PIPELINEs: Creating Comparable Clinical Knowledge Efficiently by Linking Trial Platforms

Aiding the Adoption of Master Protocols by Optimizing Patient Engagement

Master protocols (MPs) are an important addition to the clinical trial repertoire. As defined by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), this term means "a protocol designed with multiple sub-studies, which may have different objectives (goals) and involve coordinated efforts to evaluate one or more investigational drugs in one or more disease subtypes within the overall trial structure." This means we now have a unique, scientifically based MP that describes how a clinical trial will be conducted using one or more potential candidate therapies to treat patients in one or more diseases. Patient engagement (PE) is also a critical factor that has been recognized by FDA through its Patient-Focused Drug Development (PFDD) initiative, and by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), which states on its website that it has been actively interacting with patients since the creation of the Agency in 1995. We propose that utilizing these PE principles in MPs can make them more successful for sponsors, providers, and patients. Potential benefits of MPs for patients awaiting treatment can include treatments that better fit a patient's needs; availability of more treatments; and faster access to treatments. These make it possible to develop innovative therapies (especially for rare diseases and/or unique subpopulations, e.g., pediatrics), to minimize untoward side effects through careful dose escalation practices and, by sharing a control arm, to lower the probability of being assigned to a placebo arm for clinical trial participants. This paper is authored by select members of the American Statistical Association (ASA)/DahShu Master Protocol Working Group (MPWG) People and Patient Engagement (PE) Subteam. DahShu is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, founded to promote research and education in data science. This manuscript does not include direct feedback from US or non-US regulators, though multiple regulatory-related references are cited to confirm our observation that improving patient engagement is supported by regulators. This manuscript represents the authors' independent perspective on the Master Protocol; it does not represent the official policy or viewpoint of FDA or any other regulatory organization or the views of the authors' employers. The objective of this manuscript is to provide drug developers, contract research organizations (CROs), third party capital investors, patient advocacy groups (PAGs), and biopharmaceutical executives with a better understanding of how including the patient voice throughout MP development and conduct creates more efficient clinical trials. The PE Subteam also plans to publish a Plain Language Summary (PLS) of this publication for clinical trial participants, patients, caregivers, and the public as they seek to understand the risks and benefits of MP clinical trial participation.

Innovative Designs and Logistical Considerations for Expedited Clinical Development of Combination Disease-Modifying Treatments for Type 1 Diabetes

It has been 100 years since the life-saving discovery of insulin, yet daily management of type 1 diabetes (T1D) remains challenging. Even with closed-loop systems, the prevailing need for persons with T1D to attempt to match the kinetics of insulin activity with the kinetics of carbohydrate metabolism, alongside dynamic life factors affecting insulin requirements, results in the need for frequent interventions to adjust insulin dosages or consume carbohydrates to correct mismatches. Moreover, peripheral insulin dosing leaves the liver underinsulinized and hyperglucagonemic and peripheral tissues overinsulinized relative to their normal physiologic roles in glucose homeostasis. Disease-modifying therapies (DMT) to preserve and/or restore functional β-cell mass with controlled or corrected autoimmunity would simplify exogenous insulin need, thereby reducing disease mortality, morbidity, and management burdens. However, identifying effective DMTs for T1D has proven complex. There is some consensus that combination DMTs are needed for more meaningful clinical benefit. Other complexities are addressable with more innovative trial designs and logistics. While no DMT has yet been approved for marketing, existing regulatory guidance provides opportunities to further "de-risk" development. The T1D development ecosystem can accelerate progress by using more innovative ways for testing DMTs for T1D. This perspective outlines suggestions for accelerating evaluation of candidate T1D DMTs, including combination therapies, by use of innovative trial designs, enhanced logistical coordination of efforts, and regulatory guidance for expedited development, combination therapies, and adaptive designs.

Development of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines: challenges, risks, and the way forward

The COVID-19 pandemic mandates the development of a safe and effective Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccine. This review analyzes the complexities, challenges, and other vital issues associated with the development of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. A brief review of the immune responses (innate, antibody, and T-cell) to SARS-CoV-2, including immune targets, correlates of protection, and duration of immunity is presented. Approaches to vaccine development including different vaccine platforms, critical attributes of novel vaccine candidates, the status of the ongoing clinical trials, and the ways to speed up vaccine development are also reviewed. Despite a historical average success rate of only 6%, and a usual gestation period of 10-12 years for the development of a new vaccine, the world is on the verge of developing COVID-19 vaccines in an extraordinary short time span.

Planning for the Next Pandemic: Ethics and Innovation Today for Improved Clinical Trials Tomorrow

The coronavirus pandemic has brought public attention to the steps required to produce valid scientific clinical research in drug development. Traditional ethical principles that guide clinical research remain the guiding compass for physicians, patients, public health officials, investigators, drug developers and the public. Accelerating the process of delivering safe and effective treatments and vaccines against COVID-19 is a moral imperative. The apparent clash between the regulated system of phased randomized clinical trials and urgent public health need requires leveraging innovation with ethical scientific rigor. We reflect on the Belmont principles of autonomy, beneficence and justice as the pandemic unfolds, and illustrate the role of innovative clinical trial designs in alleviating pandemic challenges. Our discussion highlights selected types of innovative trial design and correlates them with ethical parameters and public health benefits. Details are provided for platform trials and other innovative designs such as basket and umbrella trials, designs leveraging external data sources, multi-stage seamless trials, preplanned control arm data sharing between larger trials, and higher order systems of linked trials coordinated more broadly between individual trials and phases of development, recently introduced conceptually as "PIPELINEs."

Overall Survival With Second-Line Pembrolizumab in Patients With Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Randomized Phase III Clinical Trial Versus Propensity-Adjusted Real-World Data

PURPOSE

To compare and characterize overall survival (OS) differences between clinical trial data from the KEYNOTE-010 trial and real-world data (RWD) from the Flatiron Health database in patients with programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)-expressing advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who received second-line pembrolizumab monotherapy.

METHODS

Clinical trial data were from the randomized phase II/III KEYNOTE-010 trial that enrolled patients from August 28, 2013, to February 27, 2015. At data cutoff for KEYNOTE-010, the median survival follow-up time for pembrolizumab patients was 11.2 months. RWD were from Flatiron Health advanced NSCLC database and included patients who initiated second-line pembrolizumab from January 26, 2015, to February 28, 2019. At data cutoff for Flatiron, the median survival follow-up time for pembrolizumab-treated patients was 6.1 months. Clinical trial data from KEYNOTE-010 and RWD from Flatiron were analyzed without adjustment, with propensity adjustment, and filtered per the main KEYNOTE-010 eligibility criteria (EC) of histologically/cytologically confirmed PD-L1-positive NSCLC, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0/1, no prior therapy with docetaxel for NSCLC, and laboratory values indicative of adequate organ function in addition to prior line of therapy requirements.

RESULTS

Among 243 patients from KEYNOTE-010 and 782 from Flatiron, median age was 63 v 68 years, and 64% v 54% were male, respectively. OS data from KEYNOTE-010 and Flatiron were similar without any adjustment (n = 782; hazard ratio [HR], 0.96; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.15) and after both filtering and propensity adjustment (n = 221; HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.34).

CONCLUSION

Without any adjustment, as well as after applying similar EC and appropriate statistical methods, RWD demonstrated similar effectiveness for pembrolizumab in second-line NSCLC as observed in randomized clinical trials.

Efficient two-stage sequential arrays of proof of concept studies for pharmaceutical portfolios

Previous work has shown that individual randomized "proof-of-concept" (PoC) studies may be designed to maximize cost-effectiveness, subject to an overall PoC budget constraint. Maximizing cost-effectiveness has also been considered for arrays of simultaneously executed PoC studies. Defining Type III error as the opportunity cost of not performing a PoC study, we evaluate the common pharmaceutical practice of allocating PoC study funds in two stages. Stage 1, or the first wave of PoC studies, screens drugs to identify those to be permitted additional PoC studies in Stage 2. We investigate if this strategy significantly improves efficiency, despite slowing development. We quantify the benefit, cost, benefit-cost ratio, and Type III error given the number of Stage 1 PoC studies. Relative to a single stage PoC strategy, significant cost-effective gains are seen when at least one of the drugs has a low probability of success (10%) and especially when there are either few drugs (2) with a large number of indications allowed per drug (10) or a large portfolio of drugs (4). In these cases, the recommended number of Stage 1 PoC studies ranges from 2 to 4, tracking approximately with an inflection point in the minimization curve of Type III error.

The Evolution of Master Protocol Clinical Trial Designs: A Systematic Literature Review

PURPOSE

Recent years have seen a change in the way that clinical trials are being conducted. There has been a rise of designs more flexible than traditional adaptive and group sequential trials which allow the investigation of multiple substudies with possibly different objectives, interventions, and subgroups conducted within an overall trial structure, summarized by the term master protocol. This review aims to identify existing master protocol studies and summarize their characteristics. The review also identifies articles relevant to the design of master protocol trials, such as proposed trial designs and related methods.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive systematic search to review current literature on master protocol trials from a design and analysis perspective, focusing on platform trials and considering basket and umbrella trials. Articles were included regardless of statistical complexity and classified as reviews related to planned or conducted trials, trial designs, or statistical methods. The results of the literature search are reported, and some features of the identified articles are summarized.

FINDINGS

Most of the trials using master protocols were designed as single-arm (n = 29/50), Phase II trials (n = 32/50) in oncology (n = 42/50) using a binary endpoint (n = 26/50) and frequentist decision rules (n = 37/50). We observed an exponential increase in publications in this domain during the last few years in both planned and conducted trials, as well as relevant methods, which we assume has not yet reached its peak. Although many operational and statistical challenges associated with such trials remain, the general consensus seems to be that master protocols provide potentially enormous advantages in efficiency and flexibility of clinical drug development.

IMPLICATIONS

Master protocol trials and especially platform trials have the potential to revolutionize clinical drug development if the methodologic and operational challenges can be overcome.

Basket Designs: Statistical Considerations for Oncology Trials

Progress in the areas of genomics, disease pathways, and drug discovery has advanced into clinical and translational cancer research. The latest innovations in clinical trials have followed with master protocols, which are defined by inclusive eligibility criteria and devised to interrogate multiple therapies for a given tumor histology and/or multiple histologies for a given therapy under one protocol. The use of master protocols for oncology has become more common with the desire to improve the efficiency of clinical research and accelerate overall drug development. Basket trials have been devised to ascertain the extent to which a treatment strategy offers benefit to various patient subpopulations defined by a common molecular target. Conventionally conducted within the phase II setting, basket designs have become popular as drug developers seek to effectively evaluate and identify preliminary efficacy signals among clinical indications identified as promising in preclinical study. This article reviews basket trial designs in oncology settings and discusses several issues that arise with their design and analysis.

Burden of bacterial bloodstream infection-a brief update on epidemiology and significance of multidrug-resistant pathogens

BACKGROUND

Bloodstream infections comprise a wide variety of pathogens and clinical syndromes with considerable overlap with similar syndromes of non-bacteraemic infections and diverse risk factors, therapeutic implications and outcomes. Yet, this heterogeneous 'entity' has the advantage to be pathogen-defined compared with the broad and even more heterogeneous entity 'sepsis', and so has become helpful for clinicians and epidemiologists for research and surveillance purposes. The increasing availability of population-based and large multicentre well-defined cohort studies should allow us to assess with much confidence and in detail its burden, the significance of antimicrobial resistance, and areas of uncertainty regarding further epidemiological evolution and optimized treatment regimens.

AIM

To review key aspects of bloodstream infection epidemiology and burden, and summarize recent news and questions concerning critical developments.

SOURCES

Peer-reviewed articles based on the search terms 'bloodstream infection' and 'bacteremia' combined with the terms 'epidemiology' and 'burden'. The emphasis was on new information from studies in adult patients and on the added burden due to pathogen resistance to first- and second-line antimicrobial agents.

CONTENT

Topics covered include recent developments in the epidemiology of bloodstream infection due to key pathogens and published information about the relevance of resistance for patient outcomes.

IMPLICATIONS

Despite the availability of population-based studies and an increasing number of large well-defined multicentre cohort studies, more surveillance and systematic data on bloodstream infection epidemiology at regional level and in resource-limited settings may be needed to better design new methods for prevention and define the need for and further develop optimized therapeutic strategies.

The Adaptive Platform Trials Coalition. Adaptive platform trials: definition, design, conduct and reporting considerations

Researchers, clinicians, policymakers and patients are increasingly interested in questions about therapeutic interventions that are difficult or costly to answer with traditional, free-standing, parallel-group randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Examples include scenarios in which there is a desire to compare multiple interventions, to generate separate effect estimates across subgroups of patients with distinct but related conditions or clinical features, or to minimize downtime between trials. In response, researchers have proposed new RCT designs such as adaptive platform trials (APTs), which are able to study multiple interventions in a disease or condition in a perpetual manner, with interventions entering and leaving the platform on the basis of a predefined decision algorithm. APTs offer innovations that could reshape clinical trials, and several APTs are now funded in various disease areas. With the aim of facilitating the use of APTs, here we review common features and issues that arise with such trials, and offer recommendations to promote best practices in their design, conduct, oversight and reporting.

