Platform trials

Biomarker-guided decision making in clinical drug development for neurodegenerative disorders

Neurodegenerative disorders are characterized by complex neurobiological changes that are reflected in biomarker alterations detectable in blood, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and with brain imaging. As accessible proxies for processes that are difficult to measure, biomarkers are tools that hold increasingly important roles in drug development and clinical trial decision making. In the past few years, biomarkers have been the basis for accelerated approval of new therapies for Alzheimer disease and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis as surrogate end points reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit.Blood-based biomarkers are emerging for Alzheimer disease and other neurodegenerative disorders (for example, Parkinson disease, frontotemporal dementia), and some biomarkers may be informative across multiple disease states. Collection of CSF provides access to biomarkers not available in plasma, including markers of synaptic dysfunction and neuroinflammation. Molecular imaging is identifying an increasing array of targets, including amyloid plaques, neurofibrillary tangles, inflammation, mitochondrial dysfunction and synaptic density. In this Review, we consider how biomarkers can be implemented in clinical trials depending on their context of use, including providing information on disease risk and/or susceptibility, diagnosis, prognosis, pharmacodynamic outcomes, monitoring, prediction of response to therapy and safety. Informed choice of increasingly available biomarkers and rational deployment in clinical trials support drug development decision making and de-risk the drug development process for neurodegenerative disorders.

Economic Considerations in Designs and Modifications of Multiarm, Multistage Adaptive and Adaptive Platform Randomized Controlled Trials: A Systematic Literature Review

OBJECTIVES

There is uncertainty around whether, and under what circumstances, there is value in embedding economic considerations into multiarm, multistage (MAMS) adaptive, and adaptive platform trial designs. This systematic review was conducted to assess the analytical methods and factors that are considered when incorporating health economic analyses when designing and modifying MAMS adaptive and adaptive platform trials.

METHODS

The review searched for health economic analyses, including planned analyses, of interventions assessed through MAMS adaptive, and adaptive platform trials. The search for articles was conducted in EMBASE, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov electronic databases from their inception to 7 August 2023. The screening for articles was conducted by 2 blinded reviewers who followed a predetermined screening process. A narrative synthesis was conducted on the methods used in the analysis and how the results informed the trial designs and modifications.

RESULTS

The review included 17 articles, of which 4 were the results of economic evaluations, whereas 13 were economic evaluation protocols. No trial was reported using pretrial economic evaluations to inform the trial designs. In 14 articles, it was possible to estimate the costs and benefits of the interventions at the interim analysis stages. There were only 5 interim cost-effectiveness analyses, and 3 of these had informed decisions to drop or maintain trial arms.

CONCLUSIONS

Health economics is being embedded in some MAMS adaptive and adaptive platform trials to inform trial modifications. Nevertheless, the use of economic evidence is limited, both by design and circumstance, despite its potential importance in adopting decisions.

Intensive care unit acquired weakness and physical rehabilitation in the ICU

Approximately half of critically ill adults experience intensive care unit acquired weakness (ICUAW). Patients who develop ICUAW may have negative outcomes, including longer duration of mechanical ventilation, greater length of stay, and worse mobility, physical functioning, quality of life, and mortality. Early physical rehabilitation interventions have potential for improving ICUAW; however, randomized trials show inconsistent findings on the efficacy of these interventions. This review summarizes the latest evidence on the definition, diagnosis, epidemiology, pathophysiology, risks factors, implications, and management of ICUAW. It specifically highlights research gaps and challenges, with considerations for future research for physical rehabilitation interventions.

Advantages and Challenges of Platform Trials for Disease Modifying Therapies in Parkinson's Disease

Traditional drug development in Parkinson's disease (PD) faces significant challenges because of its protracted timeline and high costs. In response, innovative master protocols are emerging and designed to address multiple research questions within a single overarching protocol. These trials may offer advantages such as increased efficiency, agility in adding new treatment arms, and potential cost savings. However, they also present organizational, methodological, funding, regulatory, and sponsorship challenges. We review the potential of master protocols, focusing on platform trials, for disease modifying therapies in PD. These trials share a common control group and allow for the termination or addition of treatment arms during a trial with non-predetermined end. Specific issues exist for a platform trial in the PD field considering the heterogeneity of patients in terms of phenotype, genotype and staging, the confounding effects of symptomatic treatments, and the choice of outcome measures with no consensus on a non-clinical biomarker to serve as a surrogate and the slowness of PD progression. We illustrate these aspects using the examples of the main PD platform trials currently in development with each one targeting distinct goals, populations, and outcomes. Overall, platform trials hold promise in expediting the evaluation of potential therapies for PD. However, it remains to be proven whether these theoretical benefits will translate into increased production of high-quality trial data. Success also depends on the willingness of pharmaceutical companies to engage in such trials and whether this approach will ultimately hasten the identification and licensing of effective disease-modifying drugs. © 2024 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.

Drug development and evidence for lung cancer targeted therapy in Eastern Asia

The development of targeted drugs in the Eastern Asia region is going through a flourishing stage. With the continuous advancement of technology and medical research, biotechnology companies and research institutions in the region have made significant progress in cancer field. The Eastern Asian region not only actively participates in clinical trials, but is also committed to developing personalized medical plans to meet the diverse genotypes and phenotypes of patients. The governments and enterprises are increasingly valuing innovation, strengthening international cooperation, and promoting drug development. This paper summarizes the development of genetic testing technology, targeted drugs approval, ongoing promising clinical trials in the field of lung cancer and the important progress made by governments in the Eastern Asian region, and proposed key factors that will contribute to the promising future prospects in the region. The targeted drug market in the Eastern Asian region is expected to drive the medical field forward.

The impact of heterogeneity on the analysis of platform trials with normally distributed outcomes

BACKGROUND

A platform trial approach allows adding arms to on-going trials to speed up intervention discovery programs. A control arm remains open for recruitment in a platform trial while intervention arms may be added after the onset of the study and could be terminated early for efficacy and/or futility when early stopping is allowed. The topic of utilising non-concurrent control data in the analysis of platform trials has been explored and discussed extensively. A less familiar issue is the presence of heterogeneity, which may exist for example due to modification of enrolment criteria and recruitment strategy.

METHOD

We conduct a simulation study to explore the impact of heterogeneity on the analysis of a two-stage platform trial design. We consider heterogeneity in treatment effects and heteroscedasticity in outcome data across stages for a normally distributed endpoint. We examine the performance of some hypothesis testing procedures and modelling strategies. The use of non-concurrent control data is also considered accordingly. Alongside standard regression analysis, we examine the performance of a novel method that was known as the pairwise trials analysis. It is similar to a network meta-analysis approach but adjusts for treatment comparisons instead of individual studies using fixed effects.

RESULTS

Several testing strategies with concurrent control data seem to control the type I error rate at the required level when there is heteroscedasticity in outcome data across stages and/or a random cohort effect. The main parameter of treatment effects in some analysis models correspond to overall treatment effects weighted by stage wise sample sizes; while others correspond to the effect observed within a single stage. The characteristics of the estimates are not affected significantly by the presence of a random cohort effect and/ or heteroscedasticity.

CONCLUSION

In view of heterogeneity in treatment effect across stages, the specification of null hypotheses in platform trials may need to be more subtle. We suggest employing testing procedure of adaptive design as opposed to testing the statistics from regression models; comparing the estimates from the pairwise trials analysis method and the regression model with interaction terms may indicate if heterogeneity is negligible.

How Much More Efficient Are Adaptive Platform Trials Than Multiple Stand-Alone Trials? A Comprehensive Simulation Study for Streamlining Drug Development During a Pandemic

With the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, there is growing interest in utilizing adaptive platform clinical trials (APTs), in which multiple drugs are compared with a single common control group, such as a placebo or standard-of-care group. APTs evaluate several drugs for one disease and accept additions or exclusions of drugs as the trials progress; however, little is known about the efficiency of APTs over multiple stand-alone trials. In this study, we simulated the total development period, total sample size, and statistical operating characteristics of APTs and multiple stand-alone trials in drug development settings for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Simulation studies using selected scenarios reconfirmed several findings regarding the efficiency of APTs. The APTs without staggered addition of drugs showed a shorter total development period than stand-alone trials, but the difference rapidly diminished if patient's enrollment was accelerated during the trials owing to the spread of infection. APTs with staggered addition of drugs still have the possibility of reducing the total development period compared with multiple stand-alone trials in some cases. Our study demonstrated that APTs could improve efficiency relative to multiple stand-alone trials regarding the total development period and total sample size without undermining statistical validity; however, this improvement varies depending on the speed of patient enrollment, sample size, presence/absence of family-wise error rate adjustment, allocation ratio between drug and placebo groups, and interval of staggered addition of drugs. Given the complexity of planning and implementing APT, the decision to implement APT during a pandemic must be made carefully.

Rethinking the pros and cons of randomized controlled trials and observational studies in the era of big data and advanced methods: a panel discussion

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have traditionally been considered the gold standard for medical evidence. However, in light of emerging methodologies in data science, many experts question the role of RCTs. Within this context, experts in the USA and Canada came together to debate whether the primacy of RCTs as the gold standard for medical evidence, still holds in light of recent methodological advances in data science and in the era of big data. The purpose of this manuscript, aims to raise awareness of the pros and cons of RCTs and observational studies in order to help guide clinicians, researchers, students, and decision-makers in making informed decisions on the quality of medical evidence to support their work. In particular, new and underappreciated advantages and disadvantages of both designs are contrasted. Innovations taking place in both of these research methodologies, which can blur the lines between the two, are also discussed. Finally, practical guidance for clinicians and future directions in assessing the quality of evidence is offered.

Innovative approaches to COVID-19 medical countermeasure development

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic, while unfortunately notable for immense strain and death throughout the world, has also shown great promise in the development of medical countermeasures. As the global scientific community shifted almost entirely towards vaccines, diagnostics and therapeutics, new trial designs most significantly adaptive platform trials, began to be used with greater speed and broader reach. These designs allowed for deploying and investigating new therapeutics, repurposing currently existing therapeutics and flexibly removing or adding additional medications as data appeared in real-time. Moreover, public-private sector partnering occurred at a level not seen before, contributing greatly to the rapid development and deployment of vaccines.

OBJECTIVES

To provide a brief overview of the advances in preventative and therapeutic medical countermeasure development for COVID-19.

METHODS

A narrative review of relevant major medical countermeasure trials was conducted using the date range February 2020-December 2022, representing the period of greatest productivity in research to investigate COVID-19.

RESULTS

Among the most influential trial designs are the adaptive platform designs, which have been applied to the development of initial COVID-19 antivirals, monoclonal antibodies, repurposing of existing immunomodulatory therapy and assisted in the disproof of ineffective medical therapies. Some of the most prominent examples include the REMAP-CAP, RECOVERY and TOGETHER trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Adaptive platform trial designs hold great promise for utility in future pandemics and mass casualty events. Additionally, public-private sectoring is essential for rapid medical countermeasure development and should be further enhanced for future biopreparedness.