In this solo episode of "In the Interim...", Scott Berry, President and Senior Statistical Scientist at Berry Consultants, addresses deep-rooted confusion in the field of adaptive clinical trial design surrounding the concept of “spending alpha.” Drawing on practical experience and rigorous statistical foundations, Berry addresses the prevailing language and myths that conflate interim analysis with loss of type I error. He clarifies that, with planned and transparent allocation of alpha, interim analyses enable more power with more efficient design, and robust clinical trials—without sacrificing statistical validity. This is a precise and fact-driven examination for those demanding technical clarity, not marketing gloss.

Key Highlights

• Explains the basics of hypothesis testing in superiority trials, highlighting why a one-sided 2.5% alpha is the operational standard despite persistent use of two-sided 5% language in clinical protocols.
• Refutes the widespread belief that reviewing interim data costs available alpha, making clear that statistical error is not “penalized”—it is allocated, with potential efficiencies in average sample size and, in thoughtfully extended designs, gains in operating characteristics such as power.
• Describes real-world examples, including the SEPSIS-ACT (selepressin) trial sponsored by Ferring Pharmaceuticals, which incorporated more than 20 interim analyses while maintaining a pre-specified final alpha of 0.025; underscores the necessity of transparent, prospective design and explicit documentation for regulatory acceptance.
• Distinguishes between interim actions—such as futility analyses or response-adaptive randomization, which require no alpha adjustment, and early efficacy analyses, which must be precisely modeled to preserve type I error.
• Challenges terminology like “penalty” and “spending alpha,” asserting that imprecise language fosters misunderstanding and leads to missed opportunities in adaptive trial efficiency.
• Emphasizes the crucial role of prospective, simulation-based planning and clear protocol definition at every interim, anchoring statistical practice in measured evidence, not historical convention.

Scott Berry, Founder of Berry Consultants, interviews Professor Craig Ritchie—specialist in brain health and neurodegenerative diseases, Chief Investigator of EPAD (European Prevention of Alzheimer Dementia), and CEO of Scottish Brain Sciences—for a broad discussion of platform trial methodology in Alzheimer’s Disease research as well as looking towards the future of drug development. The conversation dissects the origins and ambitions of the EPAD initiative, the conception and scientific function of the readiness cohort, and the pragmatic obstacles to deploying innovative trial models within rigid institutional frameworks. Professor Ritchie details why the EPAD platform trial failed to initiate any therapies, explores the fallout and industry shifts following COVID-19, and maps how Scottish Brain Sciences is directly applying these lessons—establishing the IONA readiness cohort to drive integration between clinical research and clinical practice.

Key Highlights
• Systematic review of EPAD’s objectives, specifically the platform trial and the development of a readiness cohort to streamline patient recruitment
• Detailed account of practical barriers that prevented EPAD from launching interventional arms, including pharmaceutical sponsor reluctance, inflexible IMI funding mechanisms, and the inherent risk aversion surrounding novel platform structures
• Discussion of participant contribution to research design and delivery—an early demonstration of patient involvement models now broadly recognized as best practice
• Analysis of COVID-19's dual impact—derailing EPAD's momentum while catalyzing a change in industry and regulatory acceptance of platform trials in drug development
• Tracing the origins and operationalization of the IONA readiness cohort at Scottish Brain Sciences, including direct integration of recruitment, biobanking, and engagement systems to address the translational gap in dementia medicine
• Evidence-based critique of persistent use of conventional clinical trial formats in Alzheimer’s disease, dissecting operational, financial, and data limitations that stall progress

In this engaging episode of "In the Interim...", host Dr. Scott Berry is joined by Dr. Nick Berry to explore the intriguing statistical parallels between sports and drug development, focusing on the concept of "regression-to-the-mean." Presenting examples that seem clear in sports, they discuss how these insights can illuminate the challenges faced in clinical trials and scientific inferences in medical decision making. Whether you're a statistician, drug developer, or sports enthusiast, this episode offers valuable perspectives on data interpretation and statistical phenomena.

Key Highlights:
• Discussion on how lessons from sports can benefit drug developers, emphasizing the concept of regression-to-the-mean.
• Personal anecdotes from Scott and Nick's experiences, illustrating statistical learning through sports.
• Examination of the regression-to-the-mean phenomenon through examples from baseball and golf.
• Exploration of how misunderstanding the regression-to-the-mean can lead to poor decision-making in clinical trials.
• Insights into placebo effects and how they are often confused with natural statistical phenomena.
• How regression-to-the-mean impacts expectations in financial markets and personal finance decision-making.