Issues, challenges, and the way forward in conducting clinical trials among neonates: investigators' perspective

Clinical trials are essential to test the safety and efficacy of new treatments in any population. The paucity of drug trials especially in the neonatal population has led to the widespread use of unlicensed or off-label medications, exposing them to the risks of drug toxicity and ineffective treatment. Ethical and operational challenges are no longer considered valid excuses for not conducting drug trials in neonates. We recently participated in a combined phase-2 and phase-3 trial investigating a new indigenous goat lung surfactant extract (GLSE) for the treatment of respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) in preterm neonates. In this article, we share pertinent challenges faced by us during the trial to better inform and foster-positive discussion among drug developers, administrators, regulatory authorities, patient advocacy groups, and researchers. Also, we provide many tools developed for the GLSE trial that can be modified and used by prospective trialists.

Reporting of master protocols towards a standardized approach: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

In September 2018 the FDA provided a draft guidance on master protocols reflecting an increased interest in these designs by industry. Master protocols refer to a single overarching protocol developed to evaluate multiple hypotheses and may be further categorized as basket, umbrella, and platform trials. However, inconsistencies in reporting persist in the literature. We conducted a systematic review to describe master protocol reporting with the goal of facilitating the further development and spread of these innovative trial designs.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL from inception to April 25, 2019 for English articles on master protocols. This was supplemented by hand searches of trial registries and of the bibliographies of published reviews. We used the FDA's definitions of master protocols as references and compared them to self-reported master protocols.

RESULTS

We identified 278 master protocol publications, consisting of 228 protocols and 50 reviews. Sixty-six records provided unique definitions of master protocol types. We observed considerable heterogeneity in definitions of master protocols, and over half (54%) used oncology-specific language. The majority of self-classified master protocols (57%) were consistent with the FDA's definitions of master protocols.

CONCLUSION

The terms 'master protocol', 'basket trial', 'umbrella trial', and 'platform trial' are inconsistently described. Careful treatment of these terms and adherence to the definitions set forth by the FDA will facilitate better understanding of these trial designs and allow them to be used broadly and to their full potential in clinical research. We encourage trial methodologists to use these trial designations when applicable.

On strategic choices faced by large pharmaceutical laboratories and their effect on innovation risk under fuzzy conditions

OBJECTIVES

We develop a fuzzy evaluation model that provides managers at different responsibility levels in pharmaceutical laboratories with a rich picture of their innovation risk as well as that of competitors. This would help them take better strategic decisions around the management of their present and future portfolio of clinical trials in an uncertain environment. Through three structured fuzzy inference systems (FISs), the model evaluates the overall innovation risk of the laboratories by capturing the financial and pipeline sides of the risk.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Three FISs, based on the Mamdani model, determine the level of innovation risk of large pharmaceutical laboratories according to their strategic choices. Two subsystems measure different aspects of innovation risk while the third one builds on the results of the previous two. In all of them, both the partitions of the variables and the rules of the knowledge base are agreed through an innovative 2-tuple-based method. With the aid of experts, we have embedded knowledge into the FIS and later validated the model.

RESULTS

In an empirical application of the proposed methodology, we evaluate a sample of 31 large pharmaceutical laboratories in the period 2008-2013. Depending on the relative weight of the two subsystems in the first layer (capturing the financial and the pipeline sides of innovation risk), we estimate the overall risk. Comparisons across laboratories are made and graphical surfaces are analyzed in order to interpret our results. We have also run regressions to better understand the implications of our results.

CONCLUSIONS

The main contribution of this work is the development of an innovative fuzzy evaluation model that is useful for analyzing the innovation risk characteristics of large pharmaceutical laboratories given their strategic choices. The methodology is valid for carrying out a systematic analysis of the potential for developing new drugs over time and in a stable manner while managing the risks involved. We provide all the necessary tools and datasets to facilitate the replication of our system, which also may be easily applied to other settings.

Late translational research: putting forward a new model for developing new anti-cancer treatments that addresses the needs of patients and society

Bringing therapeutic innovation and the latest science to routine patient care, while safeguarding principles of affordability and equality, is a challenging mission in the current complex multi-stakeholder environment. Precision oncology and new approaches to clinical trials (methods and clinical setting) have dramatically changed clinical research and the clinical development of new treatments. Improved understanding of molecular biology and immunology paves the way for innovative pharmacological approaches. However, we argue that the evidence generated during the clinical development of these new products for the purpose of obtaining marketing authorisations often does not address fundamental questions concerning the impact of these new interventions on the most relevant clinical outcomes: namely, quality of life and patient survival. Similarly, patient populations (for example defined by biomarkers), treatment duration, and sequence and combination of treatments within current treatment pathways are often poorly defined by clinical developments for regulatory purposes. Finally, the lack of integrated translational research within the pathway of development is a major limiting factor to delivering cost-effective and affordable, evidence-based care to clinical practice. This leaves many gaps in the knowledge on the efficacy and therapeutic use of medicines, which can impose a significant financial burden on healthcare systems, possibly to the detriment of more cost-effective interventions. We argue that policy changes are required to integrate clinical research and healthcare to inform clinical practice. New routes toward optimising the integration of drug development and care are being proposed to achieve this ultimate goal.

Efficacy and Effectiveness Too Trials: Clinical Trial Designs to Generate Evidence on Efficacy and on Effectiveness in Wide Practice

Efficacy trials, designed to gain regulatory marketing approval, evaluate drugs in optimally selected patients under advantageous conditions for relatively short time periods. Effectiveness trials, designed to evaluate use in usual practice, assess treatments among more typical patients in real‐world conditions with longer follow‐up periods. In “efficacy‐to‐effectiveness (E2E) trials,” if the initial efficacy trial component is positive, the trial seamlessly transitions to an effectiveness trial component to efficiently yield both types of evidence. Yet more time could be saved by simultaneously addressing efficacy and effectiveness in an “efficacy and effectiveness too (EE2) trial.” Additionally, hybrids of the E2E and EE2 approaches with differing degrees of overlap of the two components could allow flexibility for specific drug development needs. In planning EE2 trials, each stakeholder's current and future needs, incentives, and perspective must be considered. Although challenging, the ultimate benefits to stakeholders, the health system, and the public should justify this effort.

Recognizing that Evidence is Made, not Born

Therapeutic product development, licensing and reimbursement may seem a well-oiled machine, but continuing high attrition rates, regulatory refusals, and patients' access issues suggest otherwise; despite serious efforts, gaps persist between stakeholders' stated evidence requirements and actual evidence supplied. Evidentiary deficiencies and/or human tendencies resulting in avoidable inefficiencies might be further reduced with fresh institutional cultures/mindsets, combined with a context-adaptable practices framework that integrates emerging innovations. Here, Structured Evidence Planning, Production, and Evaluation (SEPPE) posits that evidence be treated as something produced, much like other manufactured goods, for which "built-in quality" (i.e., "people" and "process") approaches have been successfully implemented globally. Incorporating proactive, iterative feedback-and-adjust loops involving key decision-makers at critical points could curtail avoidable evidence quality and decision hazards-pulling needed therapeutic products with high quality evidence of beneficial performance through to approvals. Critical for success, however, is dedicated, long-term commitment to systemic transformation.

Learning health systems, clinical equipoise and the ethics of response adaptive randomisation

To give substance to the rhetoric of 'learning health systems', a variety of novel trial designs are being explored to more seamlessly integrate research with medical practice, reduce study duration and reduce the number of participants allocated to ineffective interventions. Many of these designs rely on response adaptive randomisation (RAR). However, critics charge that RAR is unethical on the grounds that it violates the principle of equipoise. In this paper, I reconstruct critiques of RAR as holding that it is inconsistent with five important ethical principles. I then argue that these criticisms rest on a faulty view of equipoise encouraged by the idea that a RAR study models the beliefs of a single rational agent about the relative merits of the interventions being studied. I outline a view in which RAR models an idealised health system in which diverse communities of fully informed experts shrink or grow as their constituent members update their expert opinions in light of reliable medical evidence. I show how a proper understanding of clinical equipoise can reconcile this conception of RAR with these five ethical principles. This analysis removes an in-principle objection to RAR and sheds important light on the relationship between clinical equipoise and transient diversity in the scientific community.

Baseline and extensions approach to information retrieval of complex medical data: Poznan's approach to the bioCADDIE 2016

Database URL

https://biocaddie.org/benchmark-data.

Innovative Clinical Trial Designs for Precision Medicine in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction

A major challenge in the care of patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is the lack of proven therapies due to disappointing results from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The heterogeneity of the HFpEF syndrome and the use of conventional RCT designs are possible reasons underlying the failure of these trials. There are several factors-including the widespread adoption of electronic health records, decreasing costs of obtaining high-dimensional data, and the availability of a wide variety of potential therapeutics-that have evolved to enable more innovative clinical trial designs in HFpEF. Here, we review the current landscape of HFpEF RCTs and present several innovative RCT designs that could be implemented in HFpEF, including enrichment trials, adaptive trials, umbrella trials, basket trials, and machine learning-based trials (including examples for each). Our hope is that the description of the aforementioned innovative trial designs will stimulate new approaches to clinical trials in HFpEF.