Explore the vast range of titles available.

This paper proposes a two-stage phase I-II clinical trial design to optimize doseschedule regimes of an experimental agent within ordered disease subgroups in terms of the toxicity-efficacy trade-off. The design is motivated by settings where prior biological information indicates it is certain that efficacy will improve with ordinal subgroup level. We formulate a flexible Bayesian hierarchical model to account for associations among subgroups and regimes, and to characterize ordered subgroup effects. Sequentially adaptive decisionmaking is complicated by the problem, arising from the motivating application, that efficacy is scored on day 90 and toxicity is evaluated within 30 days from the start of therapy, while the patient accrual rate is fast relative to these outcome evaluation intervals. To deal with this in a practical manner, we take a likelihood-based approach that treats unobserved toxicity and efficacy outcomes as missing values, and use elicited utilities that quantify the efficacy-toxicity trade-off as a decision criterion. Adaptive randomization is used to assign patients to regimes while accounting for subgroups, with randomization probabilities depending on the posterior predictive distributions of utilities. A simulation study is presented to evaluate the design’s performance under a variety of scenarios, and to assess its sensitivity to the amount of missing data, the prior, and model misspecification.

Background News stories represent an important source of information. We aimed to evaluate the impact of “spin” (i.e., misrepresentation of study results) in health news stories reporting studies of pharmacologic treatments on patients’/caregivers’ interpretation of treatment benefit. Methods We conducted three two-arm, parallel-group, Internet-based randomized trials (RCTs) comparing the interpretation of news stories reported with or without spin. Each RCT considered news stories reporting a different type of study: (1) pre-clinical study, (2) phase I/II non-RCT, and (3) phase III/IV RCT. For each type of study, we identified news stories reported with spin that had earned mention in the press. Two versions of the news stories were used: the version with spin and a version rewritten without spin. Participants were patients/caregivers involved in Inspire, a large online community of more than one million patients/caregivers. The primary outcome was participants’ interpretation assessed by one specific question “What do you think is the probability that ‘treatment X’ would be beneficial to patients?” (scale, 0 [very unlikely] to 10 [very likely]). Results For each RCT, 300 participants were randomly assigned to assess a news story with spin ( n  = 150) or without spin ( n  = 150), and 900 participants assessed a news story. Participants were more likely to consider that the treatment would be beneficial to patients when the news story was reported with spin. The mean (SD) score for the primary outcome for abstracts reported with and without spin for pre-clinical studies was 7.5 (2.2) versus 5.8 (2.8) (mean difference [95% CI] 1.7 [1.0–2.3], p  < 0.001); for phase I/II non-randomized trials, 7.6 (2.2) versus 5.8 (2.7) (mean difference 1.8 [1.0–2.5], p  < 0.001); and for phase III/IV RCTs, 7.2 (2.3) versus 4.9 (2.8) (mean difference 2.3 [1.4–3.2], p  < 0.001). Conclusions Spin in health news stories reporting studies of pharmacologic treatments affects patients’/caregivers’ interpretation. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03094078 , NCT03094104 , NCT03095586

Nivolumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that inhibits programmed death‐1 activation. The clinical pharmacology profile of nivolumab was analyzed by a population pharmacokinetics model that assessed covariate effects on nivolumab concentrations in 1,895 patients who received 0.3–10.0 mg/kg nivolumab in 11 clinical trials. Nivolumab pharmacokinetics is linear with a time‐varying clearance. A full covariate model was developed to assess covariate effects on pharmacokinetic parameters. Nivolumab clearance and volume of distribution increase with body weight. The final model included the effects of baseline performance status (PS), baseline body weight, and baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), sex, and race on clearance, and effects of baseline body weight and sex on volume of distribution in the central compartment. Sex, PS, baseline eGFR, age, race, baseline lactate dehydrogenase, mild hepatic impairment, tumor type, tumor burden, and programmed death ligand‐1 expression had a significant but not clinically relevant (<20%) effect on nivolumab clearance.

