Dataset Information

A tutorial on the use of exploratory efficacy outcomes in uncontrolled phase I cell therapy trials.

ABSTRACT: Phase I cell therapy clinical trials evaluate the safety of novel biologic treatments and are often uncontrolled. Many of these studies also include exploratory efficacy outcome measures, which are frequently continuous measures of disease state or severity, or participant-reported measures of symptom burden or quality of life. When such outcomes are included in uncontrolled phase I trials, they are typically serially assessed on the participants over time, and any improvement from baseline is interpreted as preliminary evidence of efficacy justifying a future, controlled trial. However, it is challenging to distinguish true improvement from regression to the mean in this design. The problem is exacerbated when trial entry criteria are based on extreme values of the outcome measure used to assess efficacy. It is possible to estimate the expected effect of regression to the mean when the natural history of the outcome measure is known, yet this is rarely done in practice. This article provides a refresher on regression to the mean for investigators designing early phase clinical trials in cell therapy and evaluates the potential for regression to the mean to have influenced conclusions drawn from recently conducted phase I cell therapy trials.

SUBMITTER: Troy JD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7581446 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A tutorial on the use of exploratory efficacy outcomes in uncontrolled phase I cell therapy trials.

Troy Jesse D JD

Stem cells translational medicine 20200623 11

Phase I cell therapy clinical trials evaluate the safety of novel biologic treatments and are often uncontrolled. Many of these studies also include exploratory efficacy outcome measures, which are frequently continuous measures of disease state or severity, or participant-reported measures of symptom burden or quality of life. When such outcomes are included in uncontrolled phase I trials, they are typically serially assessed on the participants over time, and any improvement from baseline is i ...[more]

PMID: 32573967

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTralokinumab is an anti-interleukin (IL)-13 monoclonal antibody investigated for the treatment of severe, uncontrolled asthma in two Phase III clinical trials, STRATOS 1 and 2. The STRATOS 1 biomarker analysis plan was developed to identify biomarker(s) indicative of IL-13 activation likely to predict tralokinumab efficacy and define a population in which there was an enhanced treatment effect; this defined population was then tested in STRATOS 2.MethodsThe biomarkers considered were blood eosinophil counts, fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO), serum dipeptidyl peptidase-4, serum periostin and total serum immunoglobulin E. Tralokinumab efficacy was measured as the reduction in annualised asthma exacerbation rate (AAER) compared with placebo (primary endpoint measure of STRATOS 1 and 2). The biomarker analysis plan included negative binomial and generalised additive models, and the Subgroup Identification based on Differential Effect Search (SIDES) algorithm, supported by robustness and sensitivity checks. Effects on the key secondary endpoints of STRATOS 1 and 2, which included changes from baseline in standard measures of asthma outcomes, were also investigated. Prior to the STRATOS 1 read-out, numerous simulations of the methodology were performed with hypothetical data.ResultsFeNO and periostin were identified as the only biomarkers potentially predictive of treatment effect, with cut-offs chosen by the SIDES algorithm of > 32.3 ppb and > 27.4 ng/ml, respectively. The FeNO > 32.3 ppb subgroup was associated with greater AAER reductions and improvements in key secondary endpoints compared with the periostin > 27.4 ng/ml subgroup. Upon further evaluation of AAER reductions at different FeNO cut-offs, ≥37 ppb was chosen as the best cut-off for predicting tralokinumab efficacy.DiscussionA rigorous statistical approach incorporating multiple methods was used to investigate the predictive properties of five potential biomarkers and to identify a participant subgroup that demonstrated an enhanced tralokinumab treatment effect. Using STRATOS 1 data, our analyses identified FeNO at a cut-off of ≥37 ppb as the best assessed biomarker for predicting enhanced treatment effect to be tested in STRATOS 2. Our findings were inconclusive, which reflects the complexity of subgroup identification in the severe asthma population.Trial registrationSTRATOS 1 and 2 are registered on ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT02161757 registered on June 12, 2014, and NCT02194699 registered on July 18, 2014).

Project description:ObjectiveAnalyze tofacitinib efficacy and safety by background methotrexate (MTX) dose in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).MethodsThis post hoc analysis pooled data from two phase III, double-blind trials (OPAL Broaden, NCT01877668; OPAL Beyond, NCT01882439) including patients receiving tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily (BID), or placebo, with stable MTX. Efficacy outcomes at month 3 stratified by MTX dose (≤ 15 month 3 stratified by MTX dose vs > 15 mg/week) were American College of Rheumatology (ACR)20/50/70, Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI); Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI)50/75; change from baseline in HAQ-DI; physician's global assessment of PsA (PGA-PsA-visual analog scale [VAS]); patient's global joint and skin assessment (PGJS-VAS), Leeds Enthesitis Index (LEI); and Dactylitis Severity Score (DSS). Safety assessments included adverse events and laboratory parameters.ResultsFive hundred fifty-six patients received tofacitinib 5 mg BID (n = 186), 10 mg BID (n = 178), or placebo (n = 192), plus MTX (≤ 15 mg/week, n = 371; > 15 mg/week, n = 185). At month 3, tofacitinib efficacy was generally greater than placebo. Patients receiving tofacitinib 5 mg BID demonstrated greater numerical improvements in efficacy outcomes at month 3 with MTX > 15 mg/week vs MTX ≤ 15 mg/week; patients receiving tofacitinib 10 mg BID displayed the opposite. The safety profile was generally consistent between groups; headache was associated with MTX > 15 mg/week; decreased hemoglobin levels were observed in patients receiving tofacitinib 10 mg BID and MTX ≤ 15 mg/week.ConclusionEfficacy of tofacitinib was generally numerically greater than placebo, regardless of MTX dose. Tofacitinib 5 mg BID was generally more efficacious with MTX > 15 mg/week vs ≤ 15 mg/week; the opposite was observed for tofacitinib 10 mg BID. Headache was more frequent with MTX > 15 mg/week.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov . Identifier: NCT01877668 (registration: June 14, 2013) and NCT01882439 (registration: June 20, 2013). Key Points • Methotrexate is widely used in the treatment of psoriatic arthritis; however, there are limited data on the impact of varying background methotrexate doses on the efficacy and safety of Janus kinase inhibitors in patients with psoriatic arthritis. • This post hoc analysis assessed the impact of background methotrexate dose (≤ 15 or > 15 mg/week) on tofacitinib efficacy and safety in patients with psoriatic arthritis. • Results indicated that tofacitinib efficacy was generally numerically greater than placebo, regardless of methotrexate dose. Tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily, in combination with a higher dose of background methotrexate, was more efficacious compared with a lower dose of background methotrexate; the opposite was observed for tofacitinib 10 mg twice daily. • Headache was more frequent with the higher methotrexate dose. Data should be interpreted with caution due to the small sample sizes.

Project description:AimThough patient engagement in clinical research is growing, recent reports suggest few clinical trials report on such activities. To address this gap, we describe our approach to patient engagement in the development of a clinical trial protocol to assess a new immunotherapy for blood cancer (chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy, CAR-T cell therapy).MethodsOur team developed a clinical trial protocol by working with patient partners from inception. Two patient partners with lived blood cancer experience were identified through referrals from our team's professional network and patient organization contacts. Our patient partners were onboarded to the team and engaged in several studies conducted to develop the clinical trial protocol, including a systematic review of the existing literature on the therapy, patient interviews and a survey to obtain perspectives on barriers and enablers to participating in the trial, an early economic analysis, and a retrospective cohort study.ResultsEngaging patient partners enhanced our research in ways that would not have otherwise occurred. By selecting patient important outcomes for data collection, our partners helped flag that quality of life and health utility measures have not been reported in previous CAR-T cell therapy trials for blood cancer. Our partners also co-developed a non-technical summary of the systematic review that summarized results in an accessible manner. Our patient partners reviewed interview and survey questions, to improve the language and appropriateness; provided recruitment suggestions; and provided a patient perspective on the results, thereby confirming the importance of findings. Input was also obtained on costs for the early economic analysis. Our patient partners identified costs that may be a burden to both patients and caregivers during a trial and helped to confirm that the overall structure of the economic model reflected the patient care pathway. Our patient partners also shared their diagnosis and treatment stories, which helped to provide the research team with insight into this experience.ConclusionsContributions by our patient partners were invaluable to each component study, as well as the overall development of the trial protocol. We plan to use this approach in the future in order to meaningfully engage patients in the development of other clinical trials; we also hope that by reporting our methods this will help other research teams to do the same.Trial registrationAffiliated with the development of NCT03765177.

Project description:BackgroundUncontrolled/refractory gout patients are recalcitrant/intolerant to oral urate-lowering therapies (ULTs), experiencing frequent gout flares, functionally limiting tophi, and low quality of life. Pegloticase lowers urate, but anti-pegloticase antibodies limit urate-lowering efficacy and increase infusion reaction (IR) risk. Immunomodulator + pegloticase co-administration may improve treatment response rates, with 79% of MIRROR open-label trial (MIRROR-OL, pegloticase + oral methotrexate) participants meeting 6-month response criteria. Exploratory outcomes from MIRROR-OL are described here.MethodsAdults with uncontrolled gout (serum urate [SU] ≥ 6 mg/dL and ULT-intolerance/recalcitrance or functionally limiting tophi) were included. Oral methotrexate (15 mg/week) was administered 4 weeks before and during pegloticase treatment (biweekly 8 mg infusion, ≤ 52 weeks). Exploratory outcomes included change from baseline (CFB) in number of affected joints, Health Assessment Questionnaires (HAQs), and Gout Global Assessments.ResultsFourteen patients received ≥ 1 pegloticase infusion, with 13 included in 52-week analyses (1 enrolled before treatment-extension amendment, exited at 24 weeks). Three patients prematurely exited due to SU rise; 10 completed 52-week evaluations (8 completed 52 weeks of co-therapy, 2 completed 24 weeks [met treatment goals]). At 52 weeks, SU averaged 1.1 ± 2.5 mg/dL, with improvements in HAQ pain and health (CFB: - 33.6 and - 0.7, respectively), Patient and Physician Global Assessments (CFB: - 4.6 and - 5.7, respectively), and joint involvement (CFB: - 5.6, - 8.4, - 6.0 tender, swollen, tophi-affected joints, respectively). Two patients underwent dual-energy computed tomography, showing concomitant monosodium urate volume reductions. All patients had ≥ 1 AE, with 92.9% experiencing acute flare. One mild IR ("cough") occurred and no new safety signals were identified.ConclusionPegloticase + methotrexate co-therapy resulted in sustained SU-lowering with meaningful improvements in clinical measures, urate burden, and patient-reported outcomes.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03635957).

Dataset Information

A tutorial on the use of exploratory efficacy outcomes in uncontrolled phase I cell therapy trials.

Publications

A tutorial on the use of exploratory efficacy outcomes in uncontrolled phase I cell therapy trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets