Adaptive patient enrichment designs in therapeutic trials

The utility of clinical trial designs with adaptive patient enrichment is investigated in an adequate and well‐controlled trial setting. The overall treatment effect is the weighted average of the treatment effects in the mutually exclusive subsets of the originally intended entire study population. The adaptive enrichment approaches permit assessment of treatment effect that may be applicable to specific nested patient (sub)sets due to heterogeneous patient characteristics and/or differential response to treatment, e.g. a responsive patient subset versus a lack of beneficial patient subset, in all patient (sub)sets studied. The adaptive enrichment approaches considered include three adaptive design scenarios: (i) total sample size fixed and with futility stopping, (ii) sample size adaptation and futility stopping, and (iii) sample size adaptation without futility stopping. We show that regardless of whether the treatment effect eventually assessed is applicable to the originally studied patient population or only to the nested patient subsets; it is possible to devise an adaptive enrichment approach that statistically outperforms one‐size‐fits‐all fixed design approach and the fixed design with a pre‐specified multiple test procedure. We emphasize the need of additional studies to replicate the finding of a treatment effect in an enriched patient subset. The replication studies are likely to need fewer number of patients because of an identified treatment effect size that is larger than the diluted overall effect size. The adaptive designs, when applicable, are along the line of efficiency consideration in a drug development program.     

Osteoarthritis subpopulations and implications for clinical trial design

Treatment guidelines for osteoarthritis have stressed the need for research on clinical predictors of response to different treatments. However, identifying such clinical predictors of response is less easy than it seems, and there is not a given classification of osteoarthritis subpopulations. This review article highlights the key methodical issues when analyzing and designing clinical studies to detect important subgroups with respect to treatment effect. In addition, we discuss the main osteoarthritis subpopulations and give examples of how specific treatment effects in these subpopulations have been assessed.     

Analysis of two-period crossover design in a multicenter clinical trial

A technique is discussed for analyzing a two-period crossover design for a multicenter trial using identical study protocols. The technique is a modification of the analysis originally proposed by Grizzle (1965, Biometrics 21, 467-480; 1974, Biometrics 30, 727) for analyzing a two-period crossover design when study is not a factor. A mixed model using the first baseline as a covariate is analyzed to increase the power of the test of significance of the treatment-by-period interaction. The baseline values are also used in a preliminary test.     

Adaptive design and estimation in randomized clinical trials with correlated observations

Clinical trial designs involving correlated data often arise in biomedical research. The intracluster correlation needs to be taken into account to ensure the validity of sample size and power calculations. In contrast to the fixed-sample designs, we propose a flexible trial design with adaptive monitoring and inference procedures. The total sample size is not predetermined, but adaptively re-estimated using observed data via a systematic mechanism. The final inference is based on a weighted average of the block-wise test statistics using generalized estimating equations, where the weight for each block depends on cumulated data from the ongoing trial. When there are no significant treatment effects, the devised stopping rule allows for early termination of the trial and acceptance of the null hypothesis. The proposed design updates information regarding both the effect size and within-cluster correlation based on the cumulated data in order to achieve a desired power. Estimation of the parameter of interest and its confidence interval are proposed. We conduct simulation studies to examine the operating characteristics and illustrate the proposed method with an example.     

Adaptive enrichment designs with a continuous biomarker

A popular design for clinical trials assessing targeted therapies is the two-stage adaptive enrichment design with recruitment in stage 2 limited to a biomarker-defined subgroup chosen based on data from stage 1. The data-dependent selection leads to statistical challenges if data from both stages are used to draw inference on treatment effects in the selected subgroup. If subgroups considered are nested, as when defined by a continuous biomarker, treatment effect estimates in different subgroups follow the same distribution as estimates in a group-sequential trial. This result is used to obtain tests controlling the familywise type I error rate (FWER) for six simple subgroup selection rules, one of which also controls the FWER for any selection rule. Two approaches are proposed: one based on multivariate normal distributions suitable if the number of possible subgroups, k, is small, and one based on Brownian motion approximations suitable for large k. The methods, applicable in the wide range of settings with asymptotically normal test statistics, are illustrated using survival data from a breast cancer trial.     