Background Combination therapies involving novel agents, such as immunotherapies and targeted therapies, offer significant antitumor benefits by increasing dose intensity, targeting multiple pathways, and benefiting a broader patient population. To further explore these advantages, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) has initiated Combination Therapy Platform Trial with Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice (ComboMATCH) to evaluate the effectiveness of new drug combinations in treating both adults and children. However, designing dose optimization trials for these combination therapies presents substantial challenges due to the complex interactions and unique mechanisms of action. Methods To address these challenges, we propose COMPACT, a Bayesian phase I-II randomized design for combination cancer therapies that uses progression-free survival (PFS) as the primary efficacy endpoint to identify the optimal dose combination (ODC) based on restricted mean survival time (RMST). The COMPACT design jointly evaluates both toxicity and PFS, with continuous toxicity monitoring throughout the trial. Toxicity probabilities are modeled using a partial ordering assumption without relying on complex parametric models, while PFS is modeled through a Bayesian Pareto proportional hazards model with gamma-shared frailty. The trial consists of two seamlessly connected stages. In the first stage, the dose space is explored primarily based on toxicity, while PFS data are concurrently collected. In the second stage, patients are adaptively randomized to safe and potentially promising dose combinations based on PFS, and the dose combination with the highest RMST among those deemed safe is selected as the ODC. Results Simulation studies demonstrate that COMPACT has desirable operating characteristics and outperforms conventional designs in identifying the ODC, allocating more patients to ODC, while maintaining patient safety. Sensitivity analysis is performed to examine the robustness of the proposed design. A trial example is provided to facilitate the practical implementation of the proposed COMPACT design. Conclusions The proposed COMPACT design offers a novel and robust framework for combination cancer therapies with progression-free survival end point.

Near-infrared spectroscopy-derived regional tissue oxygen saturation of haemoglobin (rSt O 2 ) reflects venous oxygen saturation. If cerebral metabolism is stable, rSt O 2 can be used as an estimate of cerebral oxygen delivery. The SafeBoosC phase II randomised clinical trial hypothesises that the burden of hypo- and hyperoxia can be reduced by the combined use of close monitoring of the cerebral rSt O 2 and a treatment guideline to correct deviations in rSt O 2 outside a predefined target range. Aims: To describe the rationale for and content of this treatment guideline. Methods: Review of the literature and assessment of the quality of evidence and the grade of recommendation for each of the interventions. Results and Conclusions: A clinical intervention algorithm based on the main determinants of cerebral perfusion-oxygenation changes during the first hours after birth was generated. The treatment guideline is presented to assist neonatologists in making decisions in relation to cerebral oximetry readings in preterm infants within the SafeBoosC phase II randomised clinical trial. The evidence grades were relatively low and the guideline cannot be recommended outside a research setting.

Background Faced with the high cost and limited efficiency of classical randomized controlled trials, researchers are increasingly applying adaptive designs to speed up the development of new drugs. However, the application of adaptive design to drug randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and whether the reporting is adequate are unclear. Thus, this study aimed to summarize the epidemiological characteristics of the relevant trials and assess their reporting quality by the Adaptive designs CONSORT Extension (ACE) checklist. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to January 2020. We included drug RCTs that explicitly claimed to be adaptive trials or used any type of adaptative design. We extracted the epidemiological characteristics of included studies to summarize their adaptive design application. We assessed the reporting quality of the trials by Adaptive designs CONSORT Extension (ACE) checklist. Univariable and multivariable linear regression models were used to the association of four prespecified factors with the quality of reporting. Results Our survey included 108 adaptive trials. We found that adaptive design has been increasingly applied over the years, and was commonly used in phase II trials ( n  = 45, 41.7%). The primary reasons for using adaptive design were to speed the trial and facilitate decision-making ( n  = 24, 22.2%), maximize the benefit of participants ( n  = 21, 19.4%), and reduce the total sample size ( n  = 15, 13.9%). Group sequential design ( n  = 63, 58.3%) was the most frequently applied method, followed by adaptive randomization design ( n  = 26, 24.1%), and adaptive dose-finding design ( n  = 24, 22.2%). The proportion of adherence to the ACE checklist of 26 topics ranged from 7.4 to 99.1%, with eight topics being adequately reported (i.e., level of adherence ≥ 80%), and eight others being poorly reported (i.e., level of adherence ≤ 30%). In addition, among the seven items specific for adaptive trials, three were poorly reported: accessibility to statistical analysis plan ( n  = 8, 7.4%), measures for confidentiality ( n  = 14, 13.0%), and assessments of similarity between interim stages ( n  = 25, 23.1%). The mean score of the ACE checklist was 13.9 (standard deviation [SD], 3.5) out of 26. According to our multivariable regression analysis, later published trials (estimated β  = 0.14, p  < 0.01) and the multicenter trials (estimated β  = 2.22, p  < 0.01) were associated with better reporting. Conclusion Adaptive design has shown an increasing use over the years, and was primarily applied to early phase drug trials. However, the reporting quality of adaptive trials is suboptimal, and substantial efforts are needed to improve the reporting.

