Adaptive clinical trials require access to interim data to carry out trial modification as allowed by a prespecified adaptation plan. A data monitoring committee (DMC) is a group of experts that is charged with monitoring accruing trial data to ensure the safety of trial participants and that in adaptive trials may also play a role in implementing a preplanned adaptation. In this paper, we summarize current practices and viewpoints and provide guidance on evolving issues related to the use of DMCs in adaptive trials. We describe the common types of adaptive designs and point out some DMC-related issues that are unique to this class of designs. We include 3 examples of DMCs in late-stage adaptive trials that have been implemented in practice. We advocate training opportunities for researchers who may be interested in serving on a DMC for an adaptive trial since qualified DMC members are fundamental to the successful execution of DMC responsibilities.
EllenbergSFlemingTDeMetsD. Data Monitoring Committees in Clinical Trials: A Practical Perspective. Chichester, United Kingdom: John Wiley and Sons; 2002.
2.
GalloP. Confidentiality and trial integrity issues for adaptive designs. Drug Inf J. 2006;40:445–450.
3.
HersonJ. Coordinating data monitoring committees and adaptive clinical trial designs. Drug Inf J. 2008;42:297–301.
4.
ChowSCoreyRLinM. On the independence of data monitoring committee in adaptive design clinical trials. J Biopharm Stat. 2012;22(4):853–867.
5.
HillAB. The clinical trial. N Engl J Med. 1952;247:113–119.
6.
Report from the Heart Special Project Committee to the National Advisory Heart Council, May 1967. Control Clin Trials. 1988;9:137–148.
7.
Coronary Drug Project Research Group. Practical aspects of decision making in clinical trials: the Coronary Drug Project as a case study. Control Clin Trials. 1981;1:363–376.
8.
US Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for Clinical Trial Sponsors on the Establishment and Operation of Clinical Trial Data Monitoring Committees. Rockville, Maryland: FDA; 2006.
9.
US Food and Drug Administration. Draft Guidance for Industry: Adaptive Design Clinical Trials for Drugs and Biologics. Rockville, Maryland: FDA; 2010.
10.
PocockSJ. Group sequential methods in the design and analysis of clinical trials. Biometrika. 1977;64:191–199.
11.
O’BrienPCFlemingTR. A multiple testing procedure for clinical trials. Biometrics. 1979;35:549–556.
12.
LanKKGDeMetsDL. Group sequential procedures: calendar versus information time. Stat Med. 1987;8:1191–1198.
13.
PetoRPikeMCArmitageP. Design and analysis of randomized clinical trials requiring prolonged observation of each patient, I: introduction and design. Br J Cancer. 1976;34:585–612.
14.
WangSKTsiatisAA. Approximately optimal one-parameter boundaries for sequential trials. Biometrics. 1987;43:193–200.
15.
RosenbergerWFStallardNIvanovaAHarperCNRicksML. Optimal adaptive designs for binary response trials. Biometrics. 2001;57:909–913.
16.
ToddS. A 25-year review of sequential methodology in clinical studies. Stat Med. 2007;26:237–252.
17.
FriedeTKieserM. A comparison of methods for adaptive sample size adjustment. Stat Med. 2001;20:3861–3874.
18.
CuiLHungHMJWangSJ. Modification of sample size in group sequential trials. Biometrics. 1999;55:853–857.
19.
LehmacherWWassmerG. Adaptive sample size calculations in group sequential trials. Biometrics. 1999;55:1286–1290.
20.
BauerPKöhneK. Evaluation of experiments with adaptive interim analyses. Biometrics. 1994;50:1029–1041.
21.
MüllerHHSchäferH. Adaptive group sequential designs for clinical trials: combining the advantages of adaptive and of classical group sequential approaches. Biometrics. 2001;57:886–891.
22.
DenneJS. Sample size recalculation using conditional power. Stat Med. 2001;20:2645–2660.
23.
ChenYHJDeMetsDLLanKKG. Some drop-the-loser designs for monitoring multiple doses. Stat Med. 2010;29:1793–1807.
24.
MehtaCRPocockSJ. Adaptive increase in sample size when interim results are promising: a practical guide with examples. Stat Med. 2011;30:3267–3284.
25.
Chuang-SteinCAndersonKGalloPCollinsS. Sample size reestimation: a review and recommendations. Drug Inf J. 2006;40:475–484.