A regulatory view on adaptive/flexible clinical trial design

Recently there is growing interest in use of adaptive or flexible designs for development of pharmaceutical products. Statistical methodology has been greatly advanced in the literature. However, there are still some important issues with the methodology and application. In addition, there are many other challenges with these designs, including efficiency of these designs in the entire development program, trial conduct and logistics, the infrastructure of an adaptive trial, the regulatory evaluation of trial results and trial conduct, etc. Up till now, regulatory experience in these designs is very limited. We share some of the challenges.     

Insulin Glargine in the intensive care unit: A model-based clinical trial design

IntroductionCurrent successful AGC (Accurate Glycemic Control) protocols require extra clinical effort and are impractical in less acute wards where patients are still susceptible to stress-induced hyperglycemia. Long-acting insulin Glargine has the potential to be used in a low effort controller. However, potential variability in efficacy and length of action prevent direct in-hospital use in an AGC framework for less acute wards.MethodClinically validated virtual trials based on data from stable ICU patients from the SPRINT cohort who would be transferred to such an approach are used to develop a 24-h AGC protocol robust to different Glargine potencies (1.0×, 1.5× and 2.0× regular insulin) and initial dose sizes (dose = total insulin over prior 12, 18 and 24 h). Glycemic control in this period is provided only by varying nutritional inputs. Performance is assessed as %BG in the 4.0–8.0 mmol/L band and safety by %BG < 4.0 mmol/L.ResultsThe final protocol consisted of Glargine bolus size equal to insulin over the previous 18 h. Compared to SPRINT there was a 6.9–9.5% absolute decrease in mild hypoglycemia (%BG < 4.0 mmol/L) and up to a 6.2% increase in %BG between 4.0 and 8.0 mmol/L. When the efficacy is known (1.5× assumed) there were reductions of: 27% BG measurements, 59% insulin boluses, 67% nutrition changes, and 6.3% absolute in mild hypoglycemia.ConclusionBased on current understanding of Glargine behaviour, a robust protocol for a 24–48 clinical trial has been designed to safely investigate possible differences in efficacy and kinetics of Glargine in a critically ill population. This protocol is a first step towards developing a Glargine-based protocol for less acute wards. Ensuring robustness to variability in Glargine efficacy directly affects the performance and safety that can be obtained.     

A parallel phase I/II clinical trial design for combination therapies

The use of multiple drugs in a single clinical trial or as a therapeutic strategy has become common, particularly in the treatment of cancer. Because traditional trials are designed to evaluate one agent at a time, the evaluation of therapies in combination requires specialized trial designs. In place of the traditional separate phase I and II trials, we propose using a parallel phase I/II clinical trial to evaluate simultaneously the safety and efficacy of combination dose levels, and select the optimal combination dose. The trial is started with an initial period of dose escalation, then patients are randomly assigned to admissible dose levels. These dose levels are compared with each other. Bayesian posterior probabilities are used in the randomization to adaptively assign more patients to doses with higher efficacy levels. Combination doses with lower efficacy are temporarily closed and those with intolerable toxicity are eliminated from the trial. The trial is stopped if the posterior probability for safety, efficacy, or futility crosses a prespecified boundary. For illustration, we apply the design to a combination chemotherapy trial for leukemia. We use simulation studies to assess the operating characteristics of the parallel phase I/II trial design, and compare it to a conventional design for a standard phase I and phase II trial. The simulations show that the proposed design saves sample size, has better power, and efficiently assigns more patients to doses with higher efficacy levels.     

Adaptive decision making in a lymphocyte infusion trial

We describe an adaptive Bayesian design for a clinical trial of an experimental treatment for patients with hematologic malignancies who initially received an allogeneic bone marrow transplant but subsequently suffered a disease recurrence. Treatment consists of up to two courses of targeted immunotherapy followed by allogeneic donor lymphocyte infusion. The immunotherapy is a necessary precursor to the lymphocyte infusion, but it may cause severe liver toxicity and is certain to cause a low white blood cell count and low platelets. The primary scientific goal is to determine the infusion time that has the highest probability of treatment success, defined as the event that the patient does not suffer severe toxicity and is alive with recovered white blood cell count 50 days from the start of therapy. The method is based on a parametric model accounting for toxicity, time to white blood cell recovery, and survival time. The design includes an algorithm for between-patient immunotherapy dose de-escalation based on the toxicity data and an adaptive randomization among five possible infusion times according to their most recent posterior success probabilities. A simulation study shows that the design reliably selects the best infusion time while randomizing greater proportions of patients to superior infusion times.     

Design considerations for two-stage enrichment clinical trials

When there is a predictive biomarker, enrichment can focus the clinical trial on a benefiting subpopulation. We describe a two-stage enrichment design, in which the first stage is designed to efficiently estimate a threshold and the second stage is a “phase III-like” trial on the enriched population. The goal of this paper is to explore design issues: sample size in Stages 1 and 2, and re-estimation of the Stage 2 sample size following Stage 1. By treating these as separate trials, we can gain insight into how the predictive nature of the biomarker specifically impacts the sample size. We also show that failure to adequately estimate the threshold can have disastrous consequences in the second stage. While any bivariate model could be used, we assume a continuous outcome and continuous biomarker, described by a bivariate normal model. The correlation coefficient between the outcome and biomarker is the key to understanding the behavior of the design, both for predictive and prognostic biomarkers. Through a series of simulations we illustrate the impact of model misspecification, consequences of poor threshold estimation, and requisite sample sizes that depend on the predictive nature of the biomarker. Such insight should be helpful in understanding and designing enrichment trials.     

Application of predictive biosimulation within pharmaceutical clinical development: examples of significance for translational medicine and clinical trial design

The challenge of accurately predicting human clinical outcome based on preclinical data has led to a high failure rate of compounds in human clinical trials. A series of methods are described by which biosimulation can address these challenges and guide the design and evaluation of experimental and clinical protocols. Early compound development often proceeds on the basis of preclinical data from animal models. The systematic evaluation possible in a simulation can assist in the critical step of translating the preclinical outcomes to human physiology. Later in the process, clinical trials definitively establish a therapy's beneficial effects, as well as any adverse side effects. Biosimulation allows for the optimal design of clinical trials to ensure that key issues are addressed effectively and efficiently, and in doing so, improves the success rate of the trials.     

B-cell depletion in SLE: clinical and trial experience with rituximab and ocrelizumaband implications for study design

B cells are believed to be central to the disease process in systemic lupuserythematosus (SLE), making them a target for new therapeutic intervention. In recentyears there have been many publications regarding the experience in SLE of B-celldepletion utilising rituximab, an anti-CD20 mAb that temporarily depletes B cells,reporting promising results in uncontrolled open studies and in routine clinical use.However, the two large randomised controlled trials in extra-renal lupus (EXPLORERstudy) and lupus nephritis (LUNAR study) failed to achieve their primary endpoints.Based on the clinical experience with rituximab this failure was somewhat unexpectedand raised a number of questions and concerns, not only into the true level ofbenefit of B-cell depletion in a broad population but also how to test the true levelof effectiveness of an investigational agent as we seek to improve the design oftherapeutic trials in SLE. A better understanding of what went wrong in these trialsis essential to elucidate the underlying reasons for the disparate observations notedin open studies and controlled trials. In this review, we focus on various factorsthat may affect the ability to accurately and confidently establish the level oftreatment effect of the investigational agent, in this case rituximab, in the twostudies and explore hurdles faced in the randomised controlled trials investigatingthe efficacy of ocrelizumab, the humanised anti-CD20 mAb, in SLE. Further, based onthe lessons learned from the clinical trials, we make suggestions that could beimplemented in future clinical trial design to overcome the hurdles faced.     

Post-stratification in the randomized clinical trial

A topic of current biometric discussion is whether stratification should be used in randomized clinical trials and, if so, which kind. An approach based upon randomization theory is used to evaluate pre- versus post-stratification. The results obtained relate specifically to the effect of the size of the clinical trial on the bias and precision of estimated treatment contrasts.     

Monitoring accumulating data in a clinical trial

A clinical trial is monitored for efficacy or safety; the variable of interest is death or a similarly serious event. The probability that one therapy has a greater mortality rate than the other is calculated ad libitum during the trial. Adjustments are made for differing patients' prognoses and for survival times.