Dataset Information

Platform trials.

ABSTRACT: For the past few years, platform trials have experienced a significant increase, recently amplified by the COVID-19 pandemic. The implementation of a platform trial is particularly useful in certain pathologies, particularly when there is a significant number of drug candidates to be assessed, a rapid evolution of the standard of care or in situations of urgent need for evaluation, during which the pooling of protocols and infrastructure optimizes the number of patients to be enrolled, the costs, and the deadlines for carrying out the investigation. However, the specificity of platform trials raises methodological, ethical, and regulatory issues, which have been the subject of the round table and which are presented in this article. The round table was also an opportunity to discuss the complexity of sponsorship and data management related to the multiplicity of partners, funding, and governance of these trials, and the level of acceptability of their findings by the competent authorities.

SUBMITTER: Roustit M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9756081 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jan-Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Platform trials.

Roustit Matthieu M Demarcq Olivier O Laporte Silvy S Barthélémy Philippe P Chassany Olivier O Cucherat Michel M Demotes Jacques J Diebolt Vincent V Espérou Hélène H Fouret Cécile C Galaup Ariane A Gambotti Laetitia L Gourio Charlotte C Guérin Aurélie A Labruyère Carine C Paoletti Xavier X Porcher Raphael R Simon Tabassome T Varoqueaux Nathalie N

Therapie 20221205 1

For the past few years, platform trials have experienced a significant increase, recently amplified by the COVID-19 pandemic. The implementation of a platform trial is particularly useful in certain pathologies, particularly when there is a significant number of drug candidates to be assessed, a rapid evolution of the standard of care or in situations of urgent need for evaluation, during which the pooling of protocols and infrastructure optimizes the number of patients to be enrolled, the costs ...[more]

PMID: 36529559

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMaster protocols, classified as basket trials, umbrella trials, and platform trials, are novel designs that investigate multiple hypotheses through concurrent sub-studies (e.g., multiple treatments or populations or that allow adding/removing arms during the trial), offering enhanced efficiency and a more ethical approach to trial evaluation. Despite the many advantages of these designs, they are infrequently used.MethodsWe conducted a landscape analysis of master protocols using a systematic literature search to determine what trials have been conducted and proposed for an overall goal of improving the literacy in this emerging concept. On July 8, 2019, English-language studies were identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases and hand searches of published reviews and registries.ResultsWe identified 83 master protocols (49 basket, 18 umbrella, and 16 platform trials). The number of master protocols has increased rapidly over the last five years. Most have been conducted in the US (n = 44/83) and investigated experimental drugs (n = 82/83) in the field of oncology (n = 76/83). The majority of basket trials were exploratory (i.e., phase I/II; n = 47/49) and not randomized (n = 44/49), and more than half (n = 28/48) investigated only a single intervention. The median sample size of basket trials was 205 participants (interquartile range, Q3-Q1 [IQR]: 500-90 = 410), and the median study duration was 22.3 (IQR: 74.1-42.9 = 31.1) months. Similar to basket trials, most umbrella trials were exploratory (n = 16/18), but the use of randomization was more common (n = 8/18). The median sample size of umbrella trials was 346 participants (IQR: 565-252 = 313), and the median study duration was 60.9 (IQR: 81.3-46.9 = 34.4) months. The median number of interventions investigated in umbrella trials was 5 (IQR: 6-4 = 2). The majority of platform trials were randomized (n = 15/16), and phase III investigation (n = 7/15; one did not report information on phase) was more common in platform trials with four of them using seamless II/III design. The median sample size was 892 (IQR: 1835-255 = 1580), and the median study duration was 58.9 (IQR: 101.3-36.9 = 64.4) months.ConclusionsWe anticipate that the number of master protocols will continue to increase at a rapid pace over the upcoming decades. More efforts to improve awareness and training are needed to apply these innovative trial design methods to fields outside of oncology.

Project description:BackgroundAdaptive platform trials allow randomized controlled comparisons of multiple treatments using a common infrastructure and the flexibility to adapt key design features during the study. Nonetheless, they have been criticized due to the potential for time trends in the underlying risk level of the population. Such time trends lead to confounding between design features and risk level, which may introduce bias favoring one or more treatments. This is particularly true when experimental treatments are not all randomized during the same time period as the control, leading to the potential for bias from non-concurrent controls.MethodsTwo analysis methods addressing this bias are stratification and adjustment. Stratification uses only comparisons between treatment cohorts randomized during identical time periods and does not use non-concurrent randomizations. Adjustment uses a modeled analysis including time period adjustment, allowing all data to be used, even from periods without concurrent randomization. We show that these competing approaches may be embedded in a common framework using network meta-analysis principles. We interpret the stages between adaptations in a platform trial as separate fixed design trials. This allows platform trials to be viewed as networks of direct randomized comparisons and indirect non-randomized comparisons. Network meta-analysis methodology can be re-purposed to aggregate the total information from a platform trial and to transparently decompose this total information into direct randomized evidence and indirect non-randomized evidence. This allows sensitivity to indirect information to be assessed and the two analysis methods to be clearly compared.ResultsSimulations of platform trials were analyzed using a network approach implemented in the netmeta package in R. The results demonstrated bias of unadjusted methods in the presence of time trends in risk level. Adjustment and stratification were both unbiased when direct evidence and indirect evidence were consistent. Network tests of inconsistency may be used to diagnose inconsistency when it exists. In an illustrative network analysis of one of the treatment comparisons from the STAMPEDE platform trial in metastatic prostate cancer, indirect comparisons using non-concurrent controls were inconsistent with the information from direct randomized comparisons. This supports the primary analysis approach of STAMPEDE, which used only direct randomized comparisons.ConclusionNetwork meta-analysis provides a natural methodology for analyzing the network of direct and indirect treatment comparisons from a platform trial. Such analyses provide transparent separation of direct and indirect evidence, allowing assessment of the impact of non-concurrent controls. We recommend time-stratified analysis of concurrently controlled comparisons for primary analyses, with time-adjusted analyses incorporating non-concurrent controls reserved for secondary analyses. However, regardless of which methodology is used, a network analysis provides a useful supplement to the primary analysis.

Dataset Information

Platform trials.

Publications

Platform trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets