4.3 Article Book Chapter

Adaptive Enrichment Designs in Clinical Trials

Publisher

ANNUAL REVIEWS
DOI: 10.1146/annurev-statistics-040720-032818

Keywords

adaptive signature design; Bayesian design; biomarker; clinical trial; group sequential design; precision medicine; subset selection; targeted therapy; variable selection

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Adaptive enrichment designs for clinical trials have various functions such as identifying patient subgroups, selecting or comparing treatments based on interim data, or changing entry criteria; the structure of these designs depends on goals, patient heterogeneity, treatment effects, and practical constraints; this article covers basic concepts and different types of enrichment, with numerical examples for qualitative different cases involving treatment-biomarker interactions.
Adaptive enrichment designs for clinical trials may include rules that use interim data to identify treatment-sensitive patient subgroups, select or compare treatments, or change entry criteria. A common setting is a trial to compare a new biologically targeted agent to standard therapy. An enrichment design's structure depends on its goals, how it accounts for patient heterogeneity and treatment effects, and practical constraints. This article first covers basic concepts, including treatment-biomarker interaction, precision medicine, selection bias, and sequentially adaptive decision making, and briefly describes some different types of enrichment. Numerical illustrations are provided for qualitatively different cases involving treatment-biomarker interactions. Reviews are given of adaptive signature designs; a Bayesian design that uses a random partition to identify treatment-sensitive biomarker subgroups and assign treatments; and designs that enrich superior treatment sample sizes overall or within subgroups, make subgroup-specific decisions, or include outcome-adaptive randomization.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available