Statistical documentation for multi-disease, multi-domain platform trials: our experience with the Staphylococcus aureus Network Adaptive Platform trial (original) (raw)

Abstract

Platform trials have become widely adopted across multiple disease areas over recent years, however, guidelines for operationalising these trials have not kept pace. We outline a series of documents that summarise the statistical components, and implicit processes, of the Staphylococcus aureus Network Adaptive Platform (SNAP) trial to provide an informal template for other researchers and reviewers of platform trials. We briefly summarise the content and role of the core protocol, statistical appendix, domain-specific appendices, simulation report, statistical implementation guides, data safety and monitoring committee (DSMC) reports, and domain-specific statistical analysis plans and final reports, and a transparent governance structure that ensures separate blinded and unblinded statistical teams. In the absence of guidelines or checklists for platform trial statistical documents, we hope to provide useful guidance to others in terms of what has worked so far for the SNAP trial, stimulate discussion, and inform a future consensus.

Trial registration NCT05137119. Registered on 30 November 2021.

View this article's peer review reports

Background

Platform trials have been widely adopted across multiple disease areas in recent years [1]. Broadly speaking, a platform trial is a randomised clinical study that can evaluate multiple therapeutic interventions simultaneously, under a single core (or ‘master’) protocol, with the flexibility to add or remove interventions over time. Although first proposed in the mid-2000s, only 16 platform trials existed by 2019 [1]. That number rose rapidly to at least 98 by 2022 [2], with the COVID-19 pandemic undoubtedly serving as a catalyst for growth. Efficiency, speed, treatment personalisation, and economies of scale are reasons why platform trials have become so widely used [3].

Platform trials are complicated, making their design, implementation, and analysis challenging. In addition to the usual clinical trial requirements, platform trials require investigators to justify the number, type, and timing of statistical analyses and associated decision rules; the grouping of interventions into domains; and disease strata (where relevant). Investigators must also justify the overall adaptive strategy, e.g. the appropriate response adaptive randomisation algorithm [4], early stopping criteria [5], when to introduce new interventions [6], and choosing strategies to deal with non-concurrently randomised cohorts [7].

In any clinical trial, ensuring prespecified, detailed, comprehensive, and, where practical, openly available statistical documentation is key to holding investigators to account and promoting trial integrity. Given platform trials are complicated designs that may change over time in ways that cannot be foreseen at trial initiation, documentation must be both comprehensive and structured to minimise the maintenance burden over time.

In the spirit of transparency, and to provide an informal template for other researchers considering platform trial designs, here we summarise how the statistical components of the Staphylococcus aureus Network Adaptive Platform (SNAP) trial are documented and operationalised.

The SNAP trial

The SNAP trial is a ‘whole-of-life’ multi-disease, multi-domain adaptive comparative effectiveness platform trial, and includes multiple different interventions nested within different treatment modalities (i.e., ‘domains’), disease strata [8, 9], and incorporates all age ranges across both paediatric and adult populations [10]. Note that many aspects of the SNAP trial approach have been pioneered by similar trials, in particular, the Randomised Embedded Multifactorial Adaptive Platform for Community-Acquired Pneumonia (REMAP-CAP) [11] and the Australasian COVID-19 Trial Adaptive Platform Trial (ASCOT ADAPT) [12].

Key statistical documentation

Table 1 outlines the purpose, producers, and primary intended audience of key statistical documents. To support platform trial implementation, the governance structure requires separate blinded and unblinded statistical teams, known respectively as the statistical committee and the analytic team. The statistical committee consists of investigators and independent advisory members who are responsible for directing the ongoing blinded trial design and analysis strategies, whereas the analytic team consists of data managers, statistical programmers, and statisticians who are responsible for the scheduled analyses, evaluation of adaptation decision criteria and closed (unblinded) reporting to the data safety and monitoring committee (DSMC). Maintaining the confidentiality of the closed report between only the members of the DSMC and analytic team is essential to the integrity of the trial.

Table 1 Key statistical documents

Full size table

Figure 1 outlines the information flow for a hypothetical realisation of the SNAP trial. This hypothetical realisation is illustrated at its third scheduled analysis, having previously satisfied a decision rule at the second scheduled analysis leading to an additional analysis to support a domain-specific conclusion.

Fig. 1

Fig. 1

The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.

