In clinical trials with time-to-event data, the evaluation of treatment efficacy can be a long and complex process, especially when considering long-term primary endpoints. Using surrogate endpoints to correlate the primary endpoint has become a common practice to accelerate decision-making. Moreover, the ethical need to minimize sample size and the practical need to optimize available resources have encouraged the scientific community to develop methodologies that leverage historical data. Relying on the general theory of group sequential design and using a Bayesian framework, the methodology described in this paper exploits a documented historical relationship between a clinical \"final\" endpoint and a surrogate endpoint to build an informative prior for the primary endpoint, using surrogate data from an early interim analysis of the clinical trial. The predictive probability of success of the trial is then used to define a futility-stopping rule. The methodology demonstrates substantial enhancements in trial operating characteristics when there is a good agreement between current and historical data. Furthermore, incorporating a robust approach that combines the surrogate prior with a vague component mitigates the impact of the minor prior-data conflicts while maintaining acceptable performance even in the presence of significant prior-data conflicts. The proposed methodology was applied to design a Phase III clinical trial in metastatic colorectal cancer, with overall survival as the primary endpoint and progression-free survival as the surrogate endpoint.

We investigate the familywise error rate (FWER) for time-to-event endpoints evaluated using a group sequential design with a hierarchical testing procedure for secondary endpoints. We show that, in this setup, the correlation between the log-rank test statistics at interim and at end of study is not congruent with the canonical correlation derived for normal-distributed endpoints. We show, both theoretically and by simulation, that the correlation also depends on the level of censoring, the hazard rates of the endpoints, and the hazard ratio. To optimize operating characteristics in this complex scenario, we propose a simulation-based method to assess the FWER which, better than the alpha-spending approach, can inform the choice of critical values for testing secondary endpoints.

BACKGROUND: Faced with the high cost and limited efficiency of classical randomized controlled trials, researchers are increasingly applying adaptive designs to speed up the development of new drugs. However, the application of adaptive design to drug randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and whether the reporting is adequate are unclear. Thus, this study aimed to summarize the epidemiological characteristics of the relevant trials and assess their reporting quality by the Adaptive designs CONSORT Extension (ACE) checklist.
METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to January 2020. We included drug RCTs that explicitly claimed to be adaptive trials or used any type of adaptative design. We extracted the epidemiological characteristics of included studies to summarize their adaptive design application. We assessed the reporting quality of the trials by Adaptive designs CONSORT Extension (ACE) checklist. Univariable and multivariable linear regression models were used to the association of four prespecified factors with the quality of reporting.
RESULTS: Our survey included 108 adaptive trials. We found that adaptive design has been increasingly applied over the years, and was commonly used in phase II trials (n = 45, 41.7%). The primary reasons for using adaptive design were to speed the trial and facilitate decision-making (n = 24, 22.2%), maximize the benefit of participants (n = 21, 19.4%), and reduce the total sample size (n = 15, 13.9%). Group sequential design (n = 63, 58.3%) was the most frequently applied method, followed by adaptive randomization design (n = 26, 24.1%), and adaptive dose-finding design (n = 24, 22.2%). The proportion of adherence to the ACE checklist of 26 topics ranged from 7.4 to 99.1%, with eight topics being adequately reported (i.e., level of adherence ≥ 80%), and eight others being poorly reported (i.e., level of adherence ≤ 30%). In addition, among the seven items specific for adaptive trials, three were poorly reported: accessibility to statistical analysis plan (n = 8, 7.4%), measures for confidentiality (n = 14, 13.0%), and assessments of similarity between interim stages (n = 25, 23.1%). The mean score of the ACE checklist was 13.9 (standard deviation [SD], 3.5) out of 26. According to our multivariable regression analysis, later published trials (estimated β = 0.14, p < 0.01) and the multicenter trials (estimated β = 2.22, p < 0.01) were associated with better reporting.
CONCLUSIONS: Adaptive design has shown an increasing use over the years, and was primarily applied to early phase drug trials. However, the reporting quality of adaptive trials is suboptimal, and substantial efforts are needed to improve the reporting.

Under current bioequivalence guidelines in Japan, it is mandatory to establish bioequivalence using a single pivotal study. Clinical trials with limited resources usually have a pre-defined maximum permissible number of participants. In this manuscript, we considered a trial design that would allow for bioequivalence evaluation at an interim analysis in which the total number of participants takes into account the resource constraints. Then, available options at the interim analysis are group sequential designs and adaptive designs, A comparison of the performance of the two methods under same maximum participant number has not been conducted thus far. So we examined which method should be used by conducting a simulation study. Since bioequivalence is expected to be achieved at the interim analysis, a study design using a Pocock-type alpha spending function is preferrable. Simulation results using a Pocock-type alpha spending function showed similar performance between group sequential and adaptive designs. Consequently, due to statistical and operational complexity, it is preferable to choose group sequential designs for bioequivalence study in Japan.

