Respiratory syncytial virus, an ongoing medical dilemma: an expert commentary on respiratory syncytial virus prophylactic and therapeutic pharmaceuticals currently in clinical trials

As the most important viral cause of severe respiratory disease in infants and increasing recognition as important in the elderly and immunocompromised, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is responsible for a massive health burden worldwide. Prophylactic antibodies were successfully developed against RSV. However, their use is restricted to a small group of infants considered at high risk of severe RSV disease. There is still no specific therapeutics or vaccines to combat RSV. As such, it remains a major unmet medical need for most individuals. The World Health Organisations International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) and PubMed were used to identify and review all RSV vaccine, prophylactic and therapeutic candidates currently in clinical trials. This review presents an expert commentary on all RSV-specific prophylactic and therapeutic candidates that have entered clinical trials since 2008.

Dose-response relationship in phase 1 clinical trials: a European Drug Development Network (EDDN) Collaboration Study

Introduction: Because a dose–response relationship is characteristic of conventional chemotherapy, this concept is widely used for the development of novel cytotoxic (CTX) drugs. However, the need to reach the MTD to obtain optimal benefit with molecularly targeted agents (MTA) is controversial. In this study, we evaluated the relationship between dose and efficacy in a large cohort of phase I patients with solid tumors.

Experimental Design: We collected data on 1,182 consecutive patients treated in phase I trials in 14 European institutions in 2005–2007. Inclusion criteria were: (i) patients treated within completed single-agent studies in which a maximum-administered dose was defined and (ii) RECIST/survival data available.

Results: Seventy-two percent of patients were included in trials with MTA (N = 854) and 28% in trials with CTX (N = 328). The objective response (OR) rate was 3% and disease control at 6 months was 11%. OR for CTX was associated with higher doses (median 92% of MTD); this was not the case for MTA, where patients achieving OR received a median of 50% of MTD. For trials with MTA, patients treated at intermediate doses (40%–80%) had better survival compared with those receiving low or high doses (P = 0.038). On the contrary, there was a direct association between higher dose and better OS for CTX agents (P = 0.003).

Conclusion: Although these results support the development of novel CTX based on MTD, we found no direct relationship between higher doses and response with MTA in unselected patients. However, the longest OS was seen in patients treated with MTA at intermediate doses (40%–80% of MTD)

UK publicly funded Clinical Trials Units supported a controlled access approach to share individual participant data but highlighted concerns

OBJECTIVES: Evaluate current data sharing activities of UK publicly funded Clinical Trial Units (CTUs) and identify good practices and barriers.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Web-based survey of Directors of 45 UK Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC)-registered CTUs.

RESULTS: Twenty-three (51%) CTUs responded: Five (22%) of these had an established data sharing policy and eight (35%) specifically requested consent to use patient data beyond the scope of the original trial. Fifteen (65%) CTUs had received requests for data, and seven (30%) had made external requests for data in the previous 12 months. CTUs supported the need for increased data sharing activities although concerns were raised about patient identification, misuse of data, and financial burden. Custodianship of clinical trial data and requirements for a CTU to align its policy to their parent institutes were also raised. No CTUs supported the use of an open access model for data sharing.

CONCLUSION: There is support within the publicly funded UKCRC-registered CTUs for data sharing, but many perceived barriers remain. CTUs are currently using a variety of approaches and procedures for sharing data. This survey has informed further work, including development of guidance for publicly funded CTUs, to promote good practice and facilitate data sharing.

Is the raised volume rapid thoracic compression technique ready for use in clinical trials in infants with cystic fibrosis?

The European Cystic Fibrosis Society Clinical Trial Network (ECFS-CTN) has established a Standardization Committee to undertake a rigorous evaluation of promising outcome measures with regard to use in multicentre clinical trials in cystic fibrosis (CF). The aim of this article is to present a review of literature on clinimetric properties of the infant raised-volume rapid thoracic compression (RVRTC) technique in the context of CF, to summarise the consensus amongst the group on feasibility and answer key questions regarding the promotion of this technique to surrogate endpoint status.

METHODS: A literature search (from 1985 onwards) identified 20 papers that met inclusion criteria of RVRTC use in infants with CF. Data were extracted and tabulated regarding repeatability, validity, correlation with other outcome measures, responsiveness and reference values. A working group discussed the tables and answered 4 key questions.

RESULTS: Overall, RVRTC in particular forced expiratory volume in 0.5s, showed good clinimetric properties despite presence of individual variability. Few studies showed a relationship between RVRTC and inflammation and infection, and to date, data remains limited regarding the responsiveness of RVRTC after an intervention. Concerns were raised regarding feasibility in multi-centre studies and availability of reference values.

CONCLUSION: The ECFS-CTN Working Group considers that RVRTC cannot be used as a primary outcome in clinical trials in infants with CF before universal standardization of this measurement is achieved and implementation of inter-institutional networking is in place. We advise its use currently in phase I/II trials and as a secondary endpoint in phase III studies. We emphasise the need for (1) more short-term variability and longitudinal 'natural history' studies, and (2) robust reference values for commercially available devices.

Personalised and Precision Medicine in Cancer Clinical Trials: Panacea for Progress or Pandora's Box?

Cancer clinical trials have been one of the key foundations for significant advances in oncology. However, there is a clear recognition within the academic, care delivery and pharmaceutical/biotech communities that our current model of clinical trial discovery and development is no longer fit for purpose. Delivering transformative cancer care should increasingly be our mantra, rather than maintaining the status quo of, at best, the often miniscule incremental benefits that are observed with many current clinical trials. As we enter the era of precision medicine for personalised cancer care (precision and personalised medicine), it is important that we capture and utilise our greater understanding of the biology of disease to drive innovative approaches in clinical trial design and implementation that can lead to a step change in cancer care delivery. A number of advances have been practice changing (e.g. imatinib mesylate in chronic myeloid leukaemia, Herceptin in erb-B2-positive breast cancer), and increasingly we are seeing the promise of a number of newer approaches, particularly in diseases like lung cancer and melanoma. Targeting immune checkpoints has recently yielded some highly promising results. New algorithms that maximise the effectiveness of clinical trials, through for example a multi-stage, multi-arm type design are increasingly gaining traction. However, our enthusiasm for the undoubted advances that have been achieved are being tempered by a realisation that these new approaches may have significant cost implications. This article will address these competing issues, mainly from a European perspective, highlight the problems and challenges to healthcare systems and suggest potential solutions that will ensure that the cost/value rubicon is addressed in a way that allows stakeholders to work together to deliver optimal cost-effective cancer care, the benefits of which can be transferred directly to our patients.

Methodological variations in estimating apparent progressive visual field loss in clinical trials of glaucoma treatment.

OBJECTIVES:

To compare methods to estimate the incidence of visual field progression used by 3 large randomized trials of glaucoma treatment by applying these methods to a common data set of annually obtained visual field measurements of patients with glaucoma followed up for an average of 6 years.

METHODS:

The methods used by the Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study (AGIS), the Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study (CIGTS), and the Early Manifest Glaucoma Treatment study (EMGT) were applied to 67 eyes of 56 patients with glaucoma enrolled in a 10-year natural history study of glaucoma using Program 30-2 of the Humphrey Field Analyzer (Humphrey Instruments, San Leandro, Calif). The incidence of apparent visual field progression was estimated for each method. Extent of agreement between the methods was calculated, and time to apparent progression was compared.

RESULTS:

The proportion of patients progressing was 11%, 22%, and 23% with AGIS, CIGTS, and EMGT methods, respectively. Clinical assessment identified 23% of patients who progressed, but only half of these were also identified by CIGTS or EMGT methods. The CIGTS and the EMGT had comparable incidence rates, but only half of those identified by 1 method were also identified by the other.

CONCLUSIONS:

The EMGT and CIGTS methods produced rates of apparent progression that were twice those of the AGIS method. Although EMGT, CIGTS, and clinical assessment rates were comparable, they did not identify the same patients as having had field progression.

Methodologic rigor of clinical trials on surgical management of eyes with coexisting cataract and glaucoma.

OBJECTIVE:

To assess the methodologic quality of published studies of the surgical management of coexisting cataract and glaucoma.

DESIGN:

Literature review and analysis.

METHOD:

We performed a systematic search of the literature to identify all English language articles pertaining to the surgical management of coexisting cataract and glaucoma in adults. Quality assessment was performed on all randomized controlled trials, nonrandomized controlled trials, and cohort studies. Overall quality scores and scores for individual methodologic domains were based on the evaluations of two experienced investigators who independently reviewed articles using an objective quality assessment form.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:

Quality in each of five domains (representativeness, bias and confounding, intervention description, outcomes and follow-up, and statistical quality and interpretation) measured as the percentage of methodologic criteria met by each study.

RESULTS:

Thirty-six randomized controlled trials and 45 other studies were evaluated. The mean quality score for the randomized, controlled clinical trials was 63% (range, 11%-88%), and for the other studies the score was 45% (range, 3%-83%). The mean domain scores were 65% for description of therapy (range, 0%-100%), 62% for statistical analysis (range, 0%-100%), 58% for representativeness (range, 0%-94%), 49% for outcomes assessment (range, 0%-83%), and 30% for bias and confounding (range, 0%-83%). Twenty-five of the studies (31%) received a score of 0% in the bias and confounding domain for not randomizing patients, not masking the observers to treatment group, and not having equivalent groups at baseline.

CONCLUSIONS:

Greater methodologic rigor and more detailed reporting of study results, particularly in the area of bias and confounding, could improve the quality of published clinical studies assessing the surgical management of coexisting cataract and glaucoma.

The EU Clinical Trials Regulation: Key Priorities, Purposes and Aims and the Implications for Public Health

The replacement of the European Union (EU) Clinical Trials Directive by the new Clinical Trials Regulation (CTR), which entered into force on 16 June 2014 but will not apply before 28 May 2016, provides an opportunity to review the legal and political context within which this important aspect of research law and policy sits and to reflect on the implications for public health. My aim in this article is to relate the context to the key purposes and aims of EU law and policy on clinical trials in order to explain and clarify its orientation. On that basis, I argue that the CTR and the changes it introduces to the law on clinical trials are part of the EU's continued focus on market optimisation. It is this focus that orients and directs the wider pharmaceutical development pipeline, but that undermines the achievement of key public health objectives.

Defining responses to therapy and study outcomes in clinical trials of invasive fungal diseases: Mycoses Study Group and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer consensus criteria.

Invasive fungal diseases (IFDs) have become major causes of morbidity and mortality among highly immunocompromised patients. Authoritative consensus criteria to diagnose IFD have been useful in establishing eligibility criteria for antifungal trials. There is an important need for generation of consensus definitions of outcomes of IFD that will form a standard for evaluating treatment success and failure in clinical trials. Therefore, an expert international panel consisting of the Mycoses Study Group and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer was convened to propose guidelines for assessing treatment responses in clinical trials of IFDs and for defining study outcomes. Major fungal diseases that are discussed include invasive disease due to Candida species, Aspergillus species and other molds, Cryptococcus neoformans, Histoplasma capsulatum, and Coccidioides immitis. We also discuss potential pitfalls in assessing outcome, such as conflicting clinical, radiological, and/or mycological data and gaps in knowledge.

An analysis of protocols and publications suggested that most discontinuations of clinical trials were not based on preplanned interim analyses or stopping rules.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the frequency of interim analyses, stopping rules, and data safety and monitoring boards (DSMBs) in protocols of randomized controlled trials (RCTs); to examine these features across different reasons for trial discontinuation; and to identify discrepancies in reporting between protocols and publications. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We used data from a cohort of RCT protocols approved between 2000 and 2003 by six research ethics committees in Switzerland, Germany, and Canada. RESULTS: Of 894 RCT protocols, 289 prespecified interim analyses (32.3%), 153 stopping rules (17.1%), and 257 DSMBs (28.7%). Overall, 249 of 894 RCTs (27.9%) were prematurely discontinued; mostly due to reasons such as poor recruitment, administrative reasons, or unexpected harm. Forty-six of 249 RCTs (18.4%) were discontinued due to early benefit or futility; of those, 37 (80.4%) were stopped outside a formal interim analysis or stopping rule. Of 515 published RCTs, there were discrepancies between protocols and publications for interim analyses (21.1%), stopping rules (14.4%), and DSMBs (19.6%). CONCLUSION: Two-thirds of RCT protocols did not consider interim analyses, stopping rules, or DSMBs. Most RCTs discontinued for early benefit or futility were stopped without a prespecified mechanism. When assessing trial manuscripts, journals should require access to the protocol.

A Psychosocial Approach to Understanding Causality Assessment in Early Phase Oncology Clinical Trials: A Phenomenological Study

Research Question: What are the psychosocial factors that affect causality assessment in early phase oncology clinical trials? Methods: Thirty-two qualitative interviews were explicated with the aid of “Naturalistic Decision Making”. Data explication consisted of phenomenological reduction, delineating and clustering meaning units, forming themes, and creating a composite summary. Participants were members of the National Cancer Institute of Canada’s Clinical Trial Group Investigative New Drug committee. Results: The process of assigning causality is extremely subjective and full of uncertainty. Physicians had no formal training, nor a tool to assist them with this process. Physicians were apprehensive about their decisions and felt pressure from their patients, as well as the pharmaceutical companies sponsoring the trial. Conclusions: There are many problem areas when attributing causality, all of which have serious consequences, but clinicians used a variety of methods to cope with these problem areas.

The Development, Validation and Implementation of a Broad-Based ADME Genotyping Assay into Research and Clinical Trials

Afin d’adresser la variabilité interindividuelle observée dans la réponse pharmacocinétique à de nombreux médicaments, nous avons créé un panel de génotypage personnalisée en utilisant des méthodes de conception et d’élaboration d’essais uniques. Celles-ci ont pour but premier de capturer les variations génétiques présentent dans les gènes clés impliqués dans les processus d'absorption, de distribution, de métabolisme et d’excrétion (ADME) de nombreux agents thérapeutiques. Bien que ces gènes et voies de signalement sont impliqués dans plusieurs mécanismes pharmacocinétiques qui sont bien connues, il y a eu jusqu’à présent peu d'efforts envers l’évaluation simultanée d’un grand nombre de ces gènes moyennant un seul outil expérimental. La recherche pharmacogénomique peut être réalisée en utilisant deux approches: 1) les marqueurs fonctionnels peuvent être utilisés pour présélectionner ou stratifier les populations de patients en se basant sur des états métaboliques connus; 2) les marqueurs Tag peuvent être utilisés pour découvrir de nouvelles corrélations génotype-phénotype. Présentement, il existe un besoin pour un outil de recherche qui englobe un grand nombre de gènes ADME et variantes et dont le contenu est applicable à ces deux modèles d'étude. Dans le cadre de cette thèse, nous avons développé un panel d’essais de génotypage de 3,000 marqueurs génétiques ADME qui peuvent satisfaire ce besoin. Dans le cadre de ce projet, les gènes et marqueurs associés avec la famille ADME ont été sélectionnés en collaboration avec plusieurs groupes du milieu universitaire et de l'industrie pharmaceutique. Pendant trois phases de développement de cet essai de génotypage, le taux de conversion pour 3,000 marqueurs a été amélioré de 83% à 97,4% grâce à l'incorporation de nouvelles stratégies ayant pour but de surmonter les zones d'interférence génomiques comprenant entre autres les régions homologues et les polymorphismes sous-jacent les régions d’intérêt. La précision du panel de génotypage a été validée par l’évaluation de plus de 200 échantillons pour lesquelles les génotypes sont connus pour lesquels nous avons obtenu une concordance > 98%. De plus, une comparaison croisée entre nos données provenant de cet essai et des données obtenues par différentes plateformes technologiques déjà disponibles sur le marché a révélé une concordance globale de > 99,5%. L'efficacité de notre stratégie de conception ont été démontrées par l'utilisation réussie de cet essai dans le cadre de plusieurs projets de recherche où plus de 1,000 échantillons ont été testés. Nous avons entre autre évalué avec succès 150 échantillons hépatiques qui ont été largement caractérisés pour plusieurs phénotypes. Dans ces échantillons, nous avons pu valider 13 gènes ADME avec cis-eQTL précédemment rapportés et de découvrir et de 13 autres gènes ADME avec cis eQTLs qui n'avaient pas été observés en utilisant des méthodes standard. Enfin, à l'appui de ce travail, un outil logiciel a été développé, Opitimus Primer, pour aider pour aider au développement du test. Le logiciel a également été utilisé pour aider à l'enrichissement de cibles génomiques pour d'expériences séquençage. Le contenu ainsi que la conception, l’optimisation et la validation de notre panel le distingue largement de l’ensemble des essais commerciaux couramment disponibles sur le marché qui comprennent soit des marqueurs fonctionnels pour seulement un petit nombre de gènes, ou alors n’offre pas une couverture adéquate pour les gènes connus d’ADME. Nous pouvons ainsi conclure que l’essai que nous avons développé est et continuera certainement d’être un outil d’une grande utilité pour les futures études et essais cliniques dans le domaine de la pharmacocinétique, qui bénéficieraient de l'évaluation d'une longue liste complète de gènes d’ADME.