Adaptive designs can make clinical trials more flexible by utilising results accumulating in the trial to modify the trial’s course in accordance with pre-specified rules. Trials with an adaptive design are often more efficient, informative and ethical than trials with a traditional fixed design since they often make better use of resources such as time and money, and might require fewer participants. Adaptive designs can be applied across all phases of clinical research, from early-phase dose escalation to confirmatory trials. The pace of the uptake of adaptive designs in clinical research, however, has remained well behind that of the statistical literature introducing new methods and highlighting their potential advantages. We speculate that one factor contributing to this is that the full range of adaptations available to trial designs, as well as their goals, advantages and limitations, remains unfamiliar to many parts of the clinical community. Additionally, the term adaptive design has been misleadingly used as an all-encompassing label to refer to certain methods that could be deemed controversial or that have been inadequately implemented.We believe that even if the planning and analysis of a trial is undertaken by an expert statistician, it is essential that the investigators understand the implications of using an adaptive design, for example, what the practical challenges are, what can (and cannot) be inferred from the results of such a trial, and how to report and communicate the results. This tutorial paper provides guidance on key aspects of adaptive designs that are relevant to clinical triallists. We explain the basic rationale behind adaptive designs, clarify ambiguous terminology and summarise the utility and pitfalls of adaptive designs. We discuss practical aspects around funding, ethical approval, treatment supply and communication with stakeholders and trial participants. Our focus, however, is on the interpretation and reporting of results from adaptive design trials, which we consider vital for anyone involved in medical research. We emphasise the general principles of transparency and reproducibility and suggest how best to put them into practice.

problems (MABPs) are a special type of optimal control problem well suited to model resource allocation under uncertainty in a wide variety of contexts. Since the first publication of the optimal solution of the MABP by a dynamic index rule, the bandit literature quickly diversified and emerged as an active research topic. Across this literature, the use of bandit models to optimally design clinical trials became a typical motivating application, yet little of the resulting theory has ever been used in the actual design and analysis of clinical trials. To this end, we review two MABP decision-theoretic approaches to the optimal allocation of treatments in a clinical trial: the infinite-horizon Bayesian Bernoulli MABP and the finite-horizon variant. These models possess distinct theoretical properties and lead to separate allocation rules in a clinical trial design context. We evaluate their performance compared to other allocation rules, including fixed randomization. Our results indicate that bandit approaches offer significant advantages, in terms of assigning more patients to better treatments, and severe limitations, in terms of their resulting statistical power. We propose a novel bandit-based patient allocation rule that overcomes the issue of low power, thus removing a potential barrier for their use in practice.

Summary. The Gittins index provides a well established, computationally attractive, optimal solution to a class of resource allocation problems known collectively as the multi-arm bandit problem. Its development was originally motivated by the problem of optimal patient allocation in multi-arm clinical trials. However, it has never been used in practice, possibly for the following reasons: (1) it is fully sequential, i.e., the endpoint must be observable soon after treating a patient, reducing the medical settings to which it is applicable; (2) it is completely deterministic and thus removes randomization from the trial, which would naturally protect against various sources of bias. We propose a novel implementation of the Gittins index rule that overcomes these difficulties, trading off a small deviation from optimality for a fully randomized, adaptive group allocation procedure which offers substantial improvements in terms of patient benefit, especially relevant for small populations. We report the operating characteristics of our approach compared to existing methods of adaptive randomization using a recently published trial as motivation.