4.5 Article

Developing a Bayesian adaptive design for a phase I clinical trial: a case study for a novel HIV treatment

Journal

STATISTICS IN MEDICINE
Volume 36, Issue 5, Pages 754-771

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/sim.7169

Keywords

Bayesian adaptive designs; dose-finding studies; continual reassessment method; fusion inhibitor; HIV clinical trials; phase I

Funding

  1. Medical Research Council
  2. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre based at Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust and Imperial College London [MR/J002178/1]
  3. Medical Research Council [MR/J002178/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  4. MRC [MR/J002178/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The design of phase I studies is often challenging, because of limited evidence to inform study protocols. Adaptive designs are now well established in cancer but much less so in other clinical areas. A phase I study to assess the safety, pharmacokinetic profile and antiretroviral efficacy of C34-PEG(4)-Chol, a novel peptide fusion inhibitor for the treatment of HIV infection, has been set up with Medical Research Council funding. During the study workup, Bayesian adaptive designs based on the continual reassessment method were compared with a more standard rule-based design, with the aim of choosing a design that would maximise the scientific information gained from the study. The process of specifying and evaluating the design options was time consuming and required the active involvement of all members of the trial's protocol development team. However, the effort was worthwhile as the originally proposed rule-based design has been replaced by a more efficient Bayesian adaptive design. While the outcome to be modelled, design details and evaluation criteria are trial specific, the principles behind their selection are general. This case study illustrates the steps required to establish a design in a novel context. Copyright (C) 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available