Dataset Information

The Impact of Early-Phase Trial Design in the Drug Development Process.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE:Many of the therapeutic agents that are being used currently were developed using the 3+3 decision rule for dose finding. Over the past 30 years, several dose-finding designs have been proposed and evaluated, including the "continual reassessment method" (CRM) and the "Bayesian optimal interval design" (BOIN). This research investigates the role of the choice of an early-phase design on the likelihood that drugs entering the drug development pipeline will have 2 successful phase III trials.Experimental Design: Using simulation, each agent in a population of hypothetical agents was tracked through the drug development process, from initial dose finding to 2 confirmatory phase III trials. Varying the designs of the phase I, II, and III trials allows for an assessment of the effect of the choice of designs on the proportion of agents with successful phase III trials. RESULTS:The results indicate that using the CRM or BOIN, rather than the 3+3, substantially enhances the proportion of effective agents that have successful phase III trials, with the CRM having a greater effect than BOIN. A larger phase II trial magnifies the effect of the phase I design. CONCLUSIONS:The results underscore the importance of the choice of the early-phase designs. Use of the 3+3 results in fewer agents with successful phase III trials compared with the CRM or BOIN. The difference is more pronounced among highly effective agents. In addition, the results show the importance of a sufficiently powered phase II trial.

SUBMITTER: Conaway MR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6335181 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The Impact of Early-Phase Trial Design in the Drug Development Process.

Conaway Mark R MR Petroni Gina R GR

Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research 20181016 2

<h4>Purpose</h4>Many of the therapeutic agents that are being used currently were developed using the 3+3 decision rule for dose finding. Over the past 30 years, several dose-finding designs have been proposed and evaluated, including the "continual reassessment method" (CRM) and the "Bayesian optimal interval design" (BOIN). This research investigates the role of the choice of an early-phase design on the likelihood that drugs entering the drug development pipeline will have 2 successful phase ...[more]

PMID: 30327310

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The standard 6-month four-drug regimen for the treatment of drug-sensitive tuberculosis has remained unchanged for decades and is inadequate to control the epidemic. Shorter, simpler regimens are urgently needed to defeat what is now the world's greatest infectious disease killer. METHODS:We describe the Phase IIC Selection Trial with Extended Post-treatment follow-up (STEP) as a novel hybrid phase II/III trial design to accelerate regimen development. In the Phase IIC STEP trial, the experimental regimen is given for the duration for which it will be studied in phase III (presently 3 or 4 months) and patients are followed for clinical outcomes of treatment failure and relapse for a total of 12 months from randomisation. Operating characteristics of the trial design are explored assuming a classical frequentist framework as well as a Bayesian framework with flat and sceptical priors. A simulation study is conducted using data from the RIFAQUIN phase III trial to illustrate how such a design could be used in practice. RESULTS:With 80 patients per arm, and two (2.5 %) unfavourable outcomes in the STEP trial, there is a probability of 0.99 that the proportion of unfavourable outcomes in a potential phase III trial would be less than 12 % and a probability of 0.91 that the proportion of unfavourable outcomes would be less than 8 %. With six (7.5 %) unfavourable outcomes, there is a probability of 0.82 that the proportion of unfavourable outcomes in a potential phase III trial would be less than 12 % and a probability of 0.41 that it would be less than 8 %. Simulations using data from the RIFAQUIN trial show that a STEP trial with 80 patients per arm would have correctly shown that the Inferior Regimen should not proceed to phase III and would have had a high chance (0.88) of either showing that the Successful Regimen could proceed to phase III or that it might require further optimisation. CONCLUSIONS:Collection of definitive clinical outcome data in a relatively small number of participants over only 12 months provides valuable information about the likelihood of success in a future phase III trial. We strongly believe that the STEP trial design described herein is an important tool that would allow for more informed decision-making and accelerate regimen development.