Full size image

Flow of statistical information in the Staphylococcus aureus Network Adaptive Platform trial. This hypothetical realisation is at its third scheduled analysis, having previously satisfied a decision rule at the second scheduled analysis leading to analyses to support a domain-specific conclusion

Note: the flow of information also approximates the chronological order that the documents are produced. SAP, statistical analysis plan; SIG, statistical implementation guide; DSMC, data safety and monitoring committee. * Simulation report may be updated upon trial adaptation. † Additional domain-specific appendices may be added where required. Documents produced solely by the blinded team are unshaded, documents solely produced by the unblinded analytic team are shaded grey

For simple clinical trials, a single comprehensive statistical analysis plan (SAP) is a key pre-emptive strategy to ensure that there is transparency and clarity in the definition of estimands, planned analyses, ordering of endpoints, and hypothesis testing. The SAP aims to avoid ambiguity and deviations, intentional or otherwise, from the intended design and analyses. Because platform trials are complicated there is greater potential for the integrity of data analysis to be compromised, or simply for the original intent to be unclear; therefore, additional statistical documents are required that go beyond typical SAPs. By taking a modular approach to documentation and avoiding duplication of information across documents, the potentially daunting task of maintaining the accuracy and internal consistency of the trial documentation over time can be greatly facilitated.

The key statistical documents used to operationalise the SNAP trial are the core protocol, statistical appendix, domain-specific appendices, simulation report, statistical implementation guide, data safety and monitoring committee (DSMC) reports, domain-specific SAPs, and domain-specific final reports. It is important to note that statistical documentation that contributes to, or defines criteria for changes to, the trial design is developed by the blinded team (namely the statistical committee and other blinded investigators) without direct input from the unblinded team (namely the unblinded analytic team and DSMC), unless otherwise described in their respective charters, to ensure that the design is not changed to favour, for example, a particular treatment or population (see Table 1 for detail). For transparency, apart from the DSMC report and domain-specific final reports, all these key statistical documents are readily available on the SNAP website [[13](/article/10.1186/s13063-024-08684-8#ref-CR13 "The SNAP Trial [Internet]. 2024 [cited 2024 Apr 17]. Available from: https://www.snaptrial.com.au/for-investigators#resource

            ")\]. Many of the same documents have also been published in peer-reviewed journals including the core protocol \[[8](/article/10.1186/s13063-024-08684-8#ref-CR8 "Tong SYC, Mora J, Bowen AC, Cheng MP, Daneman N, Goodman AL, et al. The Staphylococcus aureus Network Adaptive Platform Trial Protocol: New Tools for an Old Foe. Clin Infect Dis. 2022;75(11):2027–34.")\], domain-specific and paediatric appendices \[[10](/article/10.1186/s13063-024-08684-8#ref-CR10 "Campbell A, Anpalagan K, Best E, Britton PN, Gwee A, Hatcher J, et al. A new dawn: whole-of-life inclusion in Bayesian adaptive platform clinical trials. JAMA Pediatr. 2024;178(10):1066–71."), [14](/article/10.1186/s13063-024-08684-8#ref-CR14 "Adjunctive Clindamycin Domain-Specific Working Group for the Staphylococcus aureus Network Adaptive Platform (SNAP) trial group. Does adjunctive clindamycin have a role in Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia? A protocol for the adjunctive treatment domain of the S. aureus Network Adaptive Platform (SNAP) randomized controlled trial. Clin Infect Dis. 2024;79(3):626–634."), [15](/article/10.1186/s13063-024-08684-8#ref-CR15 "De Kretser D, Mora J, Bloomfield M, Campbell A, Cheng MP, Guy S, et al. Early oral antibiotic switch in Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia: the Staphylococcus aureus Network Adaptive Platform (SNAP) Trial Early Oral Switch Protocol. Clin Infect Dis. 2024;79(4):871–87.")\], and the combined statistical appendix and simulation report \[[9](/article/10.1186/s13063-024-08684-8#ref-CR9 "Mahar RK, McGlothlin A, Dymock M, Lee TC, Lewis RJ, Lumley T, et al. A blueprint for a multi-disease, multi-domain Bayesian adaptive platform trial incorporating adult and paediatric subgroups: the Staphylococcus aureus Network Adaptive Platform trial. Trials. 2023;24(1):795.")\].

The core protocol details the central aims of a trial along with core trial eligibility criteria, endpoints, decision rules, and trial governance structures that will be used throughout the trial and across different domains. The core protocol is complemented by domain-specific appendices, which detail domain-specific eligibility, interventions, endpoints, and analysis or design considerations. New domain-specific appendices can be added as new domains are added, and existing domain-specific appendices can be updated if additional interventions are added within a domain. Statistical content within the core protocol and domain-specific appendices is broadly descriptive to allow the reader to understand the underlying statistical concepts without being unnecessarily burdened by technical detail. The core protocol and domain-specific appendices are written and maintained by the blinded investigators with contributions from the blinded statistical committee. Note that a related concept is a population-specific appendix, for example in SNAP there are appendices related to paediatric populations or pregnant women, that fulfil a similar role to domain-specific appendices. For simplicity, in this commentary, we can safely assume that what applies to domain-specific appendices also applies to population-specific appendices.

For SNAP, the dedicated statistical appendix to the core protocol is the foundational statistical document and encapsulates the statistical models and features underpinning the platform trial with the requisite technical detail. The SNAP trial’s statistical appendix is similar to a traditional SAP. For example, both the statistical appendix and a typical SAP document have the same items recommended by current guidelines [16] and require a priori specification and extensive internal and, ideally, external review. However, the SNAP statistical appendix is not interchangeable with a traditional SAP. Instead, the appendix describes the trial design and analysis strategy in statistical generality with the aim of futureproofing the SNAP trial with respect to downstream adaptations (e.g., adding a new domain) and serves as a blueprint from which to develop multiple, often domain- or intervention-specific, analysis plans [9]. The statistical appendix is produced by the blinded statistical committee and requires both trial governance and ethics approval, including for any amendments.

The design choices specified in the statistical appendix are supported by an extensive simulation report. The simulation report documents the trial design assumptions and the trial operating characteristics under a range of plausible scenarios. For example, a scenario of identical lack of response for all interventions across strata (i.e. ‘no effect’) and multiple scenarios describing different degrees of homogenous effects, as well as some unanticipated scenarios, such as heterogenous effects across strata, sometimes in different directions. The simulation report provides justification for the platform design and decision rule criteria, including the maximum and expected sample sizes for anticipated scenarios. The simulation report is regularly updated to account for changing circumstances, including but not limited to the inclusion of new domains, interventions, or population subgroups; unexpected recruitment rates overall or by subgroup; different than simulated response rates in the control group; and higher than expected loss to follow-up or protocol deviations. The simulation report is produced and updated by the blinded statistical committee.

Specific guidance for scheduled analyses is provided within a statistical implementation guide which incorporates elements of the statistical appendix and the, possibly updated, simulation report. The statistical implementation guide is produced, and continually updated, by the blinded statistical committee to provide specific instructions to the unblinded analytic team for a scheduled analysis and inform them of the current trial design such as the inclusion of new domains or treatments. It provides the specific form of the models and decision rules that must be used for an upcoming scheduled (but not terminal) analysis. Where the analysis is a terminal analysis to support a domain-specific conclusion, a domain-specific SAP is used (see next paragraph). Scheduled efficacy analyses are often restricted to the primary estimand, but each analysis may also include important secondary estimands related to safety outcomes. Unblinded results from analyses specified within the statistical implementation guides are produced by the unblinded analytic team and summarised within the ‘closed’ DSMC report. In SNAP, investigators receive an ‘open’ DSMC report (also produced by the unblinded analytic team) that maintains blinding by aggregating data summaries over treatments and strata and excluding efficacy results.

A domain-specific SAP is used to guide the terminal analysis of a particular domain, for example after a scheduled analysis satisfies a domain-specific decision rule to cease randomising participants to the domain-specific interventions. The domain-specific SAP is effectively the same as a traditional SAP in that it provides a complete a priori statistical strategy for analysing all relevant trial data including core and domain-specific estimands (in the SNAP trial, for a particular trial domain). Domain-specific SAPs are developed by the blinded statistical committee prior to unblinding the research team to domain-specific outcomes (noting that the analytic team are already unblinded) and will be made publicly available before their implementation. Unblinded results from the analyses specified in the domain-specific SAP, including unblinded efficacy data, are summarised in a domain-specific final report. To maintain the blinded status of the other trial domains, the results may be aggregated, or the models marginalised across interventions in other domains. The domain-specific final report is produced by the unblinded analytic team. Results of a domain-specific final report are provided to the DSMC for additional information concerning secondary safety and efficacy estimands and summarised for publication.

