Early phase and adaptive design clinical trials in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review of early phase trials.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
Adaptive designs can enable highly sophisticated and efficient early phase trials, but the clinical inference from these trials is surrounded by complexity, and currently there is a paucity but steadily increasing amount of use of these designs in all fields of medicine. We aim to review early phase trials in RA to discover those that have used adaptive designs and benchmark trial characteristics.Methods
From an OVID search for journal articles reporting the results of early phase trials in rheumatology, 35 studies were found, with 9 subsequently excluded; 11 were added from manual searches and 19 from searching the references. Study characteristics were extracted from the 56 papers (describing 62 trials), including the number of arms, number of patients, the primary outcome and when it was measured.Result
One early phase trial using an adaptive design was found. The benchmark early phase trial in RA is a phase II double-blinded randomized trial, with four arms (one control and three intervention), each with 34 patients, and ACR20 measured at 16 weeks as the primary outcome.Conclusion
The one adaptive design reviewed here, and a simulation study found in the search, both indicate that adaptive designs can be applied to early phase trials in RA. We have described the benchmark, which the efficiency of early phase trials using an adaptive design needs to exceed. These efficient designs could drive down numbers required, time for data collection and thus cost. Changes have been suggested, but more needs to be done.
SUBMITTER: Pickles T
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6649924 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:To assess the clinical evidence for bee venom acupuncture (BVA) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA).Systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs).We searched 14 databases up to March 2014 without a language restriction.Patients with RA.BVA involved injecting purified, diluted BV into acupoints. We included trials on BVA used alone or in combination with a conventional therapy versus the conventional therapy alone.Morning stiffness, pain and joint swellingErythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C reactive protein (CRP), rheumatoid factor, the number of joints affected by RA and adverse effects likely related to RA.A total of 304 potentially relevant studies were identified; only one RCT met our inclusion criteria. Compared with placebo, BVA may more effectively improve joint pain, swollen joint counts, tender joint counts, ESR and CRP but was not shown to improve morning stiffness.There is low-quality evidence, based on one trial, that BVA can significantly reduce pain, morning stiffness, tender joint counts, swollen joint counts and improve the quality of life of patients with RA compared with placebo (normal saline injection) control. However, the number of trials, their quality and the total sample size were too low to draw firm conclusions.PROSPERO 2013: CRD42013005853.
| S-EPMC4225238 | biostudies-other
Project description:IntroductionAdaptive design methods are a potential solution to improve efficiency of clinical trials but their uptake in dialysis is unknown. We aim to investigate the use of adaptive design methods in dialysis clinical trials and to cultivate further adoption of adaptive design methods by the nephrology community.Methods and analysisWe will adhere to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols guidelines and the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook. We will perform a literature search through MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE and CENTRAL, a detailed data extraction of trial characteristics and a narrative synthesis of the data. There will be no language restrictions. We will estimate the percentage of adaptive clinical trials per year in dialysis. Subgroup analysis will be performed by dialysis modality, funder and geographical location.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval will not be required for this study as data will be obtained from publicly available clinical trials. We will disseminate our results in a peer-reviewed publication. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER.
| S-EPMC7454175 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In recent years, the use of adaptive design methods in clinical research and development based on accrued data has become very popular due to its flexibility and efficiency. Based on adaptations applied, adaptive designs can be classified into three categories: prospective, concurrent (ad hoc), and retrospective adaptive designs. An adaptive design allows modifications made to trial and/or statistical procedures of ongoing clinical trials. However, it is a concern that the actual patient population after the adaptations could deviate from the originally target patient population and consequently the overall type I error (to erroneously claim efficacy for an infective drug) rate may not be controlled. In addition, major adaptations of trial and/or statistical procedures of on-going trials may result in a totally different trial that is unable to address the scientific/medical questions the trial intends to answer. In this article, several commonly considered adaptive designs in clinical trials are reviewed. Impacts of ad hoc adaptations (protocol amendments), challenges in by design (prospective) adaptations, and obstacles of retrospective adaptations are described. Strategies for the use of adaptive design in clinical development of rare diseases are discussed. Some examples concerning the development of Velcade intended for multiple myeloma and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma are given. Practical issues that are commonly encountered when implementing adaptive design methods in clinical trials are also discussed.
| S-EPMC2422839 | biostudies-other
Project description:Importance:Racial/ethnic minority groups, women, and elderly people experience a disproportionate burden of disease in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), making it particularly important to examine drug therapies in these populations. Despite a national health agenda to improve representation of diverse populations in randomized clinical trials (RCTs), there have been few large-scale analyses examining RCT demographic characteristics within rheumatology and none focusing on RA. Objective:To characterize the representation of racial/ethnic minority groups, women, and elderly people through a comprehensive systematic review of RA RCTs. Data Sources:A literature search of PubMed's MEDLINE database was conducted to identify RA RCTs in adults 19 years and older published in English between January 1, 2008, and January 1, 2018. Study Selection:Randomized double-blind RCTs examining any systemic, disease-modifying therapy were included. Secondary analyses of previously published RCTs were excluded. Of 1195 identified records, 240 articles (20.1%) met final selection criteria. The analysis focused on RCTs with at least 1 US-based site. Data Extraction and Synthesis:Data were extracted and synthesized according to the PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews. Studies were screened for eligibility criteria. Demographic data on the age, sex, and race/ethnicity of RCT participants were extracted. Data analysis was conducted from October 25, 2018, to March 15, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures:Representation of race/ethnicity and sex, defined as the proportion of total participants that belonged to each racial/ethnic group or sex. Trends in proportions over time were examined and compared with US demographic data. Results:A total of 240 RCTs with 77?071 participants were included. Of 126 RCTs with at least 1 US-based site (52.5%), the enrollment of minority racial/ethnic groups was significantly lower than their representation within the US Census population (16% vs 40%; P?<?.001), and the enrollment of men was significantly lower than the incidence of RA in men nationally (20.4% vs 28.6%; P?<?.001). There was no trend toward improved representation of racial/ethnic minority groups or men over time. Conclusions and Relevance:Given the disproportionate burden of RA among racial/ethnic minority groups, it is imperative that policy makers better incentivize the inclusion of racial/ethnic minority groups in RA RCTs.
| S-EPMC6902779 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Rationale & objectiveAdaptive design methods are intended to improve the efficiency of clinical trials and are relevant to evaluating interventions in dialysis populations. We sought to determine the use of adaptive designs in dialysis clinical trials and quantify trends in their use over time.Study designWe completed a novel full-text systematic review that used a machine learning classifier (RobotSearch) for filtering randomized controlled trials and adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines.Setting & study populationsWe searched MEDLINE (PubMed) and ClinicalTrials.gov using sensitive dialysis search terms.Selection criteria for studiesWe included all randomized clinical trials with patients receiving dialysis or clinical trials with dialysis as a primary or secondary outcome. There was no restriction of disease type or intervention type.Data extraction & analytical approachWe performed a detailed data extraction of trial characteristics and a completed a narrative synthesis of the data.Results57 studies, available as 68 articles and 7 ClinicalTrials.gov summaries, were included after full-text review (initial search, 209,033 PubMed abstracts and 6,002 ClinicalTrials.gov summaries). 31 studies were conducted in a dialysis population and 26 studies included dialysis as a primary or secondary outcome. Although the absolute number of adaptive design methods is increasing over time, the relative use of adaptive design methods in dialysis trials is decreasing over time (6.12% in 2009 to 0.43% in 2019, with a mean of 1.82%). Group sequential designs were the most common type of adaptive design method used. Adaptive design methods affected the conduct of 50.9% of trials, most commonly resulting in stopping early for futility (41.2%) and early stopping for safety (23.5%). Acute kidney injury was studied in 32 trials (56.1%), kidney failure requiring dialysis was studied in 24 trials (42.1%), and chronic kidney disease was studied in 1 trial (1.75%). 27 studies (47.4%) were supported by public funding. 44 studies (77.2%) did not report their adaptive design method in the title or abstract and would not be detected by a standard systematic review.LimitationsWe limited our search to 2 databases (PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov) due to the scale of studies sourced (209,033 and 6,002 results, respectively).ConclusionsAdaptive design methods are used in dialysis trials but there has been a decline in their relative use over time.
| S-EPMC8664746 | biostudies-literature
Project description:There has been constant development of novel statistical methods in the design of early-phase clinical trials since the introduction of model-based designs, yet the traditional or modified 3+3 algorithmic design remains the most widely used approach in dose-finding studies. Research has shown the limitations of this traditional design compared with more innovative approaches yet the use of these model-based designs remains infrequent. This can be attributed to several causes including a poor understanding from clinicians and reviewers into how the designs work, and how best to evaluate the appropriateness of a proposed design. These barriers are likely to be enhanced in the coming years as the recent paradigm of drug development involves a shift to more complex dose-finding problems. This article reviews relevant information that should be included in clinical trial protocols to aid in the acceptance and approval of novel methods. We provide practical guidance for implementing these efficient designs with the aim of augmenting a broader transition from algorithmic to adaptive model-guided designs. In addition we highlight issues to consider in the actual implementation of a trial once approval is obtained. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
| S-EPMC5003756 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsWith the arrival of conventional synthetic (csDMARDs), biological (bDMARDS) and then targeted synthetic (tsDMARDs) disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs, the therapeutic arsenal against rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has recently expanded. However, there are still some unmet needs for patients who do not achieve remission and continue to worsen despite treatments. Of note, most randomized controlled trials show that, for methotrexate-inadequate responders, only 20% of patients are ACR70 responders. With our better understanding of RA pathogenesis, finding new treatments is a necessary challenge. The objective of our study was to analyse the whole pipeline of immunosuppressive and immunomodulating drugs evaluated in RA and describe their mechanisms of action and stage of clinical development.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of all drugs in clinical development in RA, in 17 online registries of clinical trials.ResultsThe search yielded 4652 trials, from which we identified 243 molecules. Those molecules belong to csDMARDs (n = 22), bDMARDs (n = 118), tsDMARDs (n = 103). Twenty-four molecules are already marketed in RA in at least one country: eight csDMARDs, 10 bDMARDs and six tsDMARDs. Molecules under current development are mainly bDMARDs (n = 34) and tsDMARDs (n = 33). Seven of those have reached phase III. A large number of molecules (150/243, 61.7%) have been withdrawn.ConclusionDespite the availability of 24 marketed molecules, the development of new targeted molecules is ongoing with a total of 243 molecules in RA. With seven molecules currently reaching phase III, we can expect an increase in the armamentarium in the years to come.