26.
MacaJBhattacharyaSDragalinVGalloPKramsM. Adaptive seamless phase II/III designs: background, operational aspects, and examples. Drug Inf J. 2006;40:463–474.
27.
US Food and Drug Administration. Draft Guidance for Industry: Enrichment Strategies for Clinical Trials to Support Approval of Human Drugs and Biological Products. Rockville, Maryland: FDA; 2012.
28.
KieserMBauerPLehmacherW. Inference on multiple endpoints in clinical trials with adaptive interim analyses. Biom J. 1999;41:261–277.
29.
BrannathWZuberEBransonM. Confirmatory adaptive designs with Bayesian decision tools for a targeted therapy on oncology. Stat Med. 2009;28:1445–1463.
30.
WangSJO’NeillRHungJ. Approaches to evaluation of treatment effect in randomized clinical trials with genomic subset. Pharm Stat. 2007;6:227–244.
31.
WangSJHungHMJO’NeillRT. Adaptive patient enrichment designs in therapeutic trials. Biom J. 2009;51(2):358–374.
32.
FreidlinBSimonR. Adaptive signature design: an adaptive clinical trial design for generating and prospectively testing a gene expression signature for sensitive patients. Clin Cancer Res. 2005;11:7872–7878.
33.
FreidlinBJiangWSimonR. The cross-validated adaptive signature design. Clin Cancer Res. 2010;16:691–698.
34.
BornkampBBretzFDmitrienkoA. Innovative approaches for designing and analyzing adaptive dose-ranging trials (with discussion). J Biopharm Stat. 2007;17:965–995.
35.
PinheiroJSaxFAntonijevicZ. Adaptive and model-based dose-ranging trials: quantitative evaluation and recommendations. White paper of the PhRMA Working Group on “Adaptive Dose-Ranging Studies” (with discussion). Stat Biopharm Res. 2010;2(4):435–454.
36.
DragalinVBornkampBBretzF. A simulation study to compare new adaptive dose-ranging designs. Stat Biopharm Res. 2010;2:487–512.
37.
AntonijevicZPinheiroJFardipourPLewisR. Impact of dose selection strategies used in phase II on the probability of success in phase III. Stat Biopharm Res. 2010;2:469–486.
38.
AntonijevicZGalloPChuang-SteinC. Views on emerging issues pertaining to data monitoring committees for adaptive trials. Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science. 2013;47:495–502.
39.
DAMOCLES Study Group. A proposed charter for clinical trial data monitoring committees: helping them to do their job well. Lancet. 2005;365:711–722.
40.
CutlipDTchengJBudreauRFearnotNSnyderSTackerW. Chartering a data safety monitoring board. Appl Clin Trials. 2008;17(7):58–60.
41.
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI). Charter, data and safety (observational study) monitoring board template. August 2006. Available at: http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/funding/policies/dsmpolicy.htm. Accessed June 15, 2012.
42.
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG). Data monitoring committee policy. Available at: www.ecog.org/general/monitoring.html. Accessed June 15, 2012.
43.
GaydosBAndersonKBerryD. Good practices for adaptive clinical trials in pharmaceutical product development. Drug Inf J. 2009;43:539–556.
44.
GeigerMJSkrivanekZGaydosB. An adaptive, dose-finding, seamless 2/3 study of long-acting GLP-1 analog (dulaglutide): trial design and baseline characteristics. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2012;6(6):1319–1327.
45.
BarnesPJPocockSJMagnussenH. Integrating indacaterol dose selection in a clinical study in COPD using an adaptive seamless design. Pulm Pharmacol Ther. 2010;23:165–171.
46.
SkrivanekZBerrySBerryD. Application of adaptive design methodology in development of a long-acting GLP-1 analog (dulaglutide): statistical design and simulations. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2012;6(6):1305–1313.
47.
SpencerKColvinKBrauneckerB. Operational challenges and solutions with implementation of an adaptive seamless phase 2/3 study. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2012;6(6):1296–1304.
48.
BhattDLLincoffAMGibsonCM. Intravenous platelet blockade with cangrelor during PCI. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:2330–2341.
49.
HarringtonRAStoneGWMcNultyS. Platelet inhibition with cangrelor in patients undergoing PCI. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:2318–2329.
