Abstract
In the development of acute migraine treatments, traditional phase 2 dose-finding trial designs are particularly challenging when a wide dose range needs to be investigated. In this article, an adaptive two-stage dose-finding design is introduced. The proposed design combines traditional phase 2a and 2b to serve the dual purpose of proof of concept and dose finding through the use of an unblinded interim analysis that provides an opportunity for adaptation. The design has a fixed total sample size but includes provisions for discontinuation of less effective doses at the interim analysis to allow for the allocation of patients into a more promising range of doses. The interim adaptation is designed to increase the amount of information collected on more effective doses and increase study power as compared to a traditional nonadaptive dose-finding design. On the other hand, despite the interim look and adaptation of the design, conventional statistical analyses of the final data can still be used for the final analysis and provide proper inferences with adequately controlled type I error and an ignorable amount of bias.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Visser WH, Terwindt GM, Reines SA, Jiang K, Lines C, Ferrari C. Rizatriptan (MK-0462) versus sumatriptan in the acute treatment of migraine: a placebo-controlled, dose-ranging study. Arch Neurol. 1996;53:1132–1137.
Gijsman H. Kramer MS, Sargent J. et al. Double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-finding study of rizatriptan (MK-0462) in the acute treatment of migraine. Cephalalgia. 1997;17:647–651.
Dragalin V. Adaptive designs: terminology and classification. Drug Inf J. 2006;40:425–435.
EMEA Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use. Reflection paper on methodological issues in confirmatory clinical trials planned with an adaptive design. Doc. Ref. CHMP/EWP/2459/02.2007.
Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry: adaptive design clinical trials for drugs and biologics (draft guidance). 2010.
Bretz F. Hsu J. Pinheiro J. et al. Dose finding—a challenge in statistics. Biometrical f. 2008;50:480–504.
Bornkamp B. Bretz F. Dmitrienko A. et al. Innovative approaches for designing and analyzing adaptive dose-ranging trials. J Biopharm Stat. 2007;17:965–995.
Berry SM, Spinelli W, Littman GS, et al. A Bayesian dose-finding trial with adaptive dose expansion to flexibly assess efficacy and safety of an investigational drug. Clin Trials. 2010;7:121–135.
Thall PF, Nguyen HQ, Estey EH. Patient-specific dose finding based on bivariate outcomes and covariates. Biometrics. 2008;64:1126–1136.
Dragalin V, Fedorov VV, Wu YH. Two-stage design for dose-finding that accounts for both efficacy and safety. Stat Med. 2008;27:5156–5176.
Ivanova A, Bolognese JA. Perevozskaya I. Adaptive dose finding based on t-statistic for dose-response trials. Stat Med. 2008;27:1581–1592.
Hall DB, Meir U, Diener H. A group sequential adaptive treatment assignment design for proof of concept and dose selection in headache trials. Contemp Clin Trials. 2005;26:349–364.
Simon R. Optimal two-stage designs for phase II clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1989;10:1–10.
Proschan MA, Hunsberger SA. Designed extension of studies based on conditional power. Biometrics. 1995;51:1315–1324.
Posch M. Bauer P. Adaptive two stage designs and the conditional error function. Biometrical J. 1999;41:689–696.
Liu Q. Chi GYH. On sample size and inference for two-stage adaptive designs. Biometrics. 2001; 57:172–177.
Bischoff W, Miller F. Adaptive two-stage test procedures to find the best treatment in clinical trials. Biometrika. 2005;92:197–212.
Sampson AR, Sill MW. Drop-the-losers design: normal case. Biometrical J. 2005;47:257–268.
Bauer P. Koenig F. Brannath W. Posch M. Selection and bias—two hostile brothers. Stat Med. 2010;29:1–13.
Brannath W. Konig F. Bauer P. Estimation in flexible two stage designs. Stat Med. 2006;25:3366–3381.
Stallard N, Todd. S. Point estimates and confidence regions for sequential trials involving selection. J Stat Plan Infer. 2005;135:402–419.
Agresti A, Coull BA. Approximate is better than “exact” for interval estimation of binomial proportions. Am Stat. 1998;52:119–126.
Durham PL. CGRP-receptor antagonists—a fresh approach to migraine therapy? N Engl J Med. 2004;350:1073–1075.
Brain SD. Grant AD. Vascular actions of calcitonin gene-related peptide and adrenomedullin. Physiol Rev. 2004;84:903–934.
Ho TW, Mannix LK, Fan X. et al. A randomized controlled trial of an oral CGRP antagonist. MK-0974. in the treatment of migraine. Neurology, 2007;70:1304–1312.
Ho TW, Ferrari MD, Dodick DW, et al. Efficacy and tolerability of MK-0974 (telcagepant), a new oral antagonist of calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor, compared with zolmitriptan for acute migraine: a randomized controlled clinical trial versus placebo and zolmitriptan. Lancet. 2008;372:2115–2123.
Connor KM, Shapiro RE, Diener HC, et al. Randomized, controlled trial of telcagepant for the acute treatment of migraine. Neurology. 2009; 73:970–977.
Bauer M. Bauer P. Budde M. A simulation program for adaptive two stage designs. Comp Stat Data Anal. 1998;26:351–371.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Presented at DIA/FDA Adaptive Design for Clinical Trials: FDA Draft Guidance Symposium. March 26, 2010. Silver Spring, Mayland.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Fan, X.F., Assaid, C.A., Ge, Y.J. et al. A Two-Stage Adaptive Design in Phase 2 Clinical Trials for Acute Treatment of Migraine. Ther Innov Regul Sci 45, 315–330 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1177/009286151104500311
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/009286151104500311