Design and analysis of a clinical trial using previous trials as historical control

Prognostic clinical and biological markers for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis disease progression: validation and implications for clinical trial design and analysis

BACKGROUND

With increasing recognition of the value of incorporating prognostic markers into amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) trial design and analysis plans, there is a pressing need to understand which among the prevailing clinical and biochemical markers have real value, and how they can be optimally used.

METHODS

A subset of patients with ALS recruited through the multi-center Phenotype-Genotype-Biomarker study (clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02327845) was identified as "trial-like" based on meeting common trial eligibility criteria. Clinical phenotyping was performed by evaluators trained in relevant assessments. Serum neurofilament light (NfL) and phosphorylated neurofilament heavy (pNfH), urinary p75ECD, plasma microRNA-181, and an array of biochemical and clinical measures were evaluated for their prognostic value. Associations with functional progression were estimated by random-slopes mixed models of ALS functional rating scale-revised (ALSFRS-R) score. Associations with survival were estimated by log-rank test and Cox proportional hazards regression. Potential sample size savings from adjusting for given biomarkers in a hypothetical trial were estimated.

FINDINGS

Baseline serum NfL is a powerful prognostic biomarker, predicting survival and ALSFRS-R rate of decline. Serum NfL <40 pg/mL and >100 pg/mL correspond to future ALSFRS-R slopes of ∼0.5 and ∼1.5 points/month, respectively. Serum NfL also adds value to the best available clinical predictors, encapsulated by the European Network to Cure ALS (ENCALS) predictor score. In models of functional decline, the addition of NfL yields ∼25% sample size saving above those achieved by inclusion of either clinical predictors or ENCALS score alone. The prognostic value of serum pNfH, urinary p75ECD, and plasma miR-181ab is more limited.

INTERPRETATION

Among the multitude of biomarkers considered, only blood NfL adds value to the ENCALS prediction model and should be incorporated into analysis plans for all ongoing and future ALS trials. Defined thresholds of NfL might also be used in trial design, for enrichment or stratified randomisation, to improve trial efficiency.

FUNDING

NIH (U01-NS107027, U54-NS092091). ALSA (16-TACL-242).

Prognostic Clinical and Biological Markers for Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Disease Progression: Validation and Implications for Clinical Trial Design and Analysis

Background

With increasing recognition of the value of incorporating prognostic markers into amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) trial design and analysis plans, there is a pressing need to understand which among the prevailing clinical and biochemical markers have real value, and how they can be optimally used.

Methods

A subset of patients with ALS recruited through the multi-center Phenotype-Genotype-Biomarker study (clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02327845) was identified as "trial-like" based on meeting common trial eligibility criteria. Clinical phenotyping was performed by evaluators trained in relevant assessments. Serum neurofilament light (NfL) and phosphorylated neurofilament heavy (pNfH), urinary p75ECD, plasma microRNA-181, and an array of biochemical and clinical measures were evaluated for their prognostic value. Associations with functional progression were estimated by random-slopes mixed models of ALS functional rating scale-revised (ALSFRS-R) score. Associations with survival were estimated by log-rank test and Cox proportional hazards regression. Potential sample size savings from adjusting for given biomarkers in a hypothetical trial were estimated.

Findings

Baseline serum NfL is a powerful prognostic biomarker, predicting survival and ALSFRS-R rate of decline. Serum NfL <40pg/ml and >100pg/ml correspond to future ALSFRS-R slopes of ~0.5 and 1.5 points/month, respectively. Serum NfL also adds value to the best available clinical predictors, encapsulated by the European Network to Cure ALS (ENCALS) predictor score. In models of functional decline, the addition of NfL yields ~25% sample size saving above those achieved by inclusion of either clinical predictors or ENCALS score alone. The prognostic value of serum pNfH, urinary p75ECD, and plasma miR-181ab is more limited.

