Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Feature
  • Published:

Overhauling clinical trials

Nature Biotechnology volume 25, pages 287–292 (2007)Cite this article

Designing clinical trials that adapt midstream is billed as a cure for drug development blues, one that can save time, money and improve patients' lives. Are these new designs safe and effective or an expensive gimmick?

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Percentage of terminated projects by phase (1994–2005).
Figure 2: Perceived barriers to adaptive trials.

References

  1. European Medicines Agency (EMEA). Reflection Paper on Methodological Issues in Confirmatory Clinical Trials with Flexible Design and Analysis Plan (EMEA, London, March 2006). http://www.emea.eu.int/pdfs/human/ewp/245902en.pdf

  2. Emerson, S.S. Issues in the use of adaptive clinical trial designs. Statist. Med. 25, 3270–3296 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Rosenberger, W. & Palmer, C. Ethics and practice: Alternative designs for Phase III randomized clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials 20, 172–186 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Krams M. et al. Acute Stroke Therapy by Inhibition of Neutrophils (ASTIN): an adaptive dose-response study of UK-279,276 in acute ischemic stroke. Stroke 34, 2543–2548 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Kaitin, K.I. et al. Fastest drug developers consistently best peers on key performance metrics. Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development Impact Report 8, (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Royall, R.M. Ethics and statistics in randomized clinical trials. Statistical Sci. 6, 52–56 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Dragalin, V. Adaptive trials: classification and terminology. Drug Inform. J. 40, 425–435 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bartlett, R.H. et al. Extracorporeal circulation in neonatal respiratory failure: a prospective randomized study. Pediatrics 76, 476–487 (1985).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Christopher Thomas Scott is at the Program on Stem Cells in Society, Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics, Stanford, California. cscott@stanford.edu,

    Christopher Thomas Scott

  2. Monya Baker is a freelance writer based in San Francisco.,

    Monya Baker

Authors
  1. Christopher Thomas Scott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Monya Baker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Scott, C., Baker, M. Overhauling clinical trials. Nat Biotechnol 25, 287–292 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0307-287

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0307-287

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing