CLINICAL TRIALS AND SCID ROW: THE ETHICS OF PHASE 1 TRIALS IN THE DEVELOPING WORLD

11063 Background: Few effective US FDA approved therapies exist for refractory, metastatic sarcomas. Many of these patients therefore enroll onto phase 1 clinical trials. Because tumor-specific outcomes are not always reported in less common cancers such as sarcomas, outcomes of sarcoma patients treated with novel immunotherapy and targeted therapy approaches remains unknown. Methods: We analyzed clinical and next generation sequencing data from all sarcoma patients treated on phase 1 trials at MD Anderson Cancer Center (MDACC) and performed logistic and Cox proportional hazards regression analyses to evaluate response rate (RR), median time to progression (mTTP), clinical benefit rate (CBR; defined as CR, PR, or SD > 6 months), and median overall survival (OS). Results: Among the 406 patients with advanced sarcomas (321 soft tissue sarcoma, 85 bone sarcomas) treated on phase 1 trials at MDACC from May 2006 to May 2018, median age was 53 (range 11-84), 48% were female, with a median 3 prior lines of therapy (range 0-9). The most commonly treated soft tissue sarcoma subtypes included leiomyosarcoma (n = 66; 16%), liposarcoma (n = 52; 13%), GIST (n = 44; 11%), UPS (n = 14; 3%), and synovial sarcoma (n = 11; 3%) and most commonly treated bone sarcomas included osteosarcoma (n = 34; 8%), chondrosarcoma (n = 28; 7%), and Ewing’s sarcoma (n = 25; 6%). RR was 7% (95% CI 5, 10), mTTP was 2.9 months (95%CI 2.6, 3.1), CBR was 24% (95% CI 20, 29), mOS was 17.2 months (95% CI 13.8, 20.8). 2 patients had a CR as best response, 1 chondrosarcoma patient treated with an anti-APO2L/Trail agent and 1 Ewing’s sarcoma patient treated with the combination of an IGF1R inhibitor plus mTOR inhibitor. 26 patients (6%) had a PR as best response using novel immunotherapies targeting PD1, PDL1 plus CCR4, CTLA4 plus KIT, and TLR7/8 and novel targeted therapies against TRK, LRRC15, cMET, mTOR, VEGF, MDM2, KIT/PDGFRA, and FGFR. Responses were seen across sarcoma subtypes - ASPS, UPS, myxoid sarcoma, liposarcoma, GIST, carcinosarcoma, clear cell sarcoma, embryonal rhabdomyosarcoma, epitheliod sarcoma, fibrious histiosarcoma, and Ewing’s sarcoma. Conclusions: Our analysis identifies a reasonable survival in heavily pretreated, metastatic refractory sarcoma patients with responses seen with novel targeted therapies and immunotherapies that are not yet US-FDA approved. Biomarker analysis is ongoing to help identify the subset of responders in our cohort. Advanced sarcoma patients should be considered for molecular profiling and early phase clinical trials.

Download Full-text

Ethical Justification of Involving Human Volunteers in Phase 1 Trials

Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics ◽

10.3329/bioethics.v8i2.34476 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 8 (2) ◽

pp. 19-22

Author(s):

Zoheb Rafique

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trials ◽

Standard Treatment ◽

Phase 1 ◽

Treatment Options ◽

Experimental Treatment ◽

Human Beings ◽

Ethical Justification ◽

Phase 1 Trials ◽

Medical Benefit ◽

Human Volunteers

Tremendous development in recent medical science and the consequent discoveries resulting in successful prevention and also cure of different diseases are shared by clinical research involving the human volunteers. Preceding the trials in the human subjects, and to ensure safety, the proposed drug and other interventions are either tested in animals (vivo) or in laboratory (vitro) to evaluate initial safe starting dose for the human beings and to key out the benchmarks for the clinical monitoring for the potential unfavorable effects. These pre human trials might not necessarily protect against the untoward effects in the human beings as happened in the case of thalidomide tragedy, which caused disability and killed thousands of babies born to the mothers, those who took this medicine. Use of healthy human volunteers in the preliminary experiments or phase I clinical trials either reduces or excludes risks of subsequent undesirable effects in the future trails (1). Phase-1 trials are conducted in order to test the safety, reactions and immunogenicity of vaccines in volunteers. Novel treatments for the cancer are first tested in phase 1 trials enrolling the patients with advanced disease, who have exhausted the standard treatment options. Phase-1 oncology trials are the pivot point in the translation of new cancer therapies from bench to bedside. Nevertheless, these trials remain ethically controversial. The controversy stems from the fact that, classically, phase-1 oncology clinical trials involve first-in-human testing of experimental treatment candidates in patients with a terminal diagnosis, who typically have exhausted standard treatment options. Commentators on the ethics of phase-1 clinical trials make diametrically opposed claims about the prospect of direct medical benefit from participation in these trials-benefits that can be attributed to receiving the experimental treatment intervention. One camp of benefit skeptics, inhabited mainly by bioethicists, characterizes this form of research as lacking any reasonable prospect of direct medical benefit. They see an ethical cloud hovering over phase-1 trials, because the vast majority of patients volunteer for phase-1 trials out of a motivation to receive medical benefit. In the view of these skeptics, such patients therefore harbor a therapeutic misconception about research participation. This misconception calls into question the validity of informed consent and thereby undercuts the ethical basis of these trials (2). In this paper, I will discuss the ethical justification of the participation of human volunteers in phase-1 trials.

Download Full-text

Safety and tolerability of idelalisib, lenalidomide, and rituximab in relapsed and refractory lymphoma: the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology A051201 and A051202 phase 1 trials

The Lancet Haematology ◽

10.1016/s2352-3026(17)30028-5 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 4 (4) ◽

pp. e176-e182 ◽

Cited By ~ 49

Author(s):

Sonali M Smith ◽

Brandelyn N Pitcher ◽

Sin-Ho Jung ◽

Nancy L Bartlett ◽

Nina Wagner-Johnston ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trials ◽

Phase 1 ◽

Phase 1 Trials ◽

Refractory Lymphoma

Download Full-text

Faculty Opinions recommendation of mRNA vaccines against H10N8 and H7N9 influenza viruses of pandemic potential are immunogenic and well tolerated in healthy adults in phase 1 randomized clinical trials.

Faculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical Literature ◽

10.3410/f.735757678.793573739 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Graham Pawelec

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trials ◽

Randomized Clinical Trials ◽

Phase 1 ◽

Healthy Adults ◽

Influenza Viruses ◽

H7n9 Influenza

Download Full-text

Clinical Drug Development for the Treatment of Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension: Collaboration With the Pharmaceutical Industry and Regulatory Agencies

Advances in Pulmonary Hypertension ◽

10.21693/1933-088x-9.4.214 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 9 (4) ◽

pp. 214-219

Author(s):

Robyn J. Barst

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trials ◽

Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension ◽

Drug Development ◽

Phase 1 ◽

Preclinical Studies ◽

Phase 2 ◽

Phase 3 ◽

Preclinical Testing ◽

New Drug ◽

Pulmonary Arterial

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?

Download Full-text

Randomised Phase 1 clinical trials in oncology

British Journal of Cancer ◽

10.1038/s41416-021-01412-y ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Alexia Iasonos ◽

John O’Quigley

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trials ◽

Phase 1

Download Full-text

Adverse events of special interest in clinical trials of rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ulcerative colitis and psoriasis with 37 066 patient-years of tofacitinib exposure

RMD Open ◽

10.1136/rmdopen-2021-001595 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 7 (2) ◽

pp. e001595

Author(s):

Gerd R Burmester ◽

Peter Nash ◽

Bruce E Sands ◽

Kim Papp ◽

Lori Stockert ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽

Ulcerative Colitis ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Psoriatic Arthritis ◽

Adverse Events ◽

Special Interest ◽

Phase 1 ◽

Incidence Rates ◽

Study Data ◽

System Organ Class

ObjectivesTo analyse adverse events (AEs) of special interest across tofacitinib clinical programmes in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), ulcerative colitis (UC) and psoriasis (PsO), and to determine whether the incidence rates (IRs; unique patients with events per 100 patient-years) of these events are consistent across diseases.MethodsThe analysis included data from patients exposed to ≥1 dose of tofacitinib in phase 1, 2, 3 or 3b/4 clinical trials and long-term extension (LTE) studies (38 trials) in RA (23 trials), PsA (3 trials), UC (5 trials) and PsO (7 trials). All studies were completed by or before July 2019, except for one ongoing UC LTE study (data cut-off May 2019). IRs were obtained for AEs of special interest.Results13 567 patients were included in the analysis (RA: n=7964; PsA: n=783; UC: n=1157; PsO: n=3663), representing 37 066 patient-years of exposure. Maximum duration of exposure was 10.5 years (RA). AEs within the ‘infections and infestations’ System Organ Class were the most common in all diseases. Among AEs of special interest, IRs were highest for herpes zoster (non-serious and serious; 3.6, 1.8, 3.5 and 2.4 for RA, PsA, UC and PsO, respectively) and serious infections (2.5, 1.2, 1.7 and 1.3 for RA, PsA, UC and PsO, respectively). Age-adjusted and sex-adjusted mortality ratios (weighted for country) were ≤0.2 across cohorts.ConclusionsThe tofacitinib safety profile in this analysis was generally consistent across diseases and with longer term follow-up compared with previous analyses.

Download Full-text

Bleeding by Bruton Tyrosine Kinase-Inhibitors: Dependency on Drug Type and Disease

Cancers ◽

10.3390/cancers13051103 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 13 (5) ◽

pp. 1103

Author(s):

Philipp von Hundelshausen ◽

Wolfgang Siess

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trials ◽

Tyrosine Kinase ◽

B Cell ◽

Kinase Inhibitors ◽

Phase 1 ◽

The Novel ◽

B Cell Malignancies ◽

Bruton Tyrosine Kinase ◽

Dermatological Disorders ◽

Reversible Covalent

Bruton tyrosine kinase (Btk) is expressed in B-lymphocytes, myeloid cells and platelets, and Btk-inhibitors (BTKi) are used to treat patients with B-cell malignancies, developed against autoimmune diseases, have been proposed as novel antithrombotic drugs, and been tested in patients with severe COVID-19. However, mild bleeding is frequent in patients with B-cell malignancies treated with the irreversible BTKi ibrutinib and the recently approved 2nd generation BTKi acalabrutinib, zanubrutinib and tirabrutinib, and also in volunteers receiving in a phase-1 study the novel irreversible BTKi BI-705564. In contrast, no bleeding has been reported in clinical trials of other BTKi. These include the brain-penetrant irreversible tolebrutinib and evobrutinib (against multiple sclerosis), the irreversible branebrutinib, the reversible BMS-986142 and fenebrutinib (targeting rheumatoid arthritis and lupus erythematodes), and the reversible covalent rilzabrutinib (against pemphigus and immune thrombocytopenia). Remibrutinib, a novel highly selective covalent BTKi, is currently in clinical studies of autoimmune dermatological disorders. This review describes twelve BTKi approved or in clinical trials. By focusing on their pharmacological properties, targeted disease, bleeding side effects and actions on platelets it attempts to clarify the mechanisms underlying bleeding. Specific platelet function tests in blood might help to estimate the probability of bleeding of newly developed BTKi.

Download Full-text