Background Personalized and effective treatments for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) continue to remain elusive. Novel clinical trial designs that enable continual and rapid evaluation of novel therapeutics are needed. Here, we describe a platform clinical trial to address this unmet need. Methods This is a phase II study using a Bayesian platform design to evaluate multiple experimental arms against a control arm in patients with PDAC. We first separate patients into three clinical stage groups of localized PDAC (resectable, borderline resectable, and locally advanced disease), and further divide each stage group based on treatment history (treatment naïve or previously treated). The clinical stage and treatment history therefore define 6 different cohorts, and each cohort has one control arm but may have one or more experimental arms running simultaneously. Within each cohort, adaptive randomization rules are applied and patients will be randomized to either an experimental arm or the control arm accordingly. The experimental arm(s) of each cohort are only compared to the applicable cohort specific control arm. Experimental arms may be added independently to one or more cohorts during the study. Multiple correlative studies for tissue, blood, and imaging are also incorporated. Discussion To date, PDAC has been treated as a single disease, despite knowledge that there is substantial heterogeneity in disease presentation and biology. It is recognized that the current approach of single arm phase II trials and traditional phase III randomized studies are not well-suited for more personalized treatment strategies in PDAC. The PIONEER Panc platform clinical trial is designed to overcome these challenges and help advance our treatment strategies for this deadly disease. Trial registration This study is approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of MD Anderson Cancer Center, IRB-approved protocol 2020-0075. The PIONEER trial is registered at the US National Institutes of Health (ClinicalTrials.gov) NCT04481204 .

Background and Objective Proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibition with monoclonal antibodies such as alirocumab significantly reduces low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol levels ± other lipid-lowering therapies. We aimed to develop and qualify a population pharmacokinetics (PopPK) model for alirocumab in healthy subjects and patients, taking into account the mechanistic target-mediated drug disposition (TMDD) process. Methods This TMDD model was developed using a subset of the alirocumab clinical trial database, including nine phase I/II/III studies ( n  = 527); the model was subsequently expanded to a larger data set of 13 studies ( n  = 2870). Potential model parameters and covariate relationships were explored, and predictive ability was qualified using a visual predictive check. Results The TMDD model was built using the quasi-steady-state approximation. The final TMDD–quasi-steady-state model included a significant relationship between distribution volume of the central compartment and disease state: distribution volume of the central compartment was 1.56-fold higher in patients vs. healthy subjects. Separately, application of the model to the expanded data set revealed a significant relationship between linear clearance and statin co-administration: linear clearance was 1.27-fold higher with statins. The good predictive performance of the TMDD model was assessed based on graphical and numerical quality criteria, together with the visual predictive check and comparison of the predictions to those from a PopPK model with parallel linear and Michaelis–Menten clearances (i.e., simplification of the TMDD PopPK model). Conclusions This mechanistic TMDD PopPK model integrates the interaction of alirocumab with its target and accurately predicts both alirocumab and total proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 concentrations in healthy subjects and patients.

Background Since the first methodological publications on adaptive study design approaches in the 1990s, the application of these approaches in drug development has raised increasing interest among academia, industry and regulators. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) as well as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have published guidance documents addressing the potentials and limitations of adaptive designs in the regulatory context. Since there is limited experience in the implementation and interpretation of adaptive clinical trials, early interaction with regulators is recommended. The EMA offers such interactions through scientific advice and protocol assistance procedures. Methods We performed a text search of scientific advice letters issued between 1 January 2007 and 8 May 2012 that contained relevant key terms. Letters containing questions related to adaptive clinical trials in phases II or III were selected for further analysis. From the selected letters, important characteristics of the proposed design and its context in the drug development program, as well as the responses of the Committee for Human Medicinal Products (CHMP)/Scientific Advice Working Party (SAWP), were extracted and categorized. For 41 more recent procedures (1 January 2009 to 8 May 2012), additional details of the trial design and the CHMP/SAWP responses were assessed. In addition, case studies are presented as examples. Results Over a range of 5½ years, 59 scientific advices were identified that address adaptive study designs in phase II and phase III clinical trials. Almost all were proposed as confirmatory phase III or phase II/III studies. The most frequently proposed adaptation was sample size reassessment, followed by dropping of treatment arms and population enrichment. While 12 (20%) of the 59 proposals for an adaptive clinical trial were not accepted, the great majority of proposals were accepted (15, 25%) or conditionally accepted (32, 54%). In the more recent 41 procedures, the most frequent concerns raised by CHMP/SAWP were insufficient justifications of the adaptation strategy, type I error rate control and bias. Conclusions For the majority of proposed adaptive clinical trials, an overall positive opinion was given albeit with critical comments. Type I error rate control, bias and the justification of the design are common issues raised by the CHMP/SAWP.