Bayesian Baskets: A Novel Design for Biomarker-Based Clinical Trials

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (6) ◽  
pp. JCO.2016.68.286 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lorenzo Trippa ◽  
Brian Michael Alexander
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Trial Design ◽  
Clinical Trial Design ◽  
Predictive Biomarkers ◽  
Experimental Therapeutics ◽  
Predictive Capacity ◽  
Design Decisions ◽  
Experimental Therapies ◽  
Therapeutic Development ◽  
Novel Design

Purpose Biomarker-based clinical trials provide efficiencies during therapeutic development and form the foundation for precision medicine. These trials must generate information on both experimental therapeutics and putative predictive biomarkers in the context of varying pretrial information. We generated an efficient, flexible design that accommodates various pretrial levels of evidence supporting the predictive capacity of biomarkers while making pretrial design choices explicit. Methods We generated a randomization procedure that explicitly incorporates pretrial estimates of the predictive capacity of biomarkers. To compare the utility of this Bayesian basket (BB) design with that of a balanced randomized, biomarker agnostic (BA) design and a traditional basket (TB) design that includes only biomarker-positive patients, we iteratively simulated hypothetical multiarm clinical trials under various scenarios. Results BB was more efficient than BA while generating more information on the predictive capacity of putative biomarkers than both BA and TB. For simulations of hypothetical multiarm trials of experimental therapies and associated biomarkers of varying incident frequency, BB increased power over BA in cases when the biomarker was predictive and when the experimental therapeutic worked in all patients in a variety of scenarios. BB also generated more information about the predictive capacity of biomarkers than BA and categorically relative to TB, which generates no new biomarker information. Conclusion The BB design offers an efficient way to generate information on both experimental therapeutics and the predictive capacity of putative biomarkers. The design is flexible enough to accommodate varying levels of pretrial biomarker confidence within the same platform structure and makes clinical trial design decisions more explicit.

Avenues to Precision Oncology

2020 ◽  
pp. 36-45
Author(s):  
Alexander Meisel
Keyword(s):  
Precision Medicine ◽  
Trial Design ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Molecular Targets ◽  
Clinical Trial Design ◽  
Predictive Biomarkers ◽  
Precision Oncology ◽  
Companion Diagnostics ◽  
Bona Fide ◽  
The One

Until recently, the clinical management of cancer heavily relied on anatomical and histopathological criteria, with ad hoc guidelines directing the therapeutic choices in specific indications. In the last years, the development and therapeutic implementation of novel anticancer therapies significantly improved the clinical outcome of cancer patients. Nonetheless, such cutting-edge approaches revealed the limitation of the one-size-fits-all paradigm. The newly discovered molecular targets can be exploited either as bona fide targets for subsequent drug development, or as tools to precision medicine, in the form of prognostic and/or predictive biomarkers. This article provides an overview of some of the most recent advances in precision medicine in oncology, with a focus on novel tissue-agnostic anticancer therapies. The definition and implementation of biomarkers and companion diagnostics in clinical trials and clinical practice are also discussed, as well as the changing landscape in clinical trial design.

scholarly journals Conceptual Framework to Support Clinical Trial Optimization and End-to-End Enrollment Workflow

2019 ◽  
pp. 1-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neha M. Jain ◽  
Alison Culley ◽  
Teresa Knoop ◽  
Christine Micheel ◽  
Travis Osterman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Knowledge Representation ◽  
Conceptual Framework ◽  
Trial Design ◽  
Clinical Trial Design ◽  
Prospective Clinical Trial ◽  
Future Trends ◽  
Current State ◽  
Evaluation Strategies

In this work, we present a conceptual framework to support clinical trial optimization and enrollment workflows and review the current state, limitations, and future trends in this space. This framework includes knowledge representation of clinical trials, clinical trial optimization, clinical trial design, enrollment workflows for prospective clinical trial matching, waitlist management, and, finally, evaluation strategies for assessing improvement.

scholarly journals Edaravone in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis’Lessons from the Clinical Development Program and the Importance of a Strategic Clinical Trial Design

US Neurology ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 47 ◽  
Author(s):  
Said R Beydoun ◽  
Jeffrey Rosenfeld
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis ◽  
Trial Design ◽  
Development Program ◽  
Clinical Trial Design ◽  
Clinical Development ◽  
Disease Heterogeneity ◽  
Clinical Development Program ◽  
Lateral Sclerosis

Edaravone significantly slows progression of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), and is the first therapy to receive approval by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the disease in 22 years. Approval of edaravone has marked a new chapter in pharmaceutical development since the key trial included a novel strategic clinical design involving cohort enrichment. In addition, approval was based on clinical trials that had a relatively small patient number and were performed outside of the US. Edaravone was developed through a series of clinical trials in Japan where it was determined that a well-defined subgroup of patients was required to reveal a treatment effect within the study period. Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis is associated with wide-ranging disease heterogeneity (both within the spectrum of ALS phenotypes as well as in the rate of progression). The patient cohort enrichment strategy aimed to address this heterogeneity and should now be considered as a viable, and perhaps preferred, trial design for future studies. Future research incorporating relevant biomarkers may help to better elucidate edaravone’s mechanism of action, pharmacodynamics, and subsequently ALS phenotypes that may preferentially benefit from treatment. In this review, we discuss the edaravone clinical development program, outline the strategic clinical trial design, and highlight important lessons for future trials.

Clinical Trial Design and Statistics

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie Ann Sosa
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Data Analysis ◽  
Trial Design ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
Drug Application ◽  
Clinical Trial Design ◽  
Double Blind Study ◽  
Type I ◽  
End Points

A clinical trial is a planned experiment designed to prospectively measure the efficacy or effectiveness of an intervention by comparing outcomes in a group of subjects treated with the test intervention with those observed in one or more comparable group(s) of subjects receiving another intervention.  Historically, the gold standard for a clinical trial has been a prospective, randomized, double-blind study, but it is sometimes impractical or unethical to conduct such in clinical medicine and surgery. Conventional outcomes have traditionally been clinical end points; with the rise of new technologies, however, they are increasingly being supplemented and/or replaced by surrogate end points, such as serum biomarkers. Because patients are involved, safety considerations and ethical principles must be incorporated into all phases of clinical trial design, conduct, data analysis, and presentation. This review covers the history of clinical trials, clinical trial phases, ethical issues, implementing the study, basic biostatistics for data analysis, and other resources. Figures show drug development and clinical trial process, and type I and II error. Tables list Food and Drug Administration new drug application types, and types of missing data in clinical trials. This review contains 2 highly rendered figures, 2 tables, and 38 references

A novel, hybrid, single- and multi-site clinical trial design for CLN3 disease, an ultra-rare lysosomal storage disorder

2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (5) ◽  
pp. 555-560 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heather R Adams ◽  
Sara Defendorf ◽  
Amy Vierhile ◽  
Jonathan W Mink ◽  
Frederick J Marshall ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Rare Diseases ◽  
Trial Design ◽  
Neurodegenerative Disorder ◽  
Clinical Trial Design ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Local Participation ◽  
Cln3 Disease ◽  
Study Participants

Background Travel burden often substantially limits the ability of individuals to participate in clinical trials. Wide geographic dispersion of individuals with rare diseases poses an additional key challenge in the conduct of clinical trials for rare diseases. Novel technologies and methods can improve access to research by connecting participants in their homes and local communities to a distant research site. For clinical trials, however, understanding of factors important for transition from traditional multi-center trial models to local participation models is limited. We sought to test a novel, hybrid, single- and multi-site clinical trial design in the context of a trial for Juvenile Neuronal Ceroid Lipofuscinosis (CLN3 disease), a very rare pediatric neurodegenerative disorder. Methods We created a “hub and spoke” model for implementing a 22-week crossover clinical trial of mycophenolate compared with placebo, with two 8-week study arms. A single central site, the “hub,” conducted screening, consent, drug dispensing, and tolerability and efficacy assessments. Each participant identified a clinician to serve as a collaborating “spoke” site to perform local safety monitoring. Study participants traveled to the hub at the beginning and end of each study arm, and to their individual spoke site in the intervening weeks. Results A total of 18 spoke sites were established for 19 enrolled study participants. One potential participant was unable to identify a collaborating local site and was thus unable to participate. Study start-up required a median 6.7 months (interquartile range = 4.6–9.2 months). Only 33.3% (n = 6 of 18) of spoke site investigators had prior clinical trial experience, thus close collaboration with respect to study startup, training, and oversight was an important requirement. All but one participant completed all study visits; no study visits were missed due to travel requirements. Conclusions This study represents a step toward local trial participation for patients with rare diseases. Even in the context of close oversight, local participation models may be best suited for studies of compounds with well-understood side-effect profiles, for those with straightforward modes of administration, or for studies requiring extended follow-up periods.

Recommendations for improving clinical trial design to facilitate the study of youth-onset type 2 diabetes

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 87-98
Author(s):  
Muhammad Yazid Jalaludin ◽  
Margarita Barrientos-Pérez ◽  
Mona Hafez ◽  
Jane Lynch ◽  
Naim Shehadeh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Trial Design ◽  
Clinical Trial Design ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Onset Type ◽  
Therapeutic Choice ◽  
Glycemic Targets ◽  
Definition Of

Background The prevalence of type 2 diabetes is increasing in youths and differs from adult-onset type 2 diabetes in its characteristics and progression. Currently, only two drugs are approved for youth-onset type 2 diabetes and many patients are not meeting glycemic targets. Clearly, there is an urgent need to complete clinical trials in youths with type 2 diabetes to increase the therapeutic choice for these patients. However, factors such as limited patient numbers, unwillingness of patients to participate in trials, failure to meet strict inclusion and exclusion criteria, and poor clinic attendance have limited the size and number of trials in this complicated patient demographic. Recommendations This is a narrative opinion piece on the design of clinical trials in youth-onset type 2 diabetes prepared by researchers who undertake this type of study in different countries. The review addresses possible ways to enhance trial designs in youth-onset type 2 diabetes to meet regulatory requirements, while minimizing the barriers to patients’ participation. The definition of adolescence, recruitment of sufficient patient numbers, increasing flexibility in selection criteria, improving convenience of trial visits, requirements of a control group, possible endpoints, and trial compliance are all considered. The authors recommend allowing extrapolation from adult data, using multiple interventional arms within future trials, broadening inclusion criteria, and focusing on endpoints beyond glucose control, among others, in order to improve the successful completion of more trials in this population. Conclusions Improvements in trial design will enable better recruitment and retention and thereby more evidence for treatment outcomes for youth-onset type 2 diabetes.

Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patterns of care: Implications for clinical trial design

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4079-4079 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. S. Denlinger ◽  
M. A. Collins ◽  
Y. Wong ◽  
S. Litwin ◽  
N. J. Meropol
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Trial Design ◽  
Clinical Trial Design ◽  
New Drugs ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Treatment Change ◽  
Therapy Regimen

4079 Background: New approaches have expanded options for patients (pts) with mCRC. To characterize current practice paradigms that might bear on clinical trial design, we analyzed decision-making and treatment patterns in pts treated at a Comprehensive Cancer Center since the introduction of cetuximab (CET), and bevacizumab (BV). Methods: A retrospective review of all pts diagnosed with mCRC between 3/1/04 and 8/28/06 treated at Fox Chase Cancer Center. Results: 160 pts were treated, with 157 pts receiving at least one therapy regimen by 10 attending oncologists. There were 350 changes in therapy with 246 (70%) including continuation of at least one prior drug (92 BV, 111 fluoropyrimidines, 43 other). The most common reasons for treatment change were toxicity (33%), progressive disease (PD) (29%), treatment breaks (15%), and metastasectomy (11%) ( Table ). PD was a more common cause for treatment discontinuation in later phases of treatment (18% initial regimen vs. 36% subsequent regimens, p=0.0002). 24% of pts treated with oxaliplatin (OX) discontinued due to neuropathy. Hypersensitivity caused discontinuation in 5% of pts with OX and 7% of pts with CET. Resection of metastases was undertaken in 38% of pts. 43% of these pts received neoadjuvant therapy, and 56% received adjuvant therapy. 30% of pts have died, 29% remain on active treatment, 28% are on a treatment break, 3% are on hospice, and 11% are lost to follow-up. Conclusions: PD is no longer the primary reason for change of therapy in pts with mCRC. Metastasectomy is common and OX neuropathy is often treatment-limiting. These findings have important implications for endpoint selection and design of clinical trials in mCRC. Future clinical trials in mCRC must recognize treatment complexities and capture key components of decision-making that may result in prolonged survival. Furthermore, treatment breaks represent a potential window for the evaluation of new drugs. [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document