Early phase and adaptive design clinical trials in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review of early phase trials

6543 Background: Participants in early-phase clinical trials have reported high expectations of benefit from their participation. There is concern that participants misunderstand the trials to which they have consented. Such concerns are based on assumptions about what patients mean when they respond to questions about likelihood of benefit. In this study, we explored some of these assumptions. Methods: Participants were 27 women and 18 men in phase 1 or 2 oncology trials and randomized to 1 of 3 interview protocols corresponding to 3 target questions about likelihood of benefit: frequency-type (‘Out of 100 patients who participate in this study, how many do you expect will have their cancer controlled as a result of the experimental therapy?‘); belief-type (‘How confident are you that the experimental therapy will control your cancer?‘); and vague (‘What is the chance that the experimental therapy will control cancer?‘). In semistructured interviews, we queried participants about how they understood and answered the target question. Each participant then answered and discussed one of the other target questions. Results: Participants tended to provide higher expectations in response to the belief-type question (median, 80) than in response to the frequency-type or vague questions (medians, 50) (P=.02). Only 7 (16%) participants said their answers were based on what they were told during the consent process. The most common justifications for responses involved positive attitude (n=27 [60%]) and references to physical health (n=23 [51%]). References to positive attitude were most common among participants with high (>70%) expectations of benefit (n=11 [85%]) and least common among those with low (<50%) expectations of benefit (n=3 [27%]) (P=.04). Conclusions: We identified two factors that should be considered when determining whether high expectations of benefit are signs of misunderstanding. First, participants report different expectations of benefit depending on how the question is asked. Second, the justifications participants give for their answers suggest that many participants use their responses to express hope rather than to describe their understanding of the clinical trial. These findings should inform methods for evaluating the quality of informed consent in early-phase trials. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Download Full-text

Trends in Adaptive Design Methods in Dialysis Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review

Kidney Medicine ◽

10.1016/j.xkme.2021.08.001 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Conor Judge ◽

Robert Murphy ◽

Catriona Reddin ◽

Sarah Cormican ◽

Andrew Smyth ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Adaptive Design ◽

Design Methods

Download Full-text

A systematic review of randomised clinical trials of Tripterygium wilfordii for rheumatoid arthritis

Phytomedicine ◽

10.1016/j.phymed.2006.01.010 ◽

2006 ◽

Vol 13 (5) ◽

pp. 371-377 ◽

Cited By ~ 68

Author(s):

P.H. Canter ◽

Hyang Sook Lee ◽

E. Ernst

Keyword(s):

Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽

Systematic Review ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Randomised Clinical Trials ◽

Tripterygium Wilfordii

Download Full-text

THU0097 Systematic review of the safety of protein kinase inhibitors in clinical trials in rheumatoid arthritis:

Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases ◽

10.1136/annrheumdis-2012-eular.2062 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 71 (Suppl 3) ◽

pp. 186.3-187 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

E. Salgado ◽

J.R. Maneiro ◽

L. Carmona ◽

J.J. Gomez-Reino

Keyword(s):

Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽

Systematic Review ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Protein Kinase ◽

Kinase Inhibitors ◽

Protein Kinase Inhibitors

Download Full-text

Do we really know how many clinical trials are conducted ethically? Why research ethics committee review practices need to be strengthened and initial steps we could take to strengthen them

Journal of Medical Ethics ◽

10.1136/medethics-2019-106014 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. medethics-2019-106014 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Mark Yarborough

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trials ◽

Research Ethics ◽

Early Phase ◽

Ethics Committees ◽

Social Value ◽

Know How ◽

Early Phase Trials ◽

Potential Benefits ◽

Later Phase ◽

Requisite Amount

Research Ethics Committees (RECs) play a critical gatekeeping role in clinical trials. This role is meant to ensure that only those trials that meet certain ethical thresholds proceed through their gate. Two of these thresholds are that the potential benefits of trials are reasonable in relation to risks and that trials are capable of producing a requisite amount of social value. While one ought not expect perfect execution by RECs of their gatekeeping role, one should expect routine success in it. This article reviews a range of evidence showing that substantial numbers of ethically tainted trials are receiving REC approvals. Many of the trials are early phase trials that evidence shows have benefits that may not be reasonable compared with their risks and many others are later trials that evidence shows may lack sufficient social value. The evidence pertains to such matters as methodologically inadequate preclinical studies incapable of supporting the inferences that REC members must make about the prospects for potential benefit needed to offset the risks in early phase trials and sponsorship bias that can cause improperly designed, conducted, analysed and reported later phase trials. The analysis of the evidence makes clear that REC practices need to be strengthened if they are to adequately fulfil their gatekeeping role. The article also explores options that RECs could use in order to improve their gatekeeping function.

Download Full-text

Experiences of establishing an academic early phase clinical trials unit

Clinical Trials ◽

10.1177/1740774517710250 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 14 (4) ◽

pp. 349-356 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Sarah R Brown ◽

Debbie Sherratt ◽

Gill Booth ◽

Julia Brown ◽

Fiona Collinson ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trials ◽

Early Phase ◽

Late Phase ◽

Knowledge Retention ◽

Lessons Learned ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Trial Management ◽

Early Phase Trials ◽

Early Phase Trial ◽

Phase Trial

Background: Early phase trials are essential in drug development, determining appropriate dose levels and assessing preliminary activity. These trials are undertaken by industry and academia, with increasing collaborations between the two. There is pressure to perform these trials quickly, safely, and robustly. However, there are inherent differences between developing and managing early phase, compared to late phase, drug trials. This article describes an approach to establishing an academically led early phase trial portfolio, highlighting lessons learned and sharing experiences. Methods: In 2009, the University of Leeds Clinical Trials Research Unit became the Clinical Trials Coordinating Office for Myeloma UK’s phase I and II trials. We embarked on a transition from working extensively in phase III to early phase trials development and conduct. This involved evaluating and revising our well-established standard operating procedures, visiting other academic early phase units, and developing essential new documentation and processes. Results: A core team of trial and data managers and statisticians was established to facilitate expertise and knowledge retention. A detailed training plan was implemented focussing on essential standard practices for early phase. These included pharmacovigilance, recruitment, trial design and set-up, data and site monitoring, and oversight committees. Training in statistical methods for early phase trials was incorporated. Conclusion: Initial scoping of early phase trial management and conduct was essential in establishing this early phase portfolio. Many of the processes developed were successful. However, regular review and evaluation were implemented to enable changes and ensure efficiencies. It is recommended that others embarking on this venture build on the experiences described in this article.

Download Full-text

Early-Phase Clinical Trials In The Community: Results From the National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program Early-Phase Working Group Baseline Assessment

Journal of Oncology Practice ◽

10.1200/jop.2012.000695 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 9 (2) ◽

pp. e55-e61 ◽

Cited By ~ 9

Author(s):

Howard A. Zaren ◽

Suresh Nair ◽

Ronald S. Go ◽

Rebecca A. Enos ◽

Keith S. Lanier ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trials ◽

National Cancer Institute ◽

Early Phase ◽

Working Group ◽

Baseline Assessment ◽

Cancer Centers ◽

Early Phase Trials ◽

Critical Components ◽

Early Phase Clinical Trials

The authors conclude that community cancer centers are capable of conducting early-phase trials; infrastructure and collaborations are critical components of success.

Download Full-text

Adalimumab in rheumatoid arthritis treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Revista Brasileira de Reumatologia (English Edition) ◽

10.1016/s2255-5021(13)70113-5 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 53 (5) ◽

pp. 419-430

Author(s):

Marina Amaral de Ávila Machado ◽

Alessandra Almeida Maciel ◽

Lívia Lovato Pires de Lemos ◽

Juliana Oliveira Costa ◽

Adriana Maria Kakehasi ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽

Systematic Review ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Randomized Clinical Trials ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Rheumatoid Arthritis Treatment

Download Full-text

Level of Evidence for FDA Drug Approvals in Pivotal Clinical Trials of Hematological Malignancies

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2020-136330 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 6-6

Author(s):

Samer Al Hadidi ◽

Carlos A. Ramos

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trials ◽

Early Phase ◽

Hematological Malignancies ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Clinical Activity ◽

Level Of Evidence ◽

Phase Iii Clinical Trials ◽

Early Phase Trials ◽

Phase Iii Trials ◽

Drug Approvals

BACKGROUND Clinical trials are integral to improve treatment outcomes for patients with hematological malignancies. Although early phase (I/II) clinical trials may provide evidence of clinical efficacy, the main goal for early phase trials is to assess safety signal. Results of phase III clinical trials provide the strongest evidence to support the use of new cancer medications. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible to ensure appropriate control and supervision of pharmaceutical drugs. METHODS On the basis of publicly available study protocols and FDA reviews, the authors reviewed the level of evidence in 52 clinical trials supporting 49 drug approvals from 2016 to 2020. Data cut point was May 2020. These trials resulted in approval of medications to treat leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, Hodgkin lymphoma, myelodysplastic syndrome, myeloproliferative neoplasms and multiple myeloma. RESULTS A total of 52 clinical trials were assessed in the 5 years period. Phase III trials supported 61.5% while earlier phase trials supported 36.5% of subsequent FDA hematological malignancies approvals. The level of evidence to support FDA approvals improved with time with 50% of approvals in 2016 and 2017 supported by phase III clinical trials compared to 69% in 2019. Approvals were based on early phase trials in mantle cell lymphoma (100%), chronic myeloid leukemia (100%), diffuse large B cell lymphoma (100%), classic Hodgkin's lymphoma (67%) and acute myeloid leukemia (56%). Phase III trials enrolled 87% of the patients (14238 from16429 patients). Eighteen drug approvals (37% of all approvals) were based on 13% of the total number of patients in the studied period. CONCLUSIONS Level of evidence to support drug approvals in hematological malignancies was based on early phase trials in more than a third of the times. Although early phase studies are appropriate for safety signals, further clinical activity assessment should be done to support the use of new drugs to treat hematological malignancies. Previous successful early phase studies failed to show clinical activity in phase III studies. Despite the fact that use of new approved drugs based on early phase studies evidence may be needed, patients and healthcare providers should be aware of such possibility when using newly approved medications. Figure Disclosures Ramos: Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Tessa Therapeutics: Research Funding; Kuur Therapeutics: Research Funding.

Download Full-text