ArticlePharmaceutical statistics
Design Considerations for a Phase II Platform Trial in Major Depressive Disorder.
Article in Pharmaceutical statistics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A European platform trial for major depressive disorder.World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) · 2026Article
- From Resistance to Redesign-The Emerging Logic of Hybrid Care in Treatment-Resistant Depression.Brain sciences · 2026Review
- Clinical Trial Simulation: Planning With the OCTAVE Framework, Implementation and Validation Principles.Statistics in medicine · 2026Article
- Design Considerations for a Phase II Platform Trial in Major Depressive Disorder.Pharmaceutical statisticsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Major depressive disorder (MDD) is one of the leading causes of disability globally. Despite its prevalence, approximately one-third of patients do not benefit sufficiently from available treatments, and few new drugs have been developed recently. Consequently, more efficient methods are needed to evaluate a broader range of treatment options quickly. Platform trials offer a promising solution, as they allow for the assessment of multiple investigational treatments simultaneously by sharing control groups and by reducing both trial activation and patient recruitment times. The objective of this simulation study was to support the design and optimisation of a phase II superiority platform trial for MDD, considering the disease-specific characteristics. In particular, we assessed the efficiency of platform trials compared to traditional two-arm trials by investigating key design elements, including allocation and randomisation strategies, as well as per-treatment arm sample sizes and interim futility analyses. Through extensive simulations, we refined these design components and evaluated their impact on trial performance. The results demonstrated that platform trials not only enhance efficiency but also achieve higher statistical power in evaluating individual treatments compared to conventional trials. The efficiency of platform trials is particularly prominent when interim futility analyses are performed to eliminate treatments that have either no or a negligible treatment effect early. Overall, this work provides valuable insights into the design of platform trials in the superiority setting and underscores their potential to accelerate therapy development in MDD and other therapeutic areas, providing a flexible and powerful alternative to traditional trial designs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.