Decision Theory and Related Topics.New York: Springer; 1994: 467–476.
13.
O'QuigleyJ., PepeM., FisherL.Continual reassessment method: a practical design for phase 1 clinical trials in cancer. Biometrics.1990; 46: 33–48.
14.
FadesD.Practical modifications of the continual reassessment method for phase I cancer clinical trials. J Biopharm Stat.1994; 4: 147–164.
15.
KornE.L., MidthuneD., ChenT.T., RubinsteinL.V., ChristianM.C., SimonR.M.A comparison of two phase I designs. Stat Med.1994; 13: 1799–1806.
16.
GoodmanS.N., ZahurakM.L., PiantadosiS.Some practical improvements in the continual reassessment method for phase I studies. Stat Med.1995; 14: 1149–1161.
17.
DoughertyT.B., PorcheV.H., ThallP.F.Maximum tolerated dose of Nalmefene in patients receiving epidural fentanyl and dilute bupivacaine for postoperative analgesia. Anesthesiology.2000; 92: 1010–1016.
18.
BabbJ., RogatkoA., ZacksS.Cancer phase I clinical trials: efficient dose escalation with overdose control. Stat Med.1998; 17: 1103–1120.
19.
WhiteheadJ., BrunierH.Bayesian decision procedures for dose determining experiments. Stat Med.1995; 14: 885–893.
20.
PattersonS., JonesB.Bioequivalence and Statistics in Clinical Pharmacology.London: Chapman and Hall; 2005.
21.
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.
22.
BraunT.The bivariate continual reassessment method: extending the CRM to phase I trials of two competing outcomes. Controlled Clin Trials.2002; 23: 240–256.
23.
HainesL.M., PerevozskayaI., RosenbergerW.F.Bayesian optimal designs for phase I clinical trials. Biometrics.2003; 59: 561–600.
24.
DragalinV., FedorovV.Adaptive designs for dose-finding based on efficacy-toxicity response. J Stat Plann Inference.2005; 136: 1800–1823.
WhiteheadJ.The Design and Analysis of Sequential Clinical Trials.Rev. 2nd ed.Chichester, UK: Wiley; 1997.
31.
JennisonC., TurnbullB.W.Group Sequential Methods With Applications to Clinical Trials.London: Chapman and Hall; 2000.
32.
StallardN., ToddS.Sequential designs for phase III clinical trials incorporating treatment selection. Stat Med.2003; 22: 689–703.
33.
JennisonC., TurnbullB.W.Meta-analyses and adaptive group sequential designs in the clinical development process. J Biopharm Stat.2005; 15: 537–558.
34.
BauerP., BrannathW.The advantages and disadvantages of adaptive designs for clinical trials. Drug Discov Today.2004; 9: 351–357.
35.
TsiatisA.A., MehtaC.On the inefficiency of the adaptive design for monitoring clinical trials. Biometrika.2003; 90: 367–378.
36.
BrannathW., BauerP., PoschM.On the efficiency of adaptive designs for flexible interim decisions in clinical trials. J Stat Plann Inference.2006; 136: 1956–1961.
37.
BauerP., KöhneK.Evaluation of experiments with adaptive interim analyses. Biometrics.1994; 50: 1029–1041.
38.
LehmacherW., WassmerG.Adaptive sample size calculations in group sequential trials. Biometrics.1999; 55: 1286–1290.
39.
HommelG.Adaptive modifications of hypotheses after an interim analysis. Biom J.2001; 43: 581–589.
40.
MarcusR., PeritzE., GabrielK.B.On closed testing procedures with special reference to ordered analysis of variance. Biometrika.1976; 63: 655–660.
41.
DunnettC.W.A multiple comparison procedure for comparing several treatments with a control. J Am Stat Assoc.1955; 50: 1096–1121.
42.
BretzF., SchmidliH., KönigF., RacineA., MaurerW.Confirmatory seamless phase II/III clinical trials with hypothesis selection at interim: general concepts (with discussion). Biom J.2006; 48: 623–634.
43.
LiuQ., PledgerW.G.Phase II and III combination designs to accelerate drug development. J Am Stat Assoc.2005; 100: 493–502.
44.
ToddS., StallardN.A new clinical trial design combining phases II and III: sequential designs with treatment selection and a change of end-point. Drug Inf J.2005; 39: 109–118.
45.
SpiegelhalterD.J., AbramsK.R., MylesJ.P.Bayesian Approaches to Clinical Trials and Health-Care Evaluation.Chichester, UK: Wiley; 2004.
46.
BerryD.A.Statistical innovations in cancer research. In HollandJ., FreiT. eds. Cancer Medicine e.7.London: Decker; 2005: 411–425.
47.
BerryD.A.Bayesian clinical trials. Nat Rev Drug Discov.2006; 5: 27–36.
48.
BerryD.A.Statistics: A Bayesian Perspective.Belmont, CA: Duxbury Press; 1996.
49.
BerryD.A., MüllerP., GrieveA.P.Adaptive Bayesian designs for dose-ranging drug trials. In GatsonisC., CarlinB., CarriquiryA., eds. Case Studies in Bayesian Statistics V.New York: Springer-Verlag; 2001: 99–181.
50.
WestM., HarrisonJ.Bayesian Forecasting and Dynamic Models.2nd ed.New York: Springer-Verlag; 1997.
51.
KramsM., LeesK.R., HackeW., GrieveA.P., OrgogozoJ-M, FordG.A.Acute stroke therapy by inhibition of neutrophils (ASTIN): an adaptive dose response study of UK-279,276 in acute ischemic stroke. Stroke.2003; 34: 2543–2548.
52.
US Food and Drug Administration.Guidance for Clinical Trial Sponsors on the Establishment and Operation of Clinical Trial Data Monitoring Committees.Rockville, MD: US Food and Drug Administration; August 22, 2006. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/cber/gdlns/clintrialdmc.htm.
53.
SmithM.K., JonesI., MorrisM.F., GrieveA.P., TanK.Implementation of a Bayesian adaptive design in proof of concept study. Pharm Stat.2006; 5: 39–50.
54.
RoonK.I., OlesenJ., DienerH.C.No acute antimigraine efficacy of CP-122,288, a highly potent inhibitor of neurogenic inflammation: results of two randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled clinical trials. Ann Neurol.2000; 47: 238–241.
55.
FargeD., MarolleauJ.P., ZoharS.Autologous bone marrow transplantation in the treatment of refractory systemic sclerosis: early results from a French multicentre phase I-II study. Br J Haematol.2002; 119: 726–739.
56.
CamorciaM., CapognaG., LyonsG., ColumbM.Epidural test dose with levobupivacaine and ropivacaine: determination of ED50 motor block after spinal administration. Br J Anaesth.2004; 92: 850–853.
57.
DesfrereL., ZoharS., MorvilleP.Dose-finding study of ibuprofen in patent ductus arteriosus using the continual reassessment method. J Clin Pharm Ther.2005; 30: 121–132.