UNASSIGNED: Traditional vaccine development, often a lengthy and costly process of three separated phases. However, the swift development of COVID-19 vaccines highlighted the critical importance of accelerating the approval of vaccines. This article showcases a seamless phase 2/3 trial design to expedite the development process, particularly for multi-valent vaccines.
UNASSIGNED: This study utilizes simulation to compare the performance of seamless phase 2/3 design with that of conventional trial design, specifically by re-envisioning a 9-valent HPV vaccine trial. Across three cases, several key performance metrics are evaluated: overall power, type I error rate, average sample size, trial duration, the percentage of early stop, and the accuracy of dose selection.
UNASSIGNED: On average, when the experimental vaccine was assumed to be effective, the seamless design that performed interim analyses based solely on efficacy saved 555.73 subjects, shortened trials by 10.29 months, and increased power by 3.70%. When the experimental vaccine was less effective than control, it saved an average of 887.73 subjects while maintaining the type I error rate below 0.025.
UNASSIGNED: The seamless design proves to be a compelling strategy for vaccine development, given its versatility in early stopping, re-estimating sample sizes, and shortening trial durations.

Conditional power (CP) serves as a widely utilized approach for futility monitoring in group sequential designs. However, adopting the CP methods may lead to inadequate control of the type II error rate at the desired level. In this study, we introduce a flexible beta spending function tailored to regulate the type II error rate while employing CP based on a predetermined standardized effect size for futility monitoring (a so-called CP-beta spending function). This function delineates the expenditure of type II error rate across the entirety of the trial. Unlike other existing beta spending functions, the CP-beta spending function seamlessly incorporates beta spending concept into the CP framework, facilitating precise stagewise control of the type II error rate during futility monitoring. In addition, the stopping boundaries derived from the CP-beta spending function can be calculated via integration akin to other traditional beta spending function methods. Furthermore, the proposed CP-beta spending function accommodates various thresholds on the CP-scale at different stages of the trial, ensuring its adaptability across different information time scenarios. These attributes render the CP-beta spending function competitive among other forms of beta spending functions, making it applicable to any trials in group sequential designs with straightforward implementation. Both simulation study and example from an acute ischemic stroke trial demonstrate that the proposed method accurately captures expected power, even when the initially determined sample size does not consider futility stopping, and exhibits a good performance in maintaining overall type I error rates for evident futility.

BACKGROUND: Group sequential designs incorporating the option to stop for futility at the time point of an interim analysis can save time and resources. Thereby, the choice of the futility boundary importantly impacts the design\'s resulting performance characteristics, including the power and probability to correctly or wrongly stop for futility. Several authors contributed to the topic of selecting good futility boundaries. For binary endpoints, Simon\'s designs (Control Clin Trials 10:1-10, 1989) are commonly used two-stage designs for single-arm phase II studies incorporating futility stopping. However, Simon\'s optimal design frequently yields an undesirably high probability of falsely declaring futility after the first stage, and in Simon\'s minimax design often a high proportion of the planned sample size is already evaluated at the interim analysis leaving only limited benefit in case of an early stop.
METHODS: This work focuses on the optimality criteria introduced by Schüler et al. (BMC Med Res Methodol 17:119, 2017) and extends their approach to binary endpoints in single-arm phase II studies. An algorithm for deriving optimized futility boundaries is introduced, and the performance of study designs implementing this concept of optimal futility boundaries is compared to the common Simon\'s minimax and optimal designs, as well as modified versions of these designs by Kim et al. (Oncotarget 10:4255-61, 2019).
RESULTS: The introduced optimized futility boundaries aim to maximize the probability of correctly stopping for futility in case of small or opposite effects while also setting constraints on the time point of the interim analysis, the power loss, and the probability of stopping the study wrongly, i.e. stopping the study even though the treatment effect shows promise. Overall, the operating characteristics, such as maximum sample size and expected sample size, are comparable to those of the classical and modified Simon\'s designs and sometimes better. Unlike Simon\'s designs, which have binding stopping rules, the optimized futility boundaries proposed here are not adjusted to exhaust the full targeted nominal significance level and are thus still valid for non-binding applications.
CONCLUSIONS: The choice of the futility boundary and the time point of the interim analysis have a major impact on the properties of the study design. Therefore, they should be thoroughly investigated at the planning stage. The introduced method of selecting optimal futility boundaries provides a more flexible alternative to Simon\'s designs with non-binding stopping rules. The probability of wrongly stopping for futility is minimized and the optimized futility boundaries don\'t exhibit the unfavorable properties of an undesirably high probability of falsely declaring futility or a high proportion of the planned sample evaluated at the interim time point.

Adaptive designs, such as group sequential designs (and the ones with additional adaptive features) or adaptive platform trials, have been quintessential efficient design strategies in trials of unmet medical needs, especially for generating evidence from global regions. Such designs allow interim decision making and making adjustment to study design when necessary, meanwhile maintaining study integrity and operating characteristics. However, driven by the heightened competitive landscape and the desire to bring effective treatment to patients faster, innovation in the already functional designs is still germane to further propel drug development to a more efficient path. One way to achieve this is by leveraging external real-world data (RWD) in the adaptive designs to support interim or final decision making. In this paper, we propose a novel framework of incorporating external RWD in adaptive design to improve interim and/or final analysis decision making. Within this framework, researchers can prespecify the decision process and choose the timing and amount of borrowing while maintaining objectivity and controlling of type I error. Simulation studies in various scenarios are provided to describe power, type I error, and other performance metrics for interim/final decision making. A case study in non-small cell lung cancer is used for illustration on proposed design framework.

UNASSIGNED: The Bayesian group sequential design has been applied widely in clinical studies, especially in Phase II and III studies. It allows early termination based on accumulating interim data. However, to date, there lacks development in its application to stepped-wedge cluster randomized trials, which are gaining popularity in pragmatic trials conducted by clinical and health care delivery researchers.
UNASSIGNED: We propose a Bayesian adaptive design approach for stepped-wedge cluster randomized trials, which makes adaptive decisions based on the predictive probability of declaring the intervention effective at the end of study given interim data. The Bayesian models and the algorithms for posterior inference and trial conduct are presented.
UNASSIGNED: We present how to determine design parameters through extensive simulations to achieve desired operational characteristics. We further evaluate how various design factors, such as the number of steps, cluster size, random variability in cluster size, and correlation structures, impact trial properties, including power, type I error, and the probability of early stopping. An application example is presented.
UNASSIGNED: This study presents the incorporation of Bayesian adaptive strategies into stepped-wedge cluster randomized trials design. The proposed approach provides the flexibility to stop the trial early if substantial evidence of efficacy or futility is observed, improving the flexibility and efficiency of stepped-wedge cluster randomized trials.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the design, conduct, and analysis of adaptive trials through a systematic survey and provide recommendations for future adaptive trials.
METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases up to January 2020. We included trials that were self-described as adaptive trials or applied adaptive designs. We identified three frequently used adaptive designs and summarized their methodological details in terms of design, conduct, and analysis. Lastly, we provided recommendations for future adaptive trials.
RESULTS: We included a total of 128 trials in this study. The primary motivations for using adaptive design were to speed up the trials and facilitate decision-making (n = 29, 31.5%). The three most frequently used methods were group sequential design (GSD) (n = 71, 55.5%), adaptive dose-finding design (ADFD) (n = 35, 27.3%), and adaptive randomization design (ARD) (n = 26, 20.3%). The timing and frequency of interim analysis were detailed in three-fourths of the GSD trials (n = 55, 77.5%) and in half of the ADFD trials (n = 19, 54.3%); however, more than half of the ARD trials (n = 15, 57.7%) did not provide this information. Some trials selected a different outcome than the primary outcome for interim analysis (GSD: n = 7, 12.7%; ADFD: n = 8, 27.6%; ARD: n = 7, 50.0%), but the majority of these trials did not provide explicit reasons for this choice (GSD: n = 7, 100.0%; ADFD: n = 7, 87.5%; ARD: n = 5, 71.4%). More than half (n = 76, 59.4%) of trials did not mention the accessibility of supporting documents, and two-thirds (n = 86, 67.2%) did not state the establishment of independent data monitoring committees (IDMCs). Moreover, unplanned adjustments were observed during the conduct of one-sixth adaptive trials (n = 22, 17.2%). Based on our findings, we provide 14 recommendations for improving adaptive trials in the future.
CONCLUSIONS: Substantial improvements were needed in methods of adaptive trials, particularly in the areas of interim analysis, the establishment of independent data monitoring committees, and unplanned adjustments. In this study, we offer recommendations from both general and specific aspects for researchers to carefully design, conduct, and analyze adaptive trials.