Ancillary statistical documentation

The key statistical documents are also complemented by a suite of ancillary documents that are essential for transparency, governance, and implementation. These ancillary documents generally support statistical trial integrity and define logistics and processes around data transfer, storage, external requests, and confidentiality. Statistical components of trial integrity are supported by a data management plan detailing data management procedures and related responsibilities; a data sharing policy detailing procedures for data sharing and availability both within and across regions; terms of reference outlining membership, responsibilities, and communication channels for each of the statistical committee, unblinded analytic team, DSMC, and other trial committees and management groups. The data management plan, data sharing policy, and other relevant ancillary documents are made publicly available [[13](/article/10.1186/s13063-024-08684-8#ref-CR13 "The SNAP Trial [Internet]. 2024 [cited 2024 Apr 17]. Available from: https://www.snaptrial.com.au/for-investigators#resource

            ")\].

A note on statistical software

All statistical code for the scheduled analyses is encapsulated in R packages that are hosted on Github, an online software development platform, to ensure version control and seamless collaboration among members of the analytic team. All analysis code and unblinded outputs are reviewed by at least one member of the analytic team (in addition to the primary analyst) prior to reporting results in the open and closed DSMC reports and domain-specific final reports. To prevent inadvertently unblinding the ongoing trial, potentially through comments in the code or the temporary implementation of assumptions about the data to resolve issues while data collection is ongoing, only current members of the analytic team have access to working code and the associated Github repositories. Upon publication of domain-specific results, the R package associated with the domain-specific analysis will also be published to ensure software transparency. The code used to produce the simulation report was developed by Berry Consultants, a commercial consultancy specialising in platform trial design, and is therefore not publicly available.

Conclusions

To publish trial results, most journals require a comprehensive and prespecified SAP that is congruent with current guidelines [16]. For platform trials, a consensus on what is required to document platform trial designs (and the nomenclature for said documentation) does not yet exist. Given the complexity and design heterogeneity of most platform trials, this lack of consensus may lead to confusion and inconsistency in the structure and effectiveness of documentation.

In the absence of a guideline or checklist for platform trial statistical documents, such as those which currently exist for traditional SAPs, we hope that this commentary provides a useful guide to others in terms of what has worked so far for the SNAP trial and stimulates discussion around the documentation requirements of platform trials that may inform a future consensus.

Data availability

Not applicable.

Abbreviations

DSMC:

Data safety and monitoring committee

SAP:

Statistical analysis plan

SIG:

Statistical implementation guide

SNAP:

Staphylococcus aureus Network Adaptive Platform

References

  1. Park JJH, Siden E, Zoratti MJ, Dron L, Harari O, Singer J, et al. Systematic review of basket trials, umbrella trials, and platform trials: a landscape analysis of master protocols. Trials. 2019;20(1):572.
    Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
  2. Pitre T, Cheng S, Cusano E, Khan N, Mikhail D, Leung G, et al. Methodology and design of platform trials: a meta-epidemiological study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2023;157:1–12.
    Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
  3. Saville BR, Berry SM. Efficiencies of platform clinical trials: a vision of the future. Clin Trials. 2016;13(3):358–66.
    Article PubMed Google Scholar
  4. Robertson DS, Lee KM, López-Kolkovska BC, Villar SS. Response-Adaptive Randomization in Clinical Trials: From Myths to Practical Considerations. Stat Sci. 2023;38(2):180–5.
    Google Scholar
  5. Ryan EG, Brock K, Gates S, Slade D. Do we need to adjust for interim analyses in a Bayesian adaptive trial design? BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020;20:150.
    Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
  6. Lee KM, Brown LC, Jaki T, Stallard N, Wason J. Statistical consideration when adding new arms to ongoing clinical trials: the potentials and the caveats. Trials. 2021;22(1):203.
    Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
  7. Marschner IC, Jones M, Totterdell JA, Mahar RK, Snelling TL, Tong SYC. Transparent reporting of adaptive clinical trials using concurrently randomised cohorts. BMJ Med. 2023;2(1): e000497.
    Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
  8. Tong SYC, Mora J, Bowen AC, Cheng MP, Daneman N, Goodman AL, et al. The Staphylococcus aureus Network Adaptive Platform Trial Protocol: New Tools for an Old Foe. Clin Infect Dis. 2022;75(11):2027–34.
    Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
  9. Mahar RK, McGlothlin A, Dymock M, Lee TC, Lewis RJ, Lumley T, et al. A blueprint for a multi-disease, multi-domain Bayesian adaptive platform trial incorporating adult and paediatric subgroups: the Staphylococcus aureus Network Adaptive Platform trial. Trials. 2023;24(1):795.
    Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
  10. Campbell A, Anpalagan K, Best E, Britton PN, Gwee A, Hatcher J, et al. A new dawn: whole-of-life inclusion in Bayesian adaptive platform clinical trials. JAMA Pediatr. 2024;178(10):1066–71.
    Article PubMed Google Scholar
  11. Angus DC, Berry S, Lewis RJ, Al-Beidh F, Arabi Y, Van Bentum-Puijk W, et al. The REMAP-CAP (Randomized Embedded Multifactorial Adaptive Platform for Community-acquired Pneumonia) Study. Rationale and Design. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2020;17(7):879–91.
  12. Denholm JT, Venkatesh B, Davis J, Bowen AC, Hammond NE, Jha V, et al. ASCOT ADAPT study of COVID-19 therapeutics in hospitalised patients: an international multicentre adaptive platform trial. Trials. 2022;23(1):1014.
    Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
  13. The SNAP Trial [Internet]. 2024 [cited 2024 Apr 17]. Available from: https://www.snaptrial.com.au/for-investigators#resource
  14. Adjunctive Clindamycin Domain-Specific Working Group for the Staphylococcus aureus Network Adaptive Platform (SNAP) trial group. Does adjunctive clindamycin have a role in Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia? A protocol for the adjunctive treatment domain of the S. aureus Network Adaptive Platform (SNAP) randomized controlled trial. Clin Infect Dis. 2024;79(3):626–634.
  15. De Kretser D, Mora J, Bloomfield M, Campbell A, Cheng MP, Guy S, et al. Early oral antibiotic switch in Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia: the Staphylococcus aureus Network Adaptive Platform (SNAP) Trial Early Oral Switch Protocol. Clin Infect Dis. 2024;79(4):871–87.
    Article PubMed Google Scholar
  16. Gamble C, Krishan A, Stocken D, Lewis S, Juszczak E, Doré C, et al. Guidelines for the Content of Statistical Analysis Plans in Clinical Trials. JAMA. 2017;318(23):2337–43.
    Article PubMed Google Scholar

Download references

Acknowledgements

Thanks go to the SNAP Global Trial Steering Committee comprising collaborating members (excluding those already included in the authorship list): Tom Boyles, Catherine Cosgrove, George Heriot, Marjolein Hensgens, David Lye, Susan Morpeth, Owen Robinson, Hiroki Saito, Matthew Scarborough, Sebastiaan van Hal, Genevieve Walls, and Lynda Whiteway.

Funding

The SNAP trial, including the EOS domain, has funding from several national health research funding bodies: the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC 2014900), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (451092), the New Zealand Health Research Council (20/344), the United Kingdom National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR133719), the Medical Research Council (MC_UU_00004/05) and the Singapore National Medical Research Council (CTGIIT21nov-0002). TCL acknowledges operating funds from CIHR for the conduct of the SNAP trial (grants 433304 and 466322) and research salary support from Fonds de Recherche du Québec – Santé. JAR would like to acknowledge funding from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council for a Centre of Research Excellence (APP2007007) and an Investigator Grant (APP2009736) as well as an Advancing Queensland Clinical Fellowship.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Epidemiology, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia
    Robert K. Mahar & David J. Price
  2. Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics Unit, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, Parkville, Australia
    Robert K. Mahar
  3. Methods and Implementation Support for Clinical Research Hub, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia
    Robert K. Mahar & Alistair R. D. McLean
  4. Berry Consultants, LLC, Austin, TX, USA
    Anna McGlothlin & Roger J. Lewis
  5. Wesfarmers Centre for Vaccines and Infectious Diseases, Telethon Kids Institute, Nedlands, WA, Australia
    Michael Dymock, Asha Bowen, Tom Snelling & Julie A. Marsh
  6. School of Population and Global Health, University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia
    Michael Dymock
  7. Department of Infectious Diseases, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne at the Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, Melbourne, Australia
    Lauren Barina, Jocelyn Mora, David J. Price & Steven Y. C. Tong
  8. Julius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
    Marc Bonten
  9. European Clinical Research Alliance On Infectious Diseases, Utrecht, the Netherlands
    Marc Bonten
  10. Perth Children’s Hospital, Nedlands, WA, Australia
    Asha Bowen
  11. Division of Infectious Diseases and Medical Microbiology, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Canada
    Matthew P. Cheng & Todd C. Lee
  12. McGill University, Montreal, Canada
    Matthew P. Cheng
  13. Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
    Nick Daneman
  14. MRC Clinical Trials Unit at University College London, London, UK
    Anna L. Goodman
  15. Centre for Infection Diagnostics Research at King’s College, London, UK
    Anna L. Goodman
  16. Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
    Anna L. Goodman
  17. David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA
    Roger J. Lewis
  18. Department of Statistics, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
    Thomas Lumley
  19. School of Public Health and Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
    Zoe McQuilten
  20. Department of Haematology, Alfred Health, Melbourne, Australia
    Zoe McQuilten
  21. ADVANCE-ID, Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
    David L. Paterson
  22. Faculty of Medicine, University of Queensland Centre for Clinical Research, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
    Jason Roberts
  23. Herston Infectious Diseases Institute, Metro North Health, Brisbane, Australia
    Jason Roberts
  24. Departments of Pharmacy and Intensive Care Medicine, Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital, Brisbane, Australia
    Jason Roberts
  25. Division of Anaesthesiology, Critical Care, Emergency and Pain Medicine, Nîmes University Hospital, University of Montpellier, Montpellier, France
    Jason Roberts
  26. Department of Infectious Diseases, Perth Children’s Hospital, Perth, WA, Australia
    Tom Snelling
  27. Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Tom Snelling
  28. Department of Infectious Diseases, Helsingborg Hospital, Helsingborg, Sweden
    Jonas Tverring
  29. Department of Clinical Sciences Helsingborg, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
    Jonas Tverring
  30. Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Research Centre, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
    Steve A. Webb
  31. Infectious Diseases Unit, Sheba Medical Center, Ramat-Gan, Israel
    Dafna Yahav
  32. Infection Research Program, Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton Heights, NSW, Sydney, Australia
    Joshua S. Davis
  33. School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia
    Joshua S. Davis
  34. Victorian Infectious Diseases Service, Royal Melbourne Hospital, at the, Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity , Melbourne, Australia
    Steven Y. C. Tong
  35. Medical School, Centre for Child Health Research, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia
    Julie A. Marsh