| S-EPMC7747097 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We aimed to evaluate the evidence reported to underpin exercise dose in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) using strengthening exercise in RA. We searched six different databases between 1 January 2000 and 3 April 2019. We included RCTs, where a main component of the intervention and/or control used strengthening exercise. Evidence sources cited to underpin dose were judged for their quality, consistency and applicability. Thirty-two RCTs were reviewed. Four (12.5%) piloted the intervention without using dose-escalation designs to determine optimal dose-response. Twenty (62.5%) reported no evidence underpinning dose. Where reported, quality, consistency and applicability of the underpinning evidence was a cause for methodological concern. The majority of RCTs did not report the evidence underpinning dose. When reported, the evidence was often not applicable to the clinical population. Frequently, the dose used differed to the dose reported/recommended by the underpinning evidence. Our findings illustrate exercise dose may not be optimised for use with clinical populations prior to evaluation by RCT.
| S-EPMC7590408 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Simon's optimal two-stage design has been widely used in early phase clinical trials for Oncology and AIDS studies with binary endpoints. With this approach, the second-stage sample size is fixed when the trial passes the first stage with sufficient activity. Adaptive designs, such as those due to Banerjee and Tsiatis (2006) and Englert and Kieser (2013), are flexible in the sense that the second-stage sample size depends on the response from the first stage, and these designs are often seen to reduce the expected sample size under the null hypothesis as compared with Simon's approach. An unappealing trait of the existing designs is that they are not associated with a second-stage sample size, which is a non-increasing function of the first-stage response rate. In this paper, an efficient intelligent process, the branch-and-bound algorithm, is used in extensively searching for the optimal adaptive design with the smallest expected sample size under the null, while the type I and II error rates are maintained and the aforementioned monotonicity characteristic is respected. The proposed optimal design is observed to have smaller expected sample sizes compared to Simon's optimal design, and the maximum total sample size of the proposed adaptive design is very close to that from Simon's method. The proposed optimal adaptive two-stage design is recommended for use in practice to improve the flexibility and efficiency of early phase therapeutic development.
| S-EPMC4777673 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:This review investigates characteristics of implemented adaptive design clinical trials and provides examples of regulatory experience with such trials. DESIGN:Review of adaptive design clinical trials in EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Registry of Controlled Clinical Trials, Web of Science and ClinicalTrials.gov. Phase I and seamless Phase I/II trials were excluded. Variables extracted from trials included basic study characteristics, adaptive design features, size and use of independent data monitoring committees (DMCs) and blinded interim analyses. We also examined use of the adaptive trials in new drug submissions to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) and recorded regulators' experiences with adaptive designs. RESULTS:142 studies met inclusion criteria. There has been a recent growth in publicly reported use of adaptive designs among researchers around the world. The most frequently appearing types of adaptations were seamless Phase II/III (57%), group sequential (21%), biomarker adaptive (20%), and adaptive dose-finding designs (16%). About one-third (32%) of trials reported an independent DMC, while 6% reported blinded interim analysis. We found that 9% of adaptive trials were used for FDA product approval consideration, and 12% were used for EMA product approval consideration. International regulators had mixed experiences with adaptive trials. Many product applications with adaptive trials had extensive correspondence between drug sponsors and regulators regarding the adaptive designs, in some cases with regulators requiring revisions or alterations to research designs. CONCLUSIONS:Wider use of adaptive designs will necessitate new drug application sponsors to engage with regulatory scientists during planning and conduct of the trials. Investigators need to more consistently report protections intended to preserve confidentiality and minimise potential operational bias during interim analysis.
| S-EPMC5829673 | biostudies-literature