Interpretation

Among the multitude of biomarkers considered, only blood NfL adds value to the ENCALS prediction model and should be incorporated into analysis plans for all ongoing and future ALS trials. Defined thresholds of NfL might also be used in trial design, for enrichment or stratified randomisation, to improve trial efficiency.

Funding

NIH (U01-NS107027, U54-NS092091). ALSA (16-TACL-242).

Leveraging external control data in the design and analysis of neuro-oncology trials: Pearls and perils

BACKGROUND

Randomized controlled trials have been the gold standard for evaluating medical treatments for many decades but they are often criticized for requiring large sample sizes. Given the urgent need for better therapies for glioblastoma, it has been argued that data collected from patients treated with the standard regimen can provide high-quality external control data to supplement or replace concurrent control arm in future glioblastoma trials.

METHODS

In this article, we provide an in-depth appraisal of the use of external control data in the context of neuro-oncology trials. We describe several clinical trial designs with particular attention to how external information is utilized and address common fallacies that may lead to inappropriate adoptions of external control data.

RESULTS

Using 2 completed glioblastoma trials, we illustrate the use of an assessment tool that lays out a blueprint for assembling a high-quality external control data set. Using statistical simulations, we draw caution from scenarios where these approaches can fall short on controlling the type I error rate.

CONCLUSIONS

While this approach may hold promise in generating informative data in certain settings, this sense of optimism should be tampered with a healthy dose of skepticism due to a myriad of design and analysis challenges articulated in this review. Importantly, careful planning is key to its successful implementation.

Challenges of using external data in clinical trials- an illustration in patients with COVID-19

BACKGROUND

To improve the efficiency of clinical trials, leveraging external data on control and/or treatment effects, which is almost always available, appears to be a promising approach.

METHODS

We used data from the experimental arm of the Covidicus trial evaluating high-dose dexamethasone in severely ill and mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients, using published data from the Recovery trial as external data, to estimate the 28-day mortality rate. Primary approaches to deal with external data were applied.

RESULTS

Estimates ranged from 0.241 ignoring the external data up to 0.294 using hierarchical Bayesian models. Some evidence of differences in mortality rates between the Covidicus and Recovery trials were observed, with an matched adjusted odds ratio of death in the Covidicus arm of 0.41 compared to the Recovery arm.

CONCLUSIONS

These indirect comparisons appear sensitive to the method used. None of those approaches appear robust enough to overcome randomized clinical trial data.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Covidicus Trial: NCT04344730, First Posted: 14/04/2020; Recovery trial: NCT04381936.

Arsenic Combined With All-Trans Retinoic Acid for Pediatric Acute Promyelocytic Leukemia: Report From the CCLG-APL2016 Protocol Study

PURPOSE

Arsenic combined with all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) is the standard of care for adult acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL). However, the safety and effectiveness of this treatment in pediatric patients with APL have not been reported on the basis of larger sample sizes.

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter trial at 38 hospitals in China. Patients with newly diagnosed APL were stratified into two risk groups according to baseline WBC count and FLT3-ITD mutation. ATRA plus arsenic trioxide or oral arsenic without chemotherapy were administered to the standard-risk group, whereas ATRA, arsenic trioxide, or oral arsenic plus reduced-dose anthracycline were administered to the high-risk group. Primary end points were event-free survival and overall survival at 2 years.

RESULTS

We enrolled 193 patients with APL. After a median follow-up of 28.9 months, the 2-year overall survival rate was 99% (95% CI, 97 to 100) in the standard-risk group and 95% (95% CI, 90 to 100) in the high-risk group (P = .088). The 2-year event-free survival was 97% (95% CI, 93 to 100) in the standard-risk group and 90% (95% CI, 83 to 96) in the high-risk group (P = .252). The plasma levels of arsenic were significantly elevated after treatment, with a stable effective level ranging from 42.9 to 63.2 ng/mL during treatment. In addition, plasma, urine, hair, and nail arsenic levels rapidly decreased to normal 6 months after the end of treatment.

CONCLUSION

Arsenic combined with ATRA is effective and safe in pediatric patients with APL, although long-term follow-up is still needed.

Current trends in the clinical trial landscape for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review the current developments in the design and conduct of clinical trials for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), illustrated by a critical appraisal of ClinicalTrials.gov.

RECENT FINDINGS

In total, 63 clinical trials were included in the analysis, of which 13 phase 1, 35 phase 2 and 15 phase 3. Virtually all phase 3 clinical trials can be classified as randomized, placebo controlled, whereas this is only true for 57% of the phase 2 clinical trials. There are promising developments in the routes of drug administration, eligibility criteria, efficacy endpoints and overall trial design. Some of these innovative approaches may, however, not fulfil clinical trial guidelines or regulatory requirements. This could delay the development of effective therapy or hamper our ability to determine whether a treatment is truly (in)effective. The initiation of trial consortia comprising patient organizations, academia, industry and funding bodies may significantly strengthen the future clinical trial landscape for ALS.

SUMMARY

The ALS clinical trial landscape is currently highly active with several promising innovative developments and therapeutic options. By further refinement of evidence-based guidelines, and alignment of our current endeavours, we may soon be able to positively impact the lives of people living with ALS.

Historical Controls in Randomized Clinical Trials: Opportunities and Challenges

Randomized control trials (RCTs) with placebo are the gold standard for determining efficacy of novel pharmaceutical treatments. Since their inception, over 75 years ago, researchers have amassed a large body of underutilized data on outcomes in the placebo control arms of these trials. Although rare disease indications have used these historical placebo data as synthetic controls to reduce burden on patients and accelerate drug discovery, broad use of historical controls is in its infancy. Large-scale historical placebo data could be leveraged to benefit both drug developers and patients if warehoused and made more available to guide trial design and analysis. Here, we examine challenges in utilizing historical controls related to heterogeneity in trial design, outcome ascertainment, patient characteristics, and unmeasured pharmacogenomic effects. We then discuss the advantages and disadvantages of current approaches and propose a path forward to broader use of historical controls in RCTs.

Are placebo controls necessary in controlled human infection trials for vaccines?

Controlled human infection trials, whereby a small group of healthy participants is deliberately exposed to a pathogen under controlled circumstances, can provide preliminary data for vaccine efficacy and for the selection of the most promising candidate vaccines for field trials. Because of the potential harm to participants through the deliberate exposure to a pathogen, the use of smaller groups minimises the cumulative risk. As such, a control group that receives a placebo vaccine followed by controlled exposure to a pathogen should be scientifically well justified. As these types of trials are designed to generate consistent infection rates and thus comparable outcomes across populations and trial sites, data from past studies (historical data) could be used as a valid alternative to placebo groups. In this Personal View, we review this option and highlight the considerations for choosing historical data as a suitable control. For the widespread application of this method, responsibility for the centralisation and sharing of data from controlled human infection trials lies with the scientific community.

Placebos and the Placebo Effect in Drug Trials

In this review, we explored different ways of controlling the placebo effects in clinical trials and described various factors that may increase/decrease the placebo effect in randomized placebo-controlled trials. These factors can be subdivided into four groups, and while not all factors are effective in every study and under all clinical conditions, they show on the whole that - even under the ideal condition of drug therapy, where blinded placebo provision is much easier and warranted than in, e.g., psychotherapy - many factors need to be controlled to ascertain that the goal of the clinical trials, fair assessment of superiority of the drug over placebo in placebo-controlled trials and fair assessment of non-inferiority of the drug compared to another drug in comparator trials, is reached. Ignorance towards the placebo effect, which was common in the past, is no longer acceptable; instead, it should be the goal of all therapeutic trials to minimize the placebo effect in clinical trials, while utilizing and maximizing it in clinical routine.