Wade Wirta and Steven Schwager sit down to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of adaptive design as well as the logistical considerations to manage these complex trials.
The adoption rate of adaptive clinical trial designs will increase dramatically in the coming years.
Whether it is referred to as Interactive Voice Response (IVR), Interactive Web Response (IWR), Interactive Mobile Response (IMR), Interactive x Response (IxR) or even Interactive Response Technology (IRT), the fact remains that the technology serves a particular purpose — namely to support the act of clinical trial randomization and associated drug supply management.
With the recently concluded gathering in Nice, France, I have now attended three Medidata User Group (MUG) meetings this year. The Americas and European user meetings—A-MUG and E-MUG—were great fun and informative as always, but the one that really piqued my interest was the inaugural China MUG (C-MUG) held in Beijing this September. The sheer growth of clinical research activity in China and the willingness and receptivity of the many clinical trialists to embrace eClinical technologies is striking. The folks I met occupied the full spectrum of eClinical adoption. They ranged from those taking their first tentative steps transitioning from paper to electronic CRFs to those at the cutting-edge of newer, innovative approaches to running clinical trials with cloud-based platforms and processes driven by best practices.