1480 ONSET OF ACTION AND TIME TO EFFICACY OF AVANAFIL, A NOVEL, RAPID-ONSET PDE5 INHIBITOR IN MEN WITH MILD TO SEVERE ERECTILE DYSFUNCTION DATA FROM PHASE 2 AND PHASE 3 CLINICAL TRIALS

2012 ◽  
Vol 187 (4S) ◽  
Author(s):  
Wayne J.G. Hellstrom ◽  
Matthew T. Freier ◽  
Ege Can Serefoglu ◽  
Ronald W. Lewis ◽  
Craig A. Peterson ◽  
...  
2010 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 214-219
Author(s):  
Robyn J. Barst

Drug development is the entire process of introducing a new drug to the market. It involves drug discovery, screening, preclinical testing, an Investigational New Drug (IND) application in the US or a Clinical Trial Application (CTA) in the EU, phase 1–3 clinical trials, a New Drug Application (NDA), Food and Drug Administration (FDA) review and approval, and postapproval studies required for continuing safety evaluation. Preclinical testing assesses safety and biologic activity, phase 1 determines safety and dosage, phase 2 evaluates efficacy and side effects, and phase 3 confirms efficacy and monitors adverse effects in a larger number of patients. Postapproval studies provide additional postmarketing data. On average, it takes 15 years from preclinical studies to regulatory approval by the FDA: about 3.5–6.5 years for preclinical, 1–1.5 years for phase 1, 2 years for phase 2, 3–3.5 years for phase 3, and 1.5–2.5 years for filing the NDA and completing the FDA review process. Of approximately 5000 compounds evaluated in preclinical studies, about 5 compounds enter clinical trials, and 1 compound is approved (Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development, 2011). Most drug development programs include approximately 35–40 phase 1 studies, 15 phase 2 studies, and 3–5 pivotal trials with more than 5000 patients enrolled. Thus, to produce safe and effective drugs in a regulated environment is a highly complex process. Against this backdrop, what is the best way to develop drugs for pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), an orphan disease often rapidly fatal within several years of diagnosis and in which spontaneous regression does not occur?


2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
George J Kahaly ◽  
Terry J Smith ◽  
Robert Holt ◽  
Saba Sile ◽  
Raymond S Douglas

Abstract Introduction: Teprotumumab, an insulin-like growth factor 1 receptor inhibitory monoclonal antibody, was recently shown to significantly reduce proptosis in patients with active, moderate-to-severe thyroid eye disease (TED) in phase 2 and phase 3 clinical trials.1,2 Prior analyses have demonstrated a combined trial proptosis response (≥2 mm reduction) rate of 77.4% in the teprotumumab group and 14.9% in the placebo group after 24 weeks of therapy (p < 0.001).3 The current analysis was performed to investigate whether or not patient demographic characteristics influence the teprotumumab proptosis response. Methods: Data from two 24-week randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter studies (Phase 2 [NCT01868997], Phase 3 [NCT03298867[) were combined. All patients had active TED associated with Graves’ disease. The study eye designated at baseline manifested more severe TED and a clinical activity score of > 4. Subjects were divided into subgroups based on gender, smoking status, and age at baseline (younger: <65, older: ≥65). The percentage of proptosis (≥2 mm) responders and proptosis change from baseline were examined in each of these subgroups. Because most of both teprotumumab (85%) and placebo (87%) subjects were white, there were insufficient numbers of subjects to examine the effect of race on the teprotumumab proptosis response. All analyses were performed on the intent-to-treat (ITT) population using data from the study eye. Results: A total of 171 patients comprised the population from the two studies. Eighty-four and 87 patients were randomized to the teprotumumab and placebo groups, respectively, and the treatment groups had balanced baseline characteristics. At week 24, significantly more teprotumumab than placebo patients were proptosis responders in all examined subgroups (male: 73.1% vs. 5.0%, female: 79.3% vs. 17.9%, smokers: 70.0% vs. 23.1%, non-smokers 79.7% vs. 11.5%, younger: 76.1% vs. 16.2%, older: 84.6% vs. 7.7%; all p < 0.001). In continuous variable analyses, the mean proptosis reduction from baseline was also significantly greater at week 24 in teprotumumab-treated patients than placebo patients (male: -3.34 vs. -0.07 mm, female: -3.10 vs. -0.42 mm, smokers: -2.99 vs. -0.72 mm, non-smokers: -3.20 vs. -0.31 mm, younger: -3.10 vs. -0.39 mm, older: -3.55 vs. -0.22 mm; all p < 0.001). Conclusion: Teprotumumab was effective across subgroups of age, gender, and smoking status in the pooled 24-week clinical trials. Reference: (1) Smith TJ, et al. N Engl J Med 2017;376:1748-1761. (2) Douglas RS, et al. AACE 2019 late-breaking abstract. (3) Kahaly GJ, et al. Thyroid 2019;29(Suppl1):A-1 [abstract].


2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 140-150
Author(s):  
Julien Mazieres ◽  
Achim Rittmeyer ◽  
Shirish Gadgeel ◽  
Toyoaki Hida ◽  
David R. Gandara ◽  
...  

Hematology ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 2007 (1) ◽  
pp. 489-492 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcie R. Tomblyn ◽  
J. Douglas Rizzo

Abstract New pharmaceuticals, innovative combinations of approved agents, and novel treatment modalities have resulted in a marked increase in the need for clinical trials. Evidence for treatment efficacy is best derived from large phase 3 randomized, controlled clinical trials. However, phase 3 investigations are lengthy and expensive, and consume patient resources. Furthermore, some diseases and treatment indications are rare, and adequate numbers of patients for a definitive phase 3 trial do not exist. Consequently, it is imperative for clinicians to understand phase 2 trial design, since their interpretation is required to apply the findings in clinical practice appropriately. The complexity of phase 2 studies is explored, including unique designs, possible use of randomization, and other key elements necessary for interpretation of phase 2 trials. Specific examples and application of these concepts are discussed in this review.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caitlin Horsham ◽  
Helen Ford ◽  
Jeremy Herbert ◽  
Alexander Wall ◽  
Sebastian Walpole ◽  
...  

BACKGROUND Photography using a UV transmitting filter allows UV light to pass and can be used to illuminate UV blocking lotions such as sunscreens. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study is to compare currently available UV photography cameras and assess whether these devices can be used as visualization tools for adequate coverage of sun protection lotions. METHODS This study was conducted in 3 parts: in phase 1, 3 different UV cameras were tested; in phase 2, we explored whether UV photography could work on a range of sun protection products; and in phase 3, a UV webcam was developed and was field-tested in a beach setting. In phase 1, volunteers were recruited, and researchers applied 3 sun protection products (ranging from sun protection factor [SPF] 15 to 50+) to the participants’ faces and arms. UV photography was performed using 3 UV cameras, and the subsequent images were compared. In phase 2, volunteers were recruited and asked to apply their own SPF products to their faces in their usual manner. UV photographs were collected in the morning and afternoon to assess whether the coverage remained over time. Qualitative interviews were conducted to assess the participants’ level of satisfaction with the UV image. In phase 3, a small portable UV webcam was designed using a plug-and-play approach to enable the viewing of UV images on a larger screen. The developed webcam was deployed at a public beach setting for use by the public for 7 days. RESULTS The 3 UV camera systems tested during phase 1 identified the application of a range of sun protection lotions of SPF 15 to 50+. The sensitivity of the UV camera devices was shown to be adequate, with SPF-containing products applied at concentrations of 2 and 1 mg/cm<sup>2</sup> clearly visible and SPF-containing products applied at a concentration of 0.4 mg/cm<sup>2</sup> having lower levels of coverage. Participants in phase 2 reported high satisfaction with the UV photography images, with 83% (29/35) of participants likely to use UV photography in the future. During phase 2, it was noted that many participants used tinted SPF-containing cosmetics, and several tinted products were further tested. However, it was observed that UV photography could not identify the areas missed for all tinted products. During phase 3, the electrical components of the UV webcam remained operational, and the camera was used 233 times by the public during field-testing. CONCLUSIONS In this study, we found that UV photography could identify the areas missed by sun protection lotions with chemical filters, and participants were engaged with personalized feedback. CLINICALTRIAL Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) ACTRN12619000975190; http://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=377089 ; Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) ACTRN12619000145101; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=376672.


Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (21) ◽  
pp. 1796-1801 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer A. Woyach

This article provides a comprehensive review of the first-line therapy in the rapidly evolving field of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).


Blood ◽  
2003 ◽  
Vol 102 (2) ◽  
pp. 442-448 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elihu H. Estey ◽  
Peter F. Thall

AbstractConventional phase 2 clinical trials are typically single-arm experiments, with outcome characterized by one binary “response” variable. Clinical investigators are poorly served by such conventional methodology. We contend that phase 2 trials are inherently comparative, with the results of the comparison determining whether to conduct a subsequent phase 3 trial. When different treatments are studied in separate single-arm trials, actual differences between response rates associated with the treatments, “treatment effects,” are confounded with differences between the trials, “trial effects.” Thus, it is impossible to estimate either effect separately. Consequently, when the results of separate single-arm trials of different treatments are compared, an apparent treatment difference may be due to a trial effect. Conversely, the apparent absence of a treatment effect may be due to an actual treatment effect being cancelled out by a trial effect. Because selection involves comparison, single-arm phase 2 trials thus fail to provide a reliable means for selecting which therapies to investigate in phase 3. Moreover, reducing complex clinical phenomena, including both adverse and desirable events, to a single outcome wastes important information. Consequently, conventional phase 2 designs are inefficient and unreliable. Given the limited number of patients available for phase 2 trials and the increasing number of new therapies that must be evaluated, it is critically important to conduct these trials efficiently. These concerns motivated the development of a general paradigm for randomized selection trials evaluating several therapies based on multiple outcomes. Three illustrative applications of trials using this approach are presented.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document