Economic Evaluation of Cost and Time Required for a Platform Trial vs Conventional Trials

Development of a conceptual framework for defining trial efficiency

BACKGROUND

Globally, there is a growing focus on efficient trials, yet numerous interpretations have emerged, suggesting a significant heterogeneity in understanding "efficiency" within the trial context. Therefore in this study, we aimed to dissect the multifaceted nature of trial efficiency by establishing a comprehensive conceptual framework for its definition.

OBJECTIVES

To collate diverse perspectives regarding trial efficiency and to achieve consensus on a conceptual framework for defining trial efficiency.

METHODS

From July 2022 to July 2023, we undertook a literature review to identify various terms that have been used to define trial efficiency. We then conducted a modified e-Delphi study, comprising an exploratory open round and a subsequent scoring round to refine and validate the identified items. We recruited a wide range of experts in the global trial community including trialists, funders, sponsors, journal editors and members of the public. Consensus was defined as items rated "without disagreement", measured by the inter-percentile range adjusted for symmetry through the UCLA/RAND approach.

RESULTS

Seventy-eight studies were identified from a literature review, from which we extracted nine terms related to trial efficiency. We then used review findings as exemplars in the Delphi open round. Forty-nine international experts were recruited to the e-Delphi panel. Open round responses resulted in the refinement of the initial nine terms, which were consequently included in the scoring round. We obtained consensus on all nine items: 1) four constructs that collectively define trial efficiency containing scientific efficiency, operational efficiency, statistical efficiency and economic efficiency; and 2) five essential building blocks for efficient trial comprising trial design, trial process, infrastructure, superstructure, and stakeholders.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first attempt to dissect the concept of trial efficiency into theoretical constructs. Having an agreed definition will allow better trial implementation and facilitate effective communication and decision-making across stakeholders. We also identified essential building blocks that are the cornerstones of an efficient trial. In this pursuit of understanding, we are not only unravelling the complexities of trial efficiency but also laying the groundwork for evaluating the efficiency of an individual trial or a trial system in the future.

Bringing platform trials closer to reality by enabling with digital research environment (DRE) connectivity

Platform trials are generally regarded as an innovative approach to address clinical valuation of early stage candidates, regardless of modality as the evidence evolves. As a type of randomized clinical trial (RCT) design construct in which multiple interventions are evaluated concurrently against a common control group allowing new interventions to be added and the control group to be updated throughout the trial, they provide a dynamic and efficient mechanism to compare and potentially discriminate new treatment candidates. Their recent use in the evaluation of new therapies for COVID-19 has spurred new interest in the approach. The paucity of platform trials is less influenced by the novelty and operational requirements as opposed to concerns regarding the sharing of intellectual property (IP) and the lack of infrastructure to operationalize the conduct in the context of IP and data sharing. We provide a mechanism how this can be accomplished through the use of a digital research environment (DRE) providing a safe and secure platform for clinical researchers, quantitative and physician scientists to analyze and develop tools (e.g., models) on sensitive data with the confidence that the data and models developed are protected. A DRE, in this context, expands on the concept of a trusted research environment (TRE) by providing remote access to data alongside tools for analysis in a securely controlled workspace, while allowing data and tools to be findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable (FAIR), version-controlled, and dynamically grow in size or quality as a result of each treatment evaluated in the trial.

Unlocking the Potential: A Systematic Review of Master Protocol in Pediatrics

The use of master protocols allows for innovative approaches to clinical trial designs, potentially enabling new approaches to operations and analytics and creating value for patients and drug developers. Pediatric research has been conducted for many decades, but the use of novel designs such as master protocols in pediatric research is not well understood. This study aims to provide a systematic review on the utilization of master protocols in pediatric drug development. A search was performed in September 2022 using two data sources (PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov) and included studies conducted in the past10 years. General study information was extracted such as study type, study status, therapeutic area, and clinical trial phase. Study characteristics that are specific to pediatric studies (such as age of the participants and pediatric drug dosing) and important study design elements (such as number of test drug arms and whether randomization and/or concurrent control was used) were also collected. Our results suggest that master protocol studies are being used in pediatrics, with platform and basket trials more common than umbrella trials. Most of this experience is in oncology and early phase studies. There is a rise in the use starting in 2020, largely in oncology and COVID-19 trials. However, adoption of master protocols in pediatric clinical research is still on a small scale and could be substantially expanded. Work is required to further understand the barriers in implementing pediatric master protocols, from setting up infrastructure to interpreting study findings.

Characteristics, Progression, and Output of Randomized Platform Trials: A Systematic Review

Importance

Platform trials have become increasingly common, and evidence is needed to determine how this trial design is actually applied in current research practice.

Objective

To determine the characteristics, progression, and output of randomized platform trials.

Evidence Review

In this systematic review of randomized platform trials, Medline, Embase, Scopus, trial registries, gray literature, and preprint servers were searched, and citation tracking was performed in July 2022. Investigators were contacted in February 2023 to confirm data accuracy and to provide updated information on the status of platform trial arms. Randomized platform trials were eligible if they explicitly planned to add or drop arms. Data were extracted in duplicate from protocols, publications, websites, and registry entries. For each platform trial, design features such as the use of a common control arm, use of nonconcurrent control data, statistical framework, adjustment for multiplicity, and use of additional adaptive design features were collected. Progression and output of each platform trial were determined by the recruitment status of individual arms, the number of arms added or dropped, and the availability of results for each intervention arm.

Findings

The search identified 127 randomized platform trials with a total of 823 arms; most trials were conducted in the field of oncology (57 [44.9%]) and COVID-19 (45 [35.4%]). After a more than twofold increase in the initiation of new platform trials at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of platform trials has since declined. Platform trial features were often not reported (not reported: nonconcurrent control, 61 of 127 [48.0%]; multiplicity adjustment for arms, 98 of 127 [77.2%]; statistical framework, 37 of 127 [29.1%]). Adaptive design features were only used by half the studies (63 of 127 [49.6%]). Results were available for 65.2% of closed arms (230 of 353). Premature closure of platform trial arms due to recruitment problems was infrequent (5 of 353 [1.4%]).

Conclusions and Relevance

This systematic review found that platform trials were initiated most frequently during the COVID-19 pandemic and declined thereafter. The reporting of platform features and the availability of results were insufficient. Premature arm closure for poor recruitment was rare.

The Rise of Adaptive Platform Trials in Critical Care

As durable learning research systems, adaptive platform trials represent a transformative new approach to accelerating clinical evaluation and discovery in critical care. This Perspective provides a brief introduction to the concept of adaptive platform trials, describes several established and emerging platforms in critical care, and surveys some opportunities and challenges for their implementation and impact.

The Ethical Obligation for Research During Public Health Emergencies: Insights From the COVID-19 Pandemic

In times of crises, public health leaders may claim that trials of public health interventions are unethical. One reason for this claim can be that equipoise-i.e. a situation of uncertainty and/or disagreement among experts about the evidence regarding an intervention-has been disturbed by a change of collective expert views. Some might claim that equipoise is disturbed if the majority of experts believe that emergency public health interventions are likely to be more beneficial than harmful. However, such beliefs are not always justified: where high quality research has not been conducted, there is often considerable residual uncertainty about whether interventions offer net benefits. In this essay we argue that high-quality research, namely by means of well-designed randomized trials, is ethically obligatory before, during, and after implementing policies in public health emergencies (PHEs). We contend that this standard applies to both pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical interventions, and we elaborate an account of equipoise that captures key features of debates in the recent pandemic. We build our case by analyzing research strategies employed during the COVID-19 pandemic regarding drugs, vaccines, and non-pharmaceutical interventions; and by providing responses to possible objections. Finally, we propose a public health policy reform: whenever a policy implemented during a PHE is not grounded in high-quality evidence that expected benefits outweigh harms, there should be a planned approach to generate high-quality evidence, with review of emerging data at preset time points. These preset timepoints guarantee that policymakers pause to review emerging evidence and consider ceasing ineffective or even harmful policies, thereby improving transparency and accountability, as well as permitting the redirection of resources to more effective or beneficial interventions.

Ensuring the affordable becomes accessible-lessons from ketamine, a new treatment for severe depression

In this paper, the case study of ketamine as a new treatment for severe depression is used to outline the challenges of repurposing established medicines and we suggest potential solutions. The antidepressant effects of generic racemic ketamine were identified over 20 years ago, but there were insufficient incentives for commercial entities to pursue its registration, or support for non-commercial entities to fill this gap. As a result, the evaluation of generic ketamine was delayed, piecemeal, uncoordinated, and insufficient to gain approval. Meanwhile, substantial commercial investment enabled the widespread registration of a patented, intranasal s-enantiomeric ketamine formulation (Spravato®) for depression. However, Spravato is priced at $600-$900/dose compared to ~$5/dose for generic ketamine, and the ~AUD$100 million annual government investment requested in Australia (to cover drug costs alone) has been rejected twice, leaving this treatment largely inaccessible for Australian patients 2 years after Therapeutic Goods Administration approval. Moreover, emerging evidence indicates that generic racemic ketamine is at least as effective as Spravato, but no comparative trials were required for regulatory approval and have not been conducted. Without action, this story will repeat regularly in the next decade with a new wave of psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy treatments, for which the original off-patent molecules could be available at low-cost and reduce the overall cost of treatment. Several systemic reforms are required to ensure that affordable, effective options become accessible; these include commercial incentives, public and public-private funding schemes, reduced regulatory barriers and more coordinated international public funding schemes to support translational research.

Extending the vision of adaptive point-of-care platform trials to improve targeted use of drug therapy regimens: An agile approach in the learning healthcare system toolkit

OBJECTIVES

Improving the targeted use of drug regimens requires robust real-world evidence (RWE) to address the uncertainties that remain regarding their real-world performance following market entry. However, challenges in the current state of RWE production limit its impact on clinical decisions, as well as its operational scalability and sustainability. We propose an adaptive point-of-care (APoC) platform trial as an approach to RWE production that improves both clinical and operational efficiencies.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We explored design innovations, operational challenges, and infrastructure needs within a multi-stakeholder consortium to evaluate the potential of an APoC platform trial for studying chronic disease treatment regimens using rheumatoid arthritis as a case study. The concept integrates elements from adaptive clinical trials (dynamic treatment regimen strategies) and point-of-care trials (research embedded into routine clinical care) under a perpetual platform infrastructure. The necessary components to implement an APoC platform trial within outpatient settings exist, and present an opportunity for a cross-disciplinary, multi-stakeholder approach. Effective engagement of key stakeholders involved in and impacted by the platform is critical to success. Our collaborative design process identified three high-impact stakeholder-engagement areas: (1) focus on research question(s), (2) design and implementation planning such that it is feasible and fit-for-purpose, and (3) measurement, or meaningful metrics for both clinical (patient outcomes) and system (operational efficiencies) impact.

CONCLUSIONS

An APoC platform trial for rheumatoid arthritis integrating innovative design elements in a scalable infrastructure has the potential to reduce important uncertainties about the real-world performance of biomedical innovations and improve clinical decisions.

How Electronic Medical Record Integration Can Support More Efficient Critical Care Clinical Trials

Large volumes of data are collected on critically ill patients, and using data science to extract information from the electronic medical record (EMR) and to inform the design of clinical trials represents a new opportunity in critical care research. Using improved methods of phenotyping critical illnesses, subject identification and enrollment, and targeted treatment group assignment alongside newer trial designs such as adaptive platform trials can increase efficiency while lowering costs. Some tools such as the EMR to automate data collection are already in use. Refinement of data science approaches in critical illness research will allow for better clinical trials and, ultimately, improved patient outcomes.

Clinical Trials Overview: From Explanatory to Pragmatic Clinical Trials

Clinical trials have been the bedrock of research to evaluate the safety and efficacy of new medical, surgical, or other interventions. Traditional "explanatory" clinical trials have aimed to explain a biological cause (new treatment) and effect (patient outcome) while controlling for many factors that might impact the evaluation, such as restricted eligibility criteria, frequent follow-up visits, and multiple clinical and laboratory measures. Despite the benefits of a well-controlled clinical trial, compromises have been made that can limit who might benefit from a new intervention, can increase complexity of the conduct of a trial, or that lead to excessively long durations of trials. An alternative approach to evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention is based on "pragmatic" clinical trials, which consider how an intervention affects a patient's condition in the real world, accounting for how to optimize an intervention within the operations of busy and diverse clinical practices. Although we describe explanatory and pragmatic trial designs as separate approaches, there is a continuum of approaches that intersect. Some key points are the need to maintain scientific rigor, increase efficiency of clinical trials operations, ensure that trial results can be generalized to a broad spectrum of patients, and balance the needs of real-world clinical care. Pragmatic trials can leverage technology and telecommunication strategies of decentralized trials to further reach underrepresented and underserved patients to close the health disparity gaps.

Improving the efficiency of clinical trials in multiple sclerosis

BACKGROUND

Phase 3 clinical trials for disease-modifying therapies in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) have utilized a limited number of conventional designs with a high degree of success. However, these designs limit the types of questions that can be addressed, and the time and cost required. Moreover, trials involving people with progressive multiple sclerosis (MS) have been less successful.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this paper is to discuss complex innovative trial designs, intermediate and composite outcomes and to improve the efficiency of trial design in MS and broaden questions that can be addressed, particularly as applied to progressive MS.

METHODS

We held an international workshop with experts in clinical trial design.

RESULTS

Recommendations include increasing the use of complex innovative designs, developing biomarkers to enrich progressive MS trial populations, prioritize intermediate outcomes for further development that target therapeutic mechanisms of action other than peripherally mediated inflammation, investigate acceptability to people with MS of data linkage for studying long-term outcomes of clinical trials, use Bayesian designs to potentially reduce sample sizes required for pediatric trials, and provide sustained funding for platform trials and registries that can support pragmatic trials.

CONCLUSION

Novel trial designs and further development of intermediate outcomes may improve clinical trial efficiency in MS and address novel therapeutic questions.

Platform trials for anaesthesia and perioperative medicine: a narrative review

Large randomised trials provide the most reliable evidence of effectiveness of new treatments in clinical practice. However, the time and resources required to complete such trials can be daunting. An overarching clinical trial platform focused on a single condition or type of surgery, aiming to compare several treatments, with an option to stop any or add in new treatment options, can provide greater efficiency. This has the potential to accelerate knowledge acquisition and identify effective, ineffective, or harmful treatments faster. The master protocol of the platform defines the study population(s) and standardised procedures. Ineffective or harmful treatments can be discarded or study drug dose modified during the life cycle of the trial. Other adaptive elements that can be modified include eligibility criteria, required sample size for any comparison(s), randomisation assignment ratio, and the addition of other promising treatment options. There are excellent opportunities for anaesthetists to establish platform trials in perioperative medicine. Platform trials are highly efficient, with the potential to provide quicker answers to important clinical questions that lead to improved patient care.