Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Experiences with an adaptive design for a dose-finding study in patients with osteoarthritis
Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Statistics. AstraZeneca, Sweden.
2014 (English)In: Contemporary Clinical Trials, ISSN 1551-7144, E-ISSN 1559-2030, Vol. 37, no 2, 189-199 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Dose-finding studies in non-oncology areas are usually conducted in Phase II of the development process of a new potential medicine and it is key to choose a good design for such a study, as the results will decide if and how to proceed to Phase III. The present article has focus on the design of a dose-finding study for pain in osteoarthritis patients treated with the TRPV1 antagonist AZD1386. We describe different design alternatives in the planning of this study, the reasoning for choosing the adaptive design and experiences with conduct and interim analysis. Three alternatives were proposed: one single dose-finding study with parallel design, a programme with a smaller Phase Ila study followed by a Phase Ilb dose-finding study, and an adaptive dose-finding study. We describe these alternatives in detail and explain why the adaptive design was chosen for the study. We give insights in design aspects of the adaptive study, which need to be pre-planned, like interim decision criteria, statistical analysis method and setup of a Data Monitoring Committee. Based on the interim analysis it was recommended to stop the study for futility since AZD1386 showed no significant pain decrease based on the primary variable. We discuss results and experiences from the conduct of the study with the novel design approach. Huge cost savings have been done compared to if the option with one dose-finding design for Phase II had been chosen. However, we point out several challenges with this approach.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2014. Vol. 37, no 2, 189-199 p.
Keyword [en]
Adaptive design, AZD1386, Data Monitoring Committee, Dose-finding, Interim analysis, Osteoarthritis
National Category
Basic Medicine
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:su:diva-104575DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2013.12.007ISI: 000335636100005OAI: oai:DiVA.org:su-104575DiVA: diva2:724419
Note

AuthorCount:4;

Available from: 2014-06-12 Created: 2014-06-11 Last updated: 2017-12-05Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Miller, Frank
By organisation
Department of Statistics
In the same journal
Contemporary Clinical Trials
Basic Medicine

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 42 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf