Cross-sector surveys assessing perceptions of key stakeholders towards barriers, concerns and facilitators to the appropriate use of adaptive designs in confirmatory trials

Background Appropriately conducted adaptive designs (ADs) offer many potential advantages over conventional trials. They make better use of accruing data, potentially saving time, trial participants, and limited resources compared to conventional, fixed sample size designs. However, one can argue that ADs are not implemented as often as they should be, particularly in publicly funded confirmatory trials. This study explored barriers, concerns, and potential facilitators to the appropriate use of ADs in confirmatory trials among key stakeholders. Methods We conducted three cross-sectional, online parallel surveys between November 2014 and January 2015. The surveys were based upon findings drawn from in-depth interviews of key research stakeholders, predominantly in the UK, and targeted Clinical Trials Units (CTUs), public funders, and private sector organisations. Response rates were as follows: 30(55 %) UK CTUs, 17(68 %) private sector, and 86(41 %) public funders. A Rating Scale Model was used to rank barriers and concerns in order of perceived importance for prioritisation. Results Top-ranked barriers included the lack of bridge funding accessible to UK CTUs to support the design of ADs, limited practical implementation knowledge, preference for traditional mainstream designs, difficulties in marketing ADs to key stakeholders, time constraints to support ADs relative to competing priorities, lack of applied training, and insufficient access to case studies of undertaken ADs to facilitate practical learning and successful implementation. Associated practical complexities and inadequate data management infrastructure to support ADs were reported as more pronounced in the private sector. For funders of public research, the inadequate description of the rationale, scope, and decision-making criteria to guide the planned AD in grant proposals by researchers were all viewed as major obstacles. Conclusions There are still persistent and important perceptions of individual and organisational obstacles hampering the use of ADs in confirmatory trials research. Stakeholder perceptions about barriers are largely consistent across sectors, with a few exceptions that reflect differences in organisations’ funding structures, experiences and characterisation of study interventions. Most barriers appear connected to a lack of practical implementation knowledge and applied training, and limited access to case studies to facilitate practical learning. Keywords: Adaptive designs; flexible designs; barriers; surveys; confirmatory trials; Phase 3; clinical trials; early stopping; interim analyses

Interim analyses and sequential designs in phase III studies

Recruitment of patients to a clinical trial usually occurs over a period of time, resulting in the steady accumulation of data throughout the trial's duration. Yet, according to traditional statistical methods, the sample size of the trial should be determined in advance, and data collected on all subjects before analysis proceeds. For ethical and economic reasons, the technique of sequential testing has been developed to enable the examination of data at a series of interim analyses. The aim is to stop recruitment to the study as soon as there is sufficient evidence to reach a firm conclusion. In this paper we present the advantages and disadvantages of conducting interim analyses in phase III clinical trials, together with the key steps to enable the successful implementation of sequential methods in this setting. Examples are given of completed trials, which have been carried out sequentially, and references to relevant literature and software are provided.

Using computers to teach people with intellectual disabilities to perform some of the tasks used within cognitive behavioural therapy: a randomised experiment

Aims Training has been shown to improve the ability of people with intellectual disabilities (IDs) to perform some cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) tasks. This study used a computerised training paradigm with the aim of improving the ability of people with IDs to: a) discriminate between behaviours, thoughts and feelings, and b) link situations, thoughts and feelings. Methods Fifty-five people with mild-to-moderate IDs were randomly assigned to a training or attention-control condition in a single-blind mixed experimental design. Computerised tasks assessed the participants’ skills in: (a) discriminating between behaviours, thoughts and feelings (separately and pooled together), and (b) cognitive mediation by selecting appropriate emotions as consequences to given thoughts, and appropriate thoughts as mediators of given emotions. Results Training significantly improved ability to discriminate between behaviours, thoughts and feelings pooled together, compared to the attention-control condition, even when controlling for baseline scores and IQ. Large within-group improvements in the ability to identify behaviours and feelings were observed for the training condition, but not the attention-control group. There were no significant between-group differences in ability to identify thoughts, or on cognitive mediation skills. Conclusions A single session of computerised training can improve the ability of people with IDs to understand and practise CBT tasks relating to behaviours and feelings. There is potential for computerised training to be used as a “primer” for CBT with people with IDs to improve engagement and outcomes, but further development on a specific computerised cognitive mediation task is needed.