Authors

  1. Robert K. Mahar
  2. Anna McGlothlin
  3. Michael Dymock
  4. Lauren Barina
  5. Marc Bonten
  6. Asha Bowen
  7. Matthew P. Cheng
  8. Nick Daneman
  9. Anna L. Goodman
  10. Todd C. Lee
  11. Roger J. Lewis
  12. Thomas Lumley
  13. Alistair R. D. McLean
  14. Zoe McQuilten
  15. Jocelyn Mora
  16. David L. Paterson
  17. David J. Price
  18. Jason Roberts
  19. Tom Snelling
  20. Jonas Tverring
  21. Steve A. Webb
  22. Dafna Yahav
  23. Joshua S. Davis
  24. Steven Y. C. Tong
  25. Julie A. Marsh

Consortia

on behalf of the SNAP Global Trial Steering Committee

Contributions

The statistical design and documentation structure of the SNAP trial were contributed to by all authors. RKM, AM, MD, TS, JSD, SYCT, and JAM conceived the manuscript and its contents. RKM drafted the manuscript and with inputs from all co-authors. All authors reviewed and approved the final version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence toRobert K. Mahar.

Ethics declarations

Not applicable.

Not applicable.

Competing interests

AM is an employee of Berry Consultants, a consulting company that specialises in the design, conduct, oversight, and analysis of adaptive and platform clinical trials. MPC reports grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research during the conduct of the study and is supported by the Fonds de Recherche du Québec – Santé; personal fees from GEn1E Lifesciences and from Nomic Bio as a member of the scientific advisory board; as well as honoraria from AstraZeneca, Takeda, Merck, and Pfizer; research support from Cidara therapeutics, from Scynexis, Inc.; and from Amplyx Pharmaceutics during the conduct of the study but outside the submitted work. MPC is the co-founder of Kanvas Biosciences, Inc. and owns equity in the company. MPC has pending patents, including (i) methods for detecting tissue damage, graft versus host disease, and infections using cell-free DNA profiling and (ii) methods for assessing the severity and progression of SARS-CoV-2 infections using cell-free DNA pending. DLP reports that he is a consultant to the AMR Action Fund and CARB-X. RJL is the senior medical scientist and an employee of Berry Consultants, LLC, a statistical consulting firm that specialises in the design, implementation, conduct, oversight, and analysis of adaptive clinical trials, including platform trials. Where relevant, views contained within this commentary represent the authors’ own and not those of the NIHR or the UK Department of Health and Social Care.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mahar, R.K., McGlothlin, A., Dymock, M. et al. Statistical documentation for multi-disease, multi-domain platform trials: our experience with the Staphylococcus aureus Network Adaptive Platform trial.Trials 26, 49 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-024-08684-8

Download citation