Dataset Information

Clinical Trial Simulation to Inform Phase 2: Comparison of Concentrated vs. Distributed First-in-Patient Study Designs in Psoriasis.

ABSTRACT: Clinical trial simulation (CTS) and model-based meta-analysis (MBMA) can increase our understanding of small, first-in-patient (FIP) trial design performance to inform Phase 2 decision making. In this work, we compared dose-ranging designs vs. designs testing only placebo and the maximum dose for early decision making in psoriasis. Based on MBMA of monoclonal antibodies in the psoriasis space, a threshold of greater than a 50 percentage point improvement over placebo effect at the highest feasible drug dose was required for the advancement in psoriasis. Studies testing only placebo and the maximum dose made the correct advancement decision marginally more often than dose-ranging designs in the majority of the cases. However, dose-ranging studies in FIP trials offer important design advantages in the form of dose-response (D-R) information to inform Phase 2 dose selection. CTS can increase the efficiency and quality of drug development decision making by studying the limitations and benefits of study designs prospectively.CPT: Pharmacometrics & Systems Pharmacology (2013) 2, e58; doi:10.1038/psp.2013.32; published online 24 July 2013.

SUBMITTER: Dodds MG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3731828 | biostudies-other | 2013

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Clinical Trial Simulation to Inform Phase 2: Comparison of Concentrated vs. Distributed First-in-Patient Study Designs in Psoriasis.

Dodds M G MG Salinger D H DH Mandema J J Gibbs J P JP Gibbs M A MA

CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology 20130724

Clinical trial simulation (CTS) and model-based meta-analysis (MBMA) can increase our understanding of small, first-in-patient (FIP) trial design performance to inform Phase 2 decision making. In this work, we compared dose-ranging designs vs. designs testing only placebo and the maximum dose for early decision making in psoriasis. Based on MBMA of monoclonal antibodies in the psoriasis space, a threshold of greater than a 50 percentage point improvement over placebo effect at the highest feasib ...[more]

PMID: 23884206

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceHepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a leading cause of cancer-related mortality, and additional first-line treatments are needed. The programmed cell death protein 1 inhibitor tislelizumab demonstrated efficacy and a tolerable safety profile as second-line HCC treatment.ObjectiveTo investigate efficacy and safety of tislelizumab vs sorafenib tosylate for first-line treatment of unresectable HCC.Design, setting, and participantsThe open-label, global, multiregional phase 3 RATIONALE-301 randomized clinical trial enrolled systemic therapy-naive adults with histologically confirmed HCC, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage B or C disease, disease progression following (or patient was not amenable to) locoregional therapy, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 1 or less, and Child-Pugh class A, between December 27, 2017, and October 2, 2019. Data cutoff was July 11, 2022.InterventionPatients were randomized 1:1 to receive tislelizumab, 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks, or sorafenib tosylate, 400 mg orally twice daily.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was overall survival (OS); secondary end points included objective response rate, progression-free survival, duration of response, and safety.ResultsA total of 674 patients were included in the analysis (570 men [84.6%]; median age, 61 years [range, 23-86 years]). As of July 11, 2022, minimum study follow-up was 33 months. The primary end point of OS noninferiority of tislelizumab vs sorafenib was met in the intention-to-treat population (n = 674); median overall survival was 15.9 (95% CI, 13.2-19.7) months vs 14.1 (95% CI, 12.6-17.4) months, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.85 [95.003% CI, 0.71-1.02]), and superiority of tislelizumab vs sorafenib was not met. The objective response rate was 14.3% (n = 49) for tislelizumab vs 5.4% (n = 18) for sorafenib, and median duration of response was 36.1 (95% CI, 16.8 to not evaluable) months vs 11.0 (95% CI, 6.2-14.7) months, respectively. Median progression-free survival was 2.1 (95% CI, 2.1-3.5) months vs 3.4 (95% CI, 2.2-4.1) months with tislelizumab vs sorafenib (HR, 1.11 [95% CI, 0.92-1.33]). The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) was 96.2% (325 of 338 patients) for tislelizumab and 100% (n = 324) for sorafenib. Grade 3 or greater treatment-related AEs were reported in 75 patients (22.2%) receiving tislelizumab and 173 (53.4%) receiving sorafenib. There was a lower incidence of treatment-related AEs leading to drug discontinuation (21 [6.2%] vs 33 [10.2%]) and drug modification (68 [20.1%] vs 187 [57.7%]) with tislelizumab vs sorafenib.Conclusions and relevanceIn RATIONALE-301, tislelizumab demonstrated OS benefit that was noninferior vs sorafenib, with a higher objective response rate and more durable responses, while median progression-free survival was longer with sorafenib. Tislelizumab demonstrated a favorable safety profile vs sorafenib.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03412773.

Dataset Information

Clinical Trial Simulation to Inform Phase 2: Comparison of Concentrated vs. Distributed First-in-Patient Study Designs in Psoriasis.

Publications

Clinical Trial Simulation to Inform Phase 2: Comparison of Concentrated vs. Distributed First-in-Patient Study Designs in Psoriasis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets