Missing steps in a staircase: a qualitative study of the perspectives of key stakeholders on the use of adaptive designs in confirmatory trials

Background Despite the promising benefits of adaptive designs (ADs), their routine use, especially in confirmatory trials, is lagging behind the prominence given to them in the statistical literature. Much of the previous research to understand barriers and potential facilitators to the use of ADs has been driven from a pharmaceutical drug development perspective, with little focus on trials in the public sector. In this paper, we explore key stakeholders’ experiences, perceptions and views on barriers and facilitators to the use of ADs in publicly funded confirmatory trials. Methods Semi-structured, in-depth interviews of key stakeholders in clinical trials research (CTU directors, funding board and panel members, statisticians, regulators, chief investigators, data monitoring committee members and health economists) were conducted through telephone or face-to-face sessions, predominantly in the UK. We purposively selected participants sequentially to optimise maximum variation in views and experiences. We employed the framework approach to analyse the qualitative data. Results We interviewed 27 participants. We found some of the perceived barriers to be: lack of knowledge and experience coupled with paucity of case studies, lack of applied training, degree of reluctance to use ADs, lack of bridge funding and time to support design work, lack of statistical expertise, some anxiety about the impact of early trial stopping on researchers’ employment contracts, lack of understanding of acceptable scope of ADs and when ADs are appropriate, and statistical and practical complexities. Reluctance to use ADs seemed to be influenced by: therapeutic area, unfamiliarity, concerns about their robustness in decision-making and acceptability of findings to change practice, perceived complexities and proposed type of AD, among others. Conclusions There are still considerable multifaceted, individual and organisational obstacles to be addressed to improve uptake, and successful implementation of ADs when appropriate. Nevertheless, inferred positive change in attitudes and receptiveness towards the appropriate use of ADs by public funders are supportive and are a stepping stone for the future utilisation of ADs by researchers.

Copyright issues on the protection of architectural works and designs

Architects and engineers depend on copyright law to protect their original works. Copyright protection is automatic once a tangible medium of expression in any form of an innovative material, conforming the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988, is created. In terms of architectural works, they are protected as literary works (design drawings and plans) and as artistic works (the building or model of the building). The case law on the concept of “originality” however discloses that it may be difficult for certain artistic works of architecture to achieve copyright protection. Although copyright law provides automatic protection to all original architectural plans, the limitation is that it only protects the expression of ideas but not the ideas themselves. The purpose of this research is to explore how effective the UK’s copyright law regime is for protecting the rights and interests of architects in their works. In addition, the United States system of copyright law will be analysed to determine whether it provides more effective protection for architects and engineers with regard to architectural works. The key objective in carrying out this comparison is to compare and contrast the extent to which the two systems protect the rights and interests of architects against copyright infringement. This comparative analysis concludes by considering the possibility of copyright law reform in the UK.

Who owns the copyright of architectural works and designs?

Copyright protects the rights and interests of authors on their original works of authorship such as literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works including architectural works and designs. It is automatic once a tangible medium of expression in any form of an innovative material, which conforms the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA 1988), is created. This includes the building, the architectural plans and drawings. There is no official copyright registry, no requirements on any fees need to be paid and they can be published or unpublished materials. Copyrights owners have the rights to control the reproduction, display, publication, and even derivation of the design. However, there are limitations on the rights of the copyright owners concerning copyrights infringements. Infringement of copyright is an unauthorised violation of the exclusive rights of the copyright author. Architects and engineers depend on copyright law to protect their works and design. Copyrights are protected on the arrangements of spaces and elements as well as the overall form of the architectural design. However, it does not cover the design of functional elements and standard features. Although copyright law provides automatic protection to all original architectural plans, the limitation is that copyright only protects the expression of ideas but not the ideas themselves. It can be argued that architectural drawings and design, including models are recognised categories of artistic works which are protected under the copyright law. This research investigates to what extent copyrights protect the rights and interests of the designers on architectural works and design.

Local, national and imported foods: A qualitative study

The UK government is currently attempting to encourage consumers to buy more locally produced food. It is hoped that this will provide economic, environmental and social benefits to local areas, leading to more sustainable patterns of consumption. This qualitative study looks at the views and behaviour of consumers towards local foods with a particular focus on the barriers that prevent greater uptake of local produce. In total, four focus groups (n = 33) were conducted. Content analysis identified six relevant themes in relation to local, national and imported foods. These were cost, lifestyle, food quality, consumer ethnocentrism, choice and farmers. Overall, although participants reported buying few local products currently, there was widespread enthusiasm across socio-economic groups for local foods, with participants perceiving them as being of a higher quality than imported foods. They also generally endorsed the idea of supporting local farmers and their own national economy. The main barriers preventing participants from buying more local products were price and inconvenience. The results are discussed in relation to developing future strategies for encouraging people to buy more local food products. (c) 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Choice of designs and doses for early phase trials

This paper reviews state-of-art statistical designs for dose-escalation procedures in first-into-man studies. The main focus will be on studies in oncology, as most statistical procedures for phase I trials have been proposed in this context. Extensions to situations such as the observation of bivariate outcomes and healthy volunteer studies are also discussed. The number of dose levels and cohort sizes used in early phase trials are considered. Finally, this paper raises some practical issues for dose-escalation procedures.

