Optimal Stopping of Adaptive Dose-Finding Trials

References

• Berry DA (2004) Bayesian statistics and the efficiency and ethics of clinical trials. Statist. Sci. 19(1):175–187.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Berry SM, Carlin BP, Lee JJ, Muller P (2010) Bayesian Adaptive Methods for Clinical Trials (CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Berry DA, Mueller P, Grieve AP, Smith M, Parke T, Blazek R, Mitchard N, Krams M (2002) Adaptive Bayesian designs for dose-ranging drug trials. Gatsonis C, Kass RE, Carlin B, Carriquiry A, Gelman A, Verdinelli I, West M, eds.Case Studies in Bayesian Statistics, Vol. 5 (Springer, New York), 99–181.Google Scholar
• Biswas A, Bhattacharya R (2016) Response-adaptive designs for continuous treatment responses in phase III clinical trials: A review. Statist. Methods Medical Res. 25(1):81–100.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bornkamp B, Bretz F, Dmitrienko A, Enas G, Gaydos B, Hsu C-H, König F, et al.. (2007) Innovative approaches for designing and analyzing adaptive dose-ranging trials. J. Biopharm. Statist. 17(6):965–995.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bothwell LE, Kesselheim AS (2017) The real-world ethics of adaptive-design clinical trials. Hastings Center Rep. 47(6):27–37.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brealey RA, Myers SC, Allen F, Mohanty P (2012) Principles of Corporate Finance, 10th ed., Special Indian ed. (Tata McGraw-Hill Education, Dehli, India).Google Scholar
• Brockwell AE, Kadane JB (2003) A gridding method for Bayesian sequential decision problems. J. Comput. Graph. Statist. 12(3):566–584.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chernoff H (1961) Sequential tests for the mean of a normal distribution. Neyman J, ed. Proc. Fourth Berkeley Sympos. Math. Statist. Probab., Vol. 1 (University of California Press, Berkeley), 79–91.Google Scholar
• Chick SE, Frazier P (2012) Sequential sampling with economics of selection procedures. Management Sci. 58(3):550–569.Link, Google Scholar
• Chick S, Forster M, Pertile P (2017) A Bayesian decision theoretic model of sequential experimentation with delayed response. J. Roy. Statist. Soc. Ser. B. Statist. Methodol. 79(5):1439–1462.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chick SE, Gans N, Yapar O (2018) Bayesian sequential learning for clinical trials of multiple correlated medical interventions. INSEAD Working Paper 2020/40/TOM/ACGRE, INSEAD, Fontainebleau, France.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Deichmann RE, Krousel-Wood M, Breault J (2016) Bioethics in practice: Considerations for stopping a clinical trial early. Ochsner J. 16(3):197–198.Google Scholar
• European Network for Health Technology Assessment (2013) Endpoints used for relative effectiveness assessment of pharmaceuticals: Clinical endpoints. Report, EUnetHTA, Diemen, Netherlands.Google Scholar
• Flight L, Arshad F, Barnsley R, Patel K, Julious S, Brennan A, Todd S (2019) A review of clinical trials with an adaptive design and health economic analysis. Value Health 22(4):391–398.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Food and Drug Administration (2018) The drug development process—Step 3: Clinical research. Accessed May 1, 2019, https://www.fda.gov/patients/drug-development-process/step-3-clinical-research.Google Scholar
• Frazier P, Powell WB (2008) The knowledge-gradient stopping rule for ranking and selection. Mason SJ, Hill RR, Mönch L, Rose O, Jefferson T, Fowler JW, eds. Proc. 2008 Winter Simulation Conf., (IEEE, Washington, DC), 305–312.Google Scholar
• Gadagkar SR, Call GB (2015) Computational tools for fitting the hill equation to dose–response curves. J. Pharmacol. Toxicol. Methods 71:68–76.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Grieve AP, Krams M (2005) ASTIN: A Bayesian adaptive dose–response trial in acute stroke. Clinical Trials 2(4):340–351.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Griffin R, Lebovitz Y, English R (2010) Transforming Clinical Research in the United States: Challenges and Opportunities: Workshop Summary (National Academies Press, Washington, DC).Google Scholar
• Grignolo A, Pretorius S (2016) Phase III trial failures: Costly, but preventable. Appl. Clinical Trials 25(8/9):36–42.Google Scholar
• Hall PS, McCabe C, Stein RC, Cameron D (2011) Economic evaluation of genomic test–Directed chemotherapy for early-stage lymph node–positive breast cancer. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 104(1):56–66.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hee SW, Hamborg T, Day S, Madan J, Miller F, Posch M, Zohar S, Stallard N (2016) Decision-theoretic designs for small trials and pilot studies: A review. Statist. Methods Medical Res. 25(3):1022–1038.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jennison C, Turnbull BW (1999) Group Sequential Methods with Applications to Clinical Trials (Chapman and Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jitlal M, Khan I, Lee S, Hackshaw A (2012) Stopping clinical trials early for futility: Retrospective analysis of several randomised clinical studies. British J. Cancer 107(6):910–917.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Julious SA (2004) Sample sizes for clinical trials with normal data. Statist. Medicine 23(12):1921–1986.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kotas J, Ghate A (2018) Bayesian learning of dose-response parameters from a cohort under response-guided dosing. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 265(1):328–343.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Krams M, Lees KR, Hacke W, Grieve AP, Orgogozo JM, Ford GA, ASTIN Study Investigators (2003) Acute Stroke Therapy by Inhibition of Neutrophils (ASTIN): An adaptive dose-response study of UK-279,276 in acute ischemic stroke. Stroke 34(11):2543–2548.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lewis RJ, Viele K, Broglio K, Berry SM, Jones AE (2013) An adaptive, phase II, dose-finding clinical trial design to evaluate L-carnitine in the treatment of septic shock based on efficacy and predictive probability of subsequent phase III success. Critical Care Medicine 41(7):1674–1678.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Liu F, Walters SJ, Julious SA (2017) Design considerations and analysis planning of a Phase 2a proof of concept study in rheumatoid arthritis in the presence of possible non-monotonicity. BMC Medical Res. Methodol. 17:149.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Müller P, Berry DA, Grieve AP, Krams M (2006) A Bayesian decision-theoretic dose-finding trial. Decision Anal. 3(4):197–207.Link, Google Scholar
• Müller P, Berry DA, Grieve AP, Smith M, Krams M (2007) Simulation-based sequential Bayesian design. J. Statist. Planning Inference 137(10):3140–3150.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nasrollahzadeh AA, Khademi A (2018) Dynamic programming for response-tive dose-finding clinical trials. Working paper, Clemson University, Clemson, SC.Google Scholar
• Rojas-Cordova A, Bish EK (2018) Optimal patient enrollment in sequential adaptive clinical trials with binary response. Working paper, Southern Methodist University, Dallas.Google Scholar
• Rojas-Cordova AC, Hosseinichimeh N (2018) Trial termination and drug misclassification in sequential adaptive clinical trials. Service Sci. 10(3):354–377.Link, Google Scholar
• Roy A (2012) Stifling new cures: The true cost of lengthy clinical drug trials. Report, Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, New York.Google Scholar
• Sacks LV, Shamsuddin HH, Yasinskaya YI, Bouri K, Lanthier ML, Sherman RE (2014) Scientific and regulatory reasons for delay and denial of FDA approval of initial applications for new drugs, 2000–2012. J. Amer. Medical Assoc. 311(4):378–384.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Snapinn S, Chen MG, Jiang Q, Koutsoukos T (2006) Assessment of futility in clinical trials. Pharmaceutical Statist. 5(4):273–281.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Spiegelhalter DJ, Abrams KR, Myles JP (2004) Bayesian Approaches to Clinical Trials and Health-Care Evaluation, Vol. 13 (John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK).Google Scholar
• Stallard N, Whitehead J, Todd S, Whitehead A (2001) Stopping rules for Phase II studies. British J. Clinical Pharmacol. 51(6):523–529.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development (2014) Cost to develop and win marketing approval for a new drug is $2.6 billion. Press release (November 18), Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development, Boston. http://csdd.tufts.edu/news/complete\_story/pr\_tufts\_csdd\_2014\_cost\_study.Google Scholar