The past is the future: innovative designs in acute stroke therapy trials.

Section Editors: Marc Fisher MD Antoni Davalos MD More than 74 000 patients with acute ischemic stroke have been randomized into clinical trials over the past 35 years to investigate new therapies.1 Only one treatment, thrombolysis with recombinant tissue plasminogen activator, has emerged from these investigations.2 Efforts to establish acute neuroprotectant therapies have yet to succeed.3,4 Have we squandered our resources? Has methodological rigidity delayed development of a new treatment or prolonged investigation of an ineffective therapy? Here we present a flexible and more efficient approach to clinical trial design and analysis. We have the potential to improve the use of scarce patient resources and to accelerate development of promising agents. In medical practice, we respond to a patient if a dosage seems inadequate by either changing the dosage or switching to another medication. We cautiously change treatment after reviewing new evidence: side effects, intractable symptoms, and poor adherence. We might express our estimate of how much the change may improve the patient’s condition in terms of probability. We repeat this process every time we update the treatment plan in light of new important information. Why not take the same approach to clinical trials? The proposed approach to the design and conduct of clinical trials uses Bayesian methods that make careful use of high-quality available past (prior) evidence to refine the inference from accumulating evidence in the ongoing clinical trial. This approach may: (1) enhance investigation of single agents or combination therapies; (2) make earlier and more reliable choices of dose for use in pivotal trials; (3) accelerate the progression from phase II into phase III trials all the way to a potentially seamless switch; and (4) treat trial participants more effectively by adaptively allocating more resources to therapies that are performing well while reducing support for …

[1]  T. Olsen,et al.  Outcome and time course of recovery in stroke. Part I: Outcome. The Copenhagen Stroke Study. , 1995, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[2]  Donald A Berry,et al.  Clinical trials: is the Bayesian approach ready for prime time? Yes! , 2005, Stroke.

[3]  D. Berry,et al.  Choosing sample size for a clinical trial using decision analysis , 2003 .

[4]  Donald A. Berry,et al.  Statistical Innovations in Cancer Research , 2003 .

[5]  Peter E. Rossi,et al.  Case Studies in Bayesian Statistics , 1998 .

[6]  J. Grotta,et al.  Lubeluzole in Acute Ischemic Stroke Treatment: A Double-Blind Study With an 8-Hour Inclusion Window Comparing a 10-mg Daily Dose of Lubeluzole With Placebo , 2000, Stroke.

[7]  Michael D. Smith,et al.  Adaptive Bayesian Designs for Dose-Ranging Drug Trials , 2002 .

[8]  Peter F Thall,et al.  Seamlessly Expanding a Randomized Phase II Trial to Phase III , 2002, Biometrics.

[9]  D. Berry,et al.  Innovative Designs in Acute Stroke Therapy Trials , 2005 .

[10]  T. Olsen,et al.  Outcome and time course of recovery in stroke. Part II: Time course of recovery. The Copenhagen Stroke Study. , 1995, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[11]  D A Berry Decision analysis and Bayesian methods in clinical trials. , 1995, Cancer treatment and research.

[12]  D. Berry Bayesian Statistics and the Efficiency and Ethics of Clinical Trials , 2004 .

[13]  W. Hacke,et al.  Measuring Outcomes as a Function of Baseline Severity of Ischemic Stroke , 2004, Cerebrovascular Diseases.

[14]  D. J. White,et al.  Decision Theory , 2018, Behavioral Finance for Private Banking.

[15]  Andrew P Grieve,et al.  Acute Stroke Therapy by Inhibition of Neutrophils (ASTIN): An Adaptive Dose-Response Study of UK-279,276 in Acute Ischemic Stroke , 2003, Stroke.

[16]  E. Dooley National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke , 2006 .

[17]  D. Liebeskind,et al.  Trends in Acute Ischemic Stroke Trials Through the 20th Century , 2001, Stroke.

[18]  D. Berry,et al.  Adaptive randomized study of idarubicin and cytarabine versus troxacitabine and cytarabine versus troxacitabine and idarubicin in untreated patients 50 years or older with adverse karyotype acute myeloid leukemia. , 2003, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[19]  Koroshetz Wj,et al.  Tissue plasminogen activator for acute ischemic stroke. , 1996, The New England journal of medicine.

[20]  J. Grotta Neuroprotection is unlikely to be effective in humans using current trial designs. , 2002, Stroke.

[21]  M. Fisher Recommendations for Advancing Development of Acute Stroke Therapies: Stroke Therapy Academic Industry Roundtable 3 , 2003, Stroke.

[22]  Joseph P. Broderick,et al.  Tissue plasminogen activator for acute ischemic stroke. The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke rt-PA Stroke Study Group. , 1995 .

[23]  Donald A. Berry,et al.  Statistics: A Bayesian Perspective , 1995 .

[24]  K. Lees Neuroprotection is unlikely to be effective in humans using current trial designs: an opposing view. , 2002, Stroke.

[25]  Peter F. Thall,et al.  Recent Advances in Clinical Trial Design and Analysis , 1995, Cancer Treatment and Research.

[26]  George Apostolakis,et al.  Decision theory , 1986 .