An evaluation of Bayesian designs for dose-escalation studies in healthy volunteers

In this paper, Bayesian decision procedures previously proposed for dose-escalation studies in healthy volunteers are reviewed and evaluated. Modifications are made to the expression of the prior distribution in order to make the procedure simpler to implement and a more relevant criterion for optimality is introduced. The results of an extensive simulation exercise to establish the proper-ties of the procedure and to aid choice between designs are summarized, and the way in which readers can use simulation to choose a design for their own trials is described. The influence of the value of the within-subject correlation on the procedure is investigated and the use of a simple prior to reflect uncertainty about the correlation is explored. Copyright (c) 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

An adaptive approach to implementing bivariate group sequential clinical trial designs

In clinical trials, situations often arise where more than one response from each patient is of interest; and it is required that any decision to stop the study be based upon some or all of these measures simultaneously. Theory for the design of sequential experiments with simultaneous bivariate responses is described by Jennison and Turnbull (Jennison, C., Turnbull, B. W. (1993). Group sequential tests for bivariate response: interim analyses of clinical trials with both efficacy and safety endpoints. Biometrics 49:741-752) and Cook and Farewell (Cook, R. J., Farewell, V. T. (1994). Guidelines for monitoring efficacy and toxicity responses in clinical trials. Biometrics 50:1146-1152) in the context of one efficacy and one safety response. These expositions are in terms of normally distributed data with known covariance. The methods proposed require specification of the correlation, ρ between test statistics monitored as part of the sequential test. It can be difficult to quantify ρ and previous authors have suggested simply taking the lowest plausible value, as this will guarantee power. This paper begins with an illustration of the effect that inappropriate specification of ρ can have on the preservation of trial error rates. It is shown that both the type I error and the power can be adversely affected. As a possible solution to this problem, formulas are provided for the calculation of correlation from data collected as part of the trial. An adaptive approach is proposed and evaluated that makes use of these formulas and an example is provided to illustrate the method. Attention is restricted to the bivariate case for ease of computation, although the formulas derived are applicable in the general multivariate case.

Sequential designs for phase III clinical trials incorporating treatment selection

Most statistical methodology for phase III clinical trials focuses on the comparison of a single experimental treatment with a control. An increasing desire to reduce the time before regulatory approval of a new drug is sought has led to development of two-stage or sequential designs for trials that combine the definitive analysis associated with phase III with the treatment selection element of a phase II study. In this paper we consider a trial in which the most promising of a number of experimental treatments is selected at the first interim analysis. This considerably reduces the computational load associated with the construction of stopping boundaries compared to the approach proposed by Follman, Proschan and Geller (Biometrics 1994; 50: 325-336). The computational requirement does not exceed that for the sequential comparison of a single experimental treatment with a control. Existing methods are extended in two ways. First, the use of the efficient score as a test statistic makes the analysis of binary, normal or failure-time data, as well as adjustment for covariates or stratification straightforward. Second, the question of trial power is also considered, enabling the determination of sample size required to give specified power. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Decision-theoretic designs for phase II clinical trials allowing for competing studies

This article describes an approach to optimal design of phase II clinical trials using Bayesian decision theory. The method proposed extends that suggested by Stallard (1998, Biometrics54, 279–294) in which designs were obtained to maximize a gain function including the cost of drug development and the benefit from a successful therapy. Here, the approach is extended by the consideration of other potential therapies, the development of which is competing for the same limited resources. The resulting optimal designs are shown to have frequentist properties much more similar to those traditionally used in phase II trials.

Comparison of sample size formulae for 2x2 cross-over designs applied to bioequivalence studies

We consider the comparison of two formulations in terms of average bioequivalence using the 2 × 2 cross-over design. In a bioequivalence study, the primary outcome is a pharmacokinetic measure, such as the area under the plasma concentration by time curve, which is usually assumed to have a lognormal distribution. The criterion typically used for claiming bioequivalence is that the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the means should lie within the interval (0.80, 1.25), or equivalently the 90% confidence interval for the differences in the means on the natural log scale should be within the interval (-0.2231, 0.2231). We compare the gold standard method for calculation of the sample size based on the non-central t distribution with those based on the central t and normal distributions. In practice, the differences between the various approaches are likely to be small. Further approximations to the power function are sometimes used to simplify the calculations. These approximations should be used with caution, because the sample size required for a desirable level of power might be under- or overestimated compared to the gold standard method. However, in some situations the approximate methods produce very similar sample sizes to the gold standard method. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

A practical comparison of group-sequential and adaptive designs

Sequential methods provide a formal framework by which clinical trial data can be monitored as they accumulate. The results from interim analyses can be used either to modify the design of the remainder of the trial or to stop the trial as soon as sufficient evidence of either the presence or absence of a treatment effect is available. The circumstances under which the trial will be stopped with a claim of superiority for the experimental treatment, must, however, be determined in advance so as to control the overall type I error rate. One approach to calculating the stopping rule is the group-sequential method. A relatively recent alternative to group-sequential approaches is the adaptive design method. This latter approach provides considerable flexibility in changes to the design of a clinical trial at an interim point. However, a criticism is that the method by which evidence from different parts of the trial is combined means that a final comparison of treatments is not based on a sufficient statistic for the treatment difference, suggesting that the method may lack power. The aim of this paper is to compare two adaptive design approaches with the group-sequential approach. We first compare the form of the stopping boundaries obtained using the different methods. We then focus on a comparison of the power of the different trials when they are designed so as to be as similar as possible. We conclude that all methods acceptably control type I error rate and power when the sample size is modified based on a variance estimate, provided no interim analysis is so small that the asymptotic properties of the test statistic no longer hold. In the latter case, the group-sequential approach is to be preferred. Provided that asymptotic assumptions hold, the adaptive design approaches control the type I error rate even if the sample size is adjusted on the basis of an estimate of the treatment effect, showing that the adaptive designs allow more modifications than the group-sequential method.