Project description:AimsThe European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) produce guidelines for the design of pivotal psychiatric drug trials used in new drug applications. It is unknown who are involved in the guideline development and what specific trial design recommendations they give.MethodsCross-sectional study of EMA Clinical Efficacy and Safety Guidelines and FDA Guidance Documents. Study outcomes: (1) guideline committee members and declared conflicts of interest; (2) guideline development and organisation of commenting phases; (3) categorisation of stakeholders who comment on draft and final guidelines according to conflicts of interest ('industry', 'not-industry but with industry-related conflicts', 'independent', 'unclear'); and (4) trial design recommendations (trial duration, psychiatric comorbidity, 'enriched design', efficacy outcomes, comparator choice). Protocol registration https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.01.22.20018499 (27 January 2020).ResultsWe included 13 EMA and five FDA guidelines covering 15 psychiatric indications. Eleven months after submission, the EMA had not processed our request regarding committee member disclosures. FDA offices draft the Guidance Documents, but the Agency is not in possession of employee conflicts of interest declarations because FDA employees generally may not hold financial interests (although some employees may hold interests up to $15,000). The EMA and FDA guideline development phases are similar; drafts and final versions are publicly announced and everybody can submit comments. Seventy stakeholders commented on ten guidelines: 38 (54%) 'industry', 18 (26%) 'not-industry but with industry-related conflicts', six (9%) 'independent' and eight (11%) 'unclear'. They submitted 1014 comments: 640 (68%) 'industry', 243 (26%) 'not-industry but with industry-related conflicts', 44 (5%) 'independent' and 20 (2%) 'unclear' (67 could not be assigned to a specific stakeholder). The recommended designs were generally for trials of short duration; with restricted trial populations; allowing previous exposure to the drug; and often recommending rating scale efficacy outcomes. EMA mainly recommended three arm designs (both placebo and active comparators), whereas FDA mainly recommended placebo-controlled designs. There were also other important differences and FDA's recommendations regarding the exclusion of psychiatric comorbidity seemed less restrictive.ConclusionsThe EMA and FDA clinical research guidelines for psychiatric pivotal trials recommend designs that tend to have limited generalisability. Independent and non-conflicted stakeholders are underrepresented in the guideline development. It seems warranted with more active involvement of scientists and independent organisations without conflicts of interest in the guideline development process.

Project description:BackgroundThe third INTEnsive care bundle with blood pressure Reduction in Acute Cerebral Hemorrhage Trial (INTERACT3) is an ongoing, international, multicenter, stepped-wedge cluster, prospective, randomized, open, blinded endpoint assessed trial evaluating the effectiveness of a quality improvement "care bundle" for the management of patients with acute spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). An embedded process evaluation aims to explore the uptake and implementation of the intervention, and understand the context and stakeholder perspectives, for interpreting the trial outcomes.MethodologyThe design was informed by Normalization Process Theory and the UK Medical Research Council process evaluation guidance. Mixed methods are used to evaluate the implementation outcomes of fidelity, reach, dose, acceptability, appropriateness, adoption, sustainability, and relevant contextual factors and mechanisms affecting delivery of the care bundle. Semi-structured interviews and non-participant observations are conducted with the primary implementers (physicians and nurses) and patients/carers to explore how the care bundle was integrated into routine care. Focus group discussions are conducted with investigators and project operational staff to understand challenges and possible solutions in the organization of the trial. Data from observational records, surveys, routine monitoring data, field notes and case report forms, inform contextual factors, and adoption of the intervention. Purposive sampling of sites according to pre-specified criteria is used to achieve sample representativeness.DiscussionImplementation outcomes, and relevant barriers and facilitators to integrating the care bundle into routine practice, will be reported after completion of the process evaluation. The embedded process evaluation will aid understanding of the causal mechanisms between care bundle elements and clinical outcomes within complex health systems across diverse LMIC settings.Trial registrationThe INTERACT3 study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03209258).

Dataset Information

The Impact of Early-Phase Trial Design in the Drug Development Process.

Publications

The Impact of Early-Phase Trial Design in the Drug Development Process.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure