Dataset Information

IPF clinical trial design and endpoints.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose of review

There remains a dire need for therapies that impact the clinical course of patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). Indeed, there is a surge of interest in IPF therapeutics, with many candidate agents in various stages of development. Optimal design and implementation of the appropriate prospective clinical trials are essential to demonstrate clinical efficacy of promising drugs for the treatment of IPF. A key element in the success of such clinical trials is the choice of the best endpoint(s) to match the design of the study.

Recent findings

Although the results of many IPF clinical trials have been disappointing, these trials have provided valuable insights into the epidemiology and natural history of the disease and have sparked debate into the best clinical trial designs and endpoints.

Summary

This review will discuss the various clinical trial endpoints that have been used or proposed with a focus on their potential utility, as well as possible pitfalls that investigators should consider in the design of such studies.

Video abstract

http://links.lww.com/COPM/A13.

SUBMITTER: Nathan SD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4162322 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

IPF clinical trial design and endpoints.

Nathan Steven D SD Meyer Keith C KC

Current opinion in pulmonary medicine 20140901 5

<h4>Purpose of review</h4>There remains a dire need for therapies that impact the clinical course of patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). Indeed, there is a surge of interest in IPF therapeutics, with many candidate agents in various stages of development. Optimal design and implementation of the appropriate prospective clinical trials are essential to demonstrate clinical efficacy of promising drugs for the treatment of IPF. A key element in the success of such clinical trials is ...[more]

PMID: 25022315

Similar Datasets

Project description:Compelling data have linked disease progression in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) with lung dysbiosis and the resulting dysregulated local and systemic immune response. Moreover, prior therapeutic trials have suggested improved outcomes in these patients treated with either sulfamethoxazole/ trimethoprim or doxycycline. These trials have been limited by methodological concerns. This trial addresses the primary hypothesis that long-term treatment with antimicrobial therapy increases the time-to-event endpoint of respiratory hospitalization or all-cause mortality compared to usual care treatment in patients with IPF. We invoke numerous innovative features to achieve this goal, including: 1) utilizing a pragmatic randomized trial design; 2) collecting targeted biological samples to allow future exploration of 'personalized' therapy; and 3) developing a strong partnership between the NHLBI, a broad range of investigators, industry, and philanthropic organizations. The trial will randomize approximately 500 individuals in a 1:1 ratio to either antimicrobial therapy or usual care. The site principal investigator will declare their preferred initial antimicrobial treatment strategy (trimethoprim 160?mg/ sulfamethoxazole 800?mg twice a day plus folic acid 5?mg daily or doxycycline 100?mg once daily if body weight is <?50?kg or 100?mg twice daily if ?50?kg) for the participant prior to randomization. Participants randomized to antimicrobial therapy will receive a voucher to help cover the additional prescription drug costs. Additionally, those participants will have 4-5 scheduled blood draws over the initial 24?months of therapy for safety monitoring. Blood sampling for DNA sequencing and genome wide transcriptomics will be collected before therapy. Blood sampling for transcriptomics and oral and fecal swabs for determination of the microbiome communities will be collected before and after study completion. As a pragmatic study, participants in both treatment arms will have limited in-person visits with the enrolling clinical center. Visits are limited to assessments of lung function and other clinical parameters at time points prior to randomization and at months 12, 24, and 36. All participants will be followed until the study completion for the assessment of clinical endpoints related to hospitalization and mortality events. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02759120.

Project description:To explore the value of multiple clinical endpoints in the unique setting of ovarian cancer.A clinical trial workgroup was established by the Society of Gynecologic Oncology to develop a consensus statement via multiple conference calls, meetings and white paper drafts.Clinical trial endpoints have profound effects on late phase clinical trial design, result interpretation, drug development, and regulatory approval of therapeutics. Selection of the optimal clinical trial endpoint is particularly provocative in ovarian cancer where long overall survival (OS) is observed. The lack of new regulatory approvals and the lack of harmony between regulatory bodies globally for ovarian cancer therapeutics are of concern. The advantages and disadvantages of the numerous endpoints available are herein discussed within the unique context of ovarian cancer where both crossover and post-progression therapies potentially uncouple surrogacy between progression-free survival (PFS) and OS, the two most widely supported and utilized endpoints. The roles of patient reported outcomes (PRO) and health related quality of life (HRQoL) are discussed, but even these widely supported parameters are affected by the unique characteristics of ovarian cancer where a significant percentage of patients may be asymptomatic. Original data regarding the endpoint preferences of ovarian cancer advocates is presented.Endpoint selection in ovarian cancer clinical trials should reflect the impact on disease burden and unique characteristics of the treatment cohort while reflecting true patient benefit. Both OS and PFS have led to regulatory approvals and are clinically important. OS remains the most objective and accepted endpoint because it is least vulnerable to bias; however, the feasibility of OS in ovarian cancer is compromised by the requirement for large trial size, prolonged time-line for final analysis, and potential for unintended loss of treatment effect from active post-progression therapies. A large magnitude of effect in PFS improvement should establish benefit, and further communication with regulatory authorities to clarify acceptable endpoints should be undertaken.

Dataset Information

IPF clinical trial design and endpoints.

Purpose of review

Recent findings

Summary

Video abstract

Publications

IPF clinical trial design and endpoints.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure