Phase I clinical trials in 56 patients with thyroid cancer: the M. D. Anderson Cancer Center experience.

INTRODUCTION: Thyroid cancer is the most common endocrine malignancy. The outcomes of patients with relapsed thyroid cancer treated on early-phase clinical trials have not been systematically analyzed. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We reviewed the records of consecutive patients with metastatic thyroid cancer referred to the Phase I Clinical Trials Program from March 2006 to April 2008. Best response was assessed by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors. RESULTS: Fifty-six patients were identified. The median age was 55 yr (range 35-79 yr). Of 49 patients evaluable for response, nine (18.4%) had a partial response, and 16 (32.7%) had stable disease for 6 months or longer. The median progression-free survival was 1.12 yr. With a median follow-up of 15.6 months, the 1-yr survival rate was 81%. In univariate analysis, factors predicting shorter survival were anaplastic histology (P = 0.0002) and albumin levels less than 3.5 g/dl (P = 0.05). Among 26 patients with tumor decreases, none died (median follow-up 1.3 yr), whereas 52% of patients with any tumor increase died by 1 yr (P = 0.0001). The median time to failure in our phase I clinical trials was 11.5 months vs. 4.1 months for the previous treatment (P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Patients with advanced thyroid cancer treated on phase I clinical trials had high rates of partial response and prolonged stable disease. Time to failure was significantly longer on the first phase I trial compared with the prior conventional treatment. Patients with any tumor decrease had significantly longer survival than those with any tumor increase.

A simulation study of the standard design, the rolling six design, the CRM, and the modified CRM in Phase I clinical trials

The Phase I clinical trial is considered the "first in human" study in medical research to examine the toxicity of a new agent. It determines the maximum tolerable dose (MTD) of a new agent, i.e., the highest dose in which toxicity is still acceptable. Several phase I clinical trial designs have been proposed in the past 30 years. The well known standard method, so called the 3+3 design, is widely accepted by clinicians since it is the easiest to implement and it does not need a statistical calculation. Continual reassessment method (CRM), a design uses Bayesian method, has been rising in popularity in the last two decades. Several variants of the CRM design have also been suggested in numerous statistical literatures. Rolling six is a new method introduced in pediatric oncology in 2008, which claims to shorten the trial duration as compared to the 3+3 design. The goal of the present research was to simulate clinical trials and compare these phase I clinical trial designs. Patient population was created by discrete event simulation (DES) method. The characteristics of the patients were generated by several distributions with the parameters derived from a historical phase I clinical trial data review. Patients were then selected and enrolled in clinical trials, each of which uses the 3+3 design, the rolling six, or the CRM design. Five scenarios of dose-toxicity relationship were used to compare the performance of the phase I clinical trial designs. One thousand trials were simulated per phase I clinical trial design per dose-toxicity scenario. The results showed the rolling six design was not superior to the 3+3 design in terms of trial duration. The time to trial completion was comparable between the rolling six and the 3+3 design. However, they both shorten the duration as compared to the two CRM designs. Both CRMs were superior to the 3+3 design and the rolling six in accuracy of MTD estimation. The 3+3 design and rolling six tended to assign more patients to undesired lower dose levels. The toxicities were slightly greater in the CRMs.^

Modified 3+3 design for phase I clinical trials

Phase I clinical trial is mainly designed to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of a new drug. Optimization of phase I trial design is crucial to minimize the number of enrolled patients exposed to unsafe dose levels and to provide reliable information to the later phases of clinical trials. Although it has been criticized about its inefficient MTD estimation, nowadays the traditional 3+3 method remains dominant in practice due to its simplicity and conservative estimation. There are many new designs that have been proven to generate more credible MTD estimation, such as the Continual Reassessment Method (CRM). Despite its accepted better performance, the CRM design is still not widely used in real trials. There are several factors that contribute to the difficulties of CRM adaption in practice. First, CRM is not widely accepted by the regulatory agencies such as FDA in terms of safety. It is considered to be less conservative and tend to expose more patients above the MTD level than the traditional design. Second, CRM is relatively complex and not intuitive for the clinicians to fully understand. Third, the CRM method take much more time and need statistical experts and computer programs throughout the trial. The current situation is that the clinicians still tend to follow the trial process that they are comfortable with. This situation is not likely to change in the near future. Based on this situation, we have the motivation to improve the accuracy of MTD selection while follow the procedure of the traditional design to maintain simplicity. We found that in 3+3 method, the dose transition and the MTD determination are relatively independent. Thus we proposed to separate the two stages. The dose transition rule remained the same as 3+3 method. After getting the toxicity information from the dose transition stage, we combined the isotonic transformation to ensure the monotonic increasing order before selecting the optimal MTD. To compare the operating characteristics of the proposed isotonic method and the other designs, we carried out 10,000 simulation trials under different dose setting scenarios to compare the design characteristics of the isotonic modified method with standard 3+3 method, CRM, biased coin design (BC) and k-in-a-row design (KIAW). The isotonic modified method improved MTD estimation of the standard 3+3 in 39 out of 40 scenarios. The improvement is much greater when the target is 0.3 other than 0.25. The modified design is also competitive when comparing with other selected methods. A CRM method performed better in general but was not as stable as the isotonic method throughout the different dose settings. The results demonstrated that our proposed isotonic modified method is not only easily conducted using the same procedure as 3+3 but also outperforms the conventional 3+3 design. It can also be applied to determine MTD for any given TTL. These features make the isotonic modified method of practical value in phase I clinical trials.^

BAYESIAN PHASE I DOSE FINDING IN CANCER TRIALS

This dissertation explores phase I dose-finding designs in cancer trials from three perspectives: the alternative Bayesian dose-escalation rules, a design based on a time-to-dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) model, and a design based on a discrete-time multi-state (DTMS) model. We list alternative Bayesian dose-escalation rules and perform a simulation study for the intra-rule and inter-rule comparisons based on two statistical models to identify the most appropriate rule under certain scenarios. We provide evidence that all the Bayesian rules outperform the traditional ``3+3'' design in the allocation of patients and selection of the maximum tolerated dose. The design based on a time-to-DLT model uses patients' DLT information over multiple treatment cycles in estimating the probability of DLT at the end of treatment cycle 1. Dose-escalation decisions are made whenever a cycle-1 DLT occurs, or two months after the previous check point. Compared to the design based on a logistic regression model, the new design shows more safety benefits for trials in which more late-onset toxicities are expected. As a trade-off, the new design requires more patients on average. The design based on a discrete-time multi-state (DTMS) model has three important attributes: (1) Toxicities are categorized over a distribution of severity levels, (2) Early toxicity may inform dose escalation, and (3) No suspension is required between accrual cohorts. The proposed model accounts for the difference in the importance of the toxicity severity levels and for transitions between toxicity levels. We compare the operating characteristics of the proposed design with those from a similar design based on a fully-evaluated model that directly models the maximum observed toxicity level within the patients' entire assessment window. We describe settings in which, under comparable power, the proposed design shortens the trial. The proposed design offers more benefit compared to the alternative design as patient accrual becomes slower.

Bayesian adaptive designs for drug combinations in early phase clinical trials

Treating patients with combined agents is a growing trend in cancer clinical trials. Evaluating the synergism of multiple drugs is often the primary motivation for such drug-combination studies. Focusing on the drug combination study in the early phase clinical trials, our research is composed of three parts: (1) We conduct a comprehensive comparison of four dose-finding designs in the two-dimensional toxicity probability space and propose using the Bayesian model averaging method to overcome the arbitrariness of the model specification and enhance the robustness of the design; (2) Motivated by a recent drug-combination trial at MD Anderson Cancer Center with a continuous-dose standard of care agent and a discrete-dose investigational agent, we propose a two-stage Bayesian adaptive dose-finding design based on an extended continual reassessment method; (3) By combining phase I and phase II clinical trials, we propose an extension of a single agent dose-finding design. We model the time-to-event toxicity and efficacy to direct dose finding in two-dimensional drug-combination studies. We conduct extensive simulation studies to examine the operating characteristics of the aforementioned designs and demonstrate the designs' good performances in various practical scenarios.^

Bayesian Adaptive Designs for Early Phase Clinical Trials

My dissertation focuses mainly on Bayesian adaptive designs for phase I and phase II clinical trials. It includes three specific topics: (1) proposing a novel two-dimensional dose-finding algorithm for biological agents, (2) developing Bayesian adaptive screening designs to provide more efficient and ethical clinical trials, and (3) incorporating missing late-onset responses to make an early stopping decision. Treating patients with novel biological agents is becoming a leading trend in oncology. Unlike cytotoxic agents, for which toxicity and efficacy monotonically increase with dose, biological agents may exhibit non-monotonic patterns in their dose-response relationships. Using a trial with two biological agents as an example, we propose a phase I/II trial design to identify the biologically optimal dose combination (BODC), which is defined as the dose combination of the two agents with the highest efficacy and tolerable toxicity. A change-point model is used to reflect the fact that the dose-toxicity surface of the combinational agents may plateau at higher dose levels, and a flexible logistic model is proposed to accommodate the possible non-monotonic pattern for the dose-efficacy relationship. During the trial, we continuously update the posterior estimates of toxicity and efficacy and assign patients to the most appropriate dose combination. We propose a novel dose-finding algorithm to encourage sufficient exploration of untried dose combinations in the two-dimensional space. Extensive simulation studies show that the proposed design has desirable operating characteristics in identifying the BODC under various patterns of dose-toxicity and dose-efficacy relationships. Trials of combination therapies for the treatment of cancer are playing an increasingly important role in the battle against this disease. To more efficiently handle the large number of combination therapies that must be tested, we propose a novel Bayesian phase II adaptive screening design to simultaneously select among possible treatment combinations involving multiple agents. Our design is based on formulating the selection procedure as a Bayesian hypothesis testing problem in which the superiority of each treatment combination is equated to a single hypothesis. During the trial conduct, we use the current values of the posterior probabilities of all hypotheses to adaptively allocate patients to treatment combinations. Simulation studies show that the proposed design substantially outperforms the conventional multi-arm balanced factorial trial design. The proposed design yields a significantly higher probability for selecting the best treatment while at the same time allocating substantially more patients to efficacious treatments. The proposed design is most appropriate for the trials combining multiple agents and screening out the efficacious combination to be further investigated. The proposed Bayesian adaptive phase II screening design substantially outperformed the conventional complete factorial design. Our design allocates more patients to better treatments while at the same time providing higher power to identify the best treatment at the end of the trial. Phase II trial studies usually are single-arm trials which are conducted to test the efficacy of experimental agents and decide whether agents are promising to be sent to phase III trials. Interim monitoring is employed to stop the trial early for futility to avoid assigning unacceptable number of patients to inferior treatments. We propose a Bayesian single-arm phase II design with continuous monitoring for estimating the response rate of the experimental drug. To address the issue of late-onset responses, we use a piece-wise exponential model to estimate the hazard function of time to response data and handle the missing responses using the multiple imputation approach. We evaluate the operating characteristics of the proposed method through extensive simulation studies. We show that the proposed method reduces the total length of the trial duration and yields desirable operating characteristics for different physician-specified lower bounds of response rate with different true response rates.

Bayesian adaptive designs in early phase clinical trials

There are two practical challenges in the phase I clinical trial conduct: lack of transparency to physicians, and the late onset toxicity. In my dissertation, Bayesian approaches are used to address these two problems in clinical trial designs. The proposed simple optimal designs cast the dose finding problem as a decision making process for dose escalation and deescalation. The proposed designs minimize the incorrect decision error rate to find the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). For the late onset toxicity problem, a Bayesian adaptive dose-finding design for drug combination is proposed. The dose-toxicity relationship is modeled using the Finney model. The unobserved delayed toxicity outcomes are treated as missing data and Bayesian data augment is employed to handle the resulting missing data. Extensive simulation studies have been conducted to examine the operating characteristics of the proposed designs and demonstrated the designs' good performances in various practical scenarios.^

Optimal, minimax, and Bayesian two-stage designs in two-dose phase II clinical trials

Background: For most cytotoxic and biologic anti-cancer agents, the response rate of the drug is commonly assumed to be non-decreasing with an increasing dose. However, an increasing dose does not always result in an appreciable increase in the response rate. This may especially be true at high doses for a biologic agent. Therefore, in a phase II trial the investigators may be interested in testing the anti-tumor activity of a drug at more than one (often two) doses, instead of only at the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). This way, when the lower dose appears equally effective, this dose can be recommended for further confirmatory testing in a phase III trial under potential long-term toxicity and cost considerations. A common approach to designing such a phase II trial has been to use an independent (e.g., Simon's two-stage) design at each dose ignoring the prior knowledge about the ordering of the response probabilities at the different doses. However, failure to account for this ordering constraint in estimating the response probabilities may result in an inefficient design. In this dissertation, we developed extensions of Simon's optimal and minimax two-stage designs, including both frequentist and Bayesian methods, for two doses that assume ordered response rates between doses. ^ Methods: Optimal and minimax two-stage designs are proposed for phase II clinical trials in settings where the true response rates at two dose levels are ordered. We borrow strength between doses using isotonic regression and control the joint and/or marginal error probabilities. Bayesian two-stage designs are also proposed under a stochastic ordering constraint. ^ Results: Compared to Simon's designs, when controlling the power and type I error at the same levels, the proposed frequentist and Bayesian designs reduce the maximum and expected sample sizes. Most of the proposed designs also increase the probability of early termination when the true response rates are poor. ^ Conclusion: Proposed frequentist and Bayesian designs are superior to Simon's designs in terms of operating characteristics (expected sample size and probability of early termination, when the response rates are poor) Thus, the proposed designs lead to more cost-efficient and ethical trials, and may consequently improve and expedite the drug discovery process. The proposed designs may be extended to designs of multiple group trials and drug combination trials.^

An Innovative Phase I Trial Design Allowing for the Identification of Multiple Potential Maximum Tolerated Doses with Combination Therapy of Targeted Agents

Treatment for cancer often involves combination therapies used both in medical practice and clinical trials. Korn and Simon listed three reasons for the utility of combinations: 1) biochemical synergism, 2) differential susceptibility of tumor cells to different agents, and 3) higher achievable dose intensity by exploiting non-overlapping toxicities to the host. Even if the toxicity profile of each agent of a given combination is known, the toxicity profile of the agents used in combination must be established. Thus, caution is required when designing and evaluating trials with combination therapies. Traditional clinical design is based on the consideration of a single drug. However, a trial of drugs in combination requires a dose-selection procedure that is vastly different than that needed for a single-drug trial. When two drugs are combined in a phase I trial, an important trial objective is to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). The MTD is defined as the dose level below the dose at which two of six patients experience drug-related dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). In phase I trials that combine two agents, more than one MTD generally exists, although all are rarely determined. For example, there may be an MTD that includes high doses of drug A with lower doses of drug B, another one for high doses of drug B with lower doses of drug A, and yet another for intermediate doses of both drugs administered together. With classic phase I trial designs, only one MTD is identified. Our new trial design allows identification of more than one MTD efficiently, within the context of a single protocol. The two drugs combined in our phase I trial are temsirolimus and bevacizumab. Bevacizumab is a monoclonal antibody targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) pathway which is fundamental for tumor growth and metastasis. One mechanism of tumor resistance to antiangiogenic therapy is upregulation of hypoxia inducible factor 1α (HIF-1α) which mediates responses to hypoxic conditions. Temsirolimus has resulted in reduced levels of HIF-1α making this an ideal combination therapy. Dr. Donald Berry developed a trial design schema for evaluating low, intermediate and high dose levels of two drugs given in combination as illustrated in a recently published paper in Biometrics entitled “A Parallel Phase I/II Clinical Trial Design for Combination Therapies.” His trial design utilized cytotoxic chemotherapy. We adapted this design schema by incorporating greater numbers of dose levels for each drug. Additional dose levels are being examined because it has been the experience of phase I trials that targeted agents, when given in combination, are often effective at dosing levels lower than the FDA-approved dose of said drugs. A total of thirteen dose levels including representative high, intermediate and low dose levels of temsirolimus with representative high, intermediate, and low dose levels of bevacizumab will be evaluated. We hypothesize that our new trial design will facilitate identification of more than one MTD, if they exist, efficiently and within the context of a single protocol. Doses gleaned from this approach could potentially allow for a more personalized approach in dose selection from among the MTDs obtained that can be based upon a patient’s specific co-morbid conditions or anticipated toxicities.

A simulation study using the hybrid statistic and the meta-analysis t-test for data with matched and unmatched subjects in the interim analysis of clinical trials

An interim analysis is usually applied in later phase II or phase III trials to find convincing evidence of a significant treatment difference that may lead to trial termination at an earlier point than planned at the beginning. This can result in the saving of patient resources and shortening of drug development and approval time. In addition, ethics and economics are also the reasons to stop a trial earlier. In clinical trials of eyes, ears, knees, arms, kidneys, lungs, and other clustered treatments, data may include distribution-free random variables with matched and unmatched subjects in one study. It is important to properly include both subjects in the interim and the final analyses so that the maximum efficiency of statistical and clinical inferences can be obtained at different stages of the trials. So far, no publication has applied a statistical method for distribution-free data with matched and unmatched subjects in the interim analysis of clinical trials. In this simulation study, the hybrid statistic was used to estimate the empirical powers and the empirical type I errors among the simulated datasets with different sample sizes, different effect sizes, different correlation coefficients for matched pairs, and different data distributions, respectively, in the interim and final analysis with 4 different group sequential methods. Empirical powers and empirical type I errors were also compared to those estimated by using the meta-analysis t-test among the same simulated datasets. Results from this simulation study show that, compared to the meta-analysis t-test commonly used for data with normally distributed observations, the hybrid statistic has a greater power for data observed from normally, log-normally, and multinomially distributed random variables with matched and unmatched subjects and with outliers. Powers rose with the increase in sample size, effect size, and correlation coefficient for the matched pairs. In addition, lower type I errors were observed estimated by using the hybrid statistic, which indicates that this test is also conservative for data with outliers in the interim analysis of clinical trials.^

On Bayesian seamless phase I-II designs

Early phase clinical trial designs have long been the focus of interest for clinicians and statisticians working in oncology field. There are several standard phse I and phase II designs that have been widely-implemented in medical practice. For phase I design, the most commonly used methods are 3+3 and CRM. A newly-developed Bayesian model-based mTPI design has now been used by an increasing number of hospitals and pharmaceutical companies. The advantages and disadvantages of these three top phase I designs have been discussed in my work here and their performances were compared using simulated data. It was shown that mTPI design exhibited superior performance in most scenarios in comparison with 3+3 and CRM designs. ^ The next major part of my work is proposing an innovative seamless phase I/II design that allows clinicians to conduct phase I and phase II clinical trials simultaneously. Bayesian framework was implemented throughout the whole design. The phase I portion of the design adopts mTPI method, with the addition of futility rule which monitors the efficacy performance of the tested drugs. Dose graduation rules were proposed in this design to allow doses move forward from phase I portion of the study to phase II portion without interrupting the ongoing phase I dose-finding schema. Once a dose graduated to phase II, adaptive randomization was used to randomly allocated patients into different treatment arms, with the intention of more patients being assigned to receive more promising dose(s). Again simulations were performed to compare the performance of this innovative phase I/II design with a recently published phase I/II design, together with the conventional phase I and phase II designs. The simulation results indicated that the seamless phase I/II design outperform the other two competing methods in most scenarios, with superior trial power and the fact that it requires smaller sample size. It also significantly reduces the overall study time. ^ Similar to other early phase clinical trial designs, the proposed seamless phase I/II design requires that the efficacy and safety outcomes being able to be observed in a short time frame. This limitation can be overcome by using validated surrogate marker for the efficacy and safety endpoints.^

Bayesian doubly optimal group sequential designs for randomized clinical trials

When conducting a randomized comparative clinical trial, ethical, scientific or economic considerations often motivate the use of interim decision rules after successive groups of patients have been treated. These decisions may pertain to the comparative efficacy or safety of the treatments under study, cost considerations, the desire to accelerate the drug evaluation process, or the likelihood of therapeutic benefit for future patients. At the time of each interim decision, an important question is whether patient enrollment should continue or be terminated; either due to a high probability that one treatment is superior to the other, or a low probability that the experimental treatment will ultimately prove to be superior. The use of frequentist group sequential decision rules has become routine in the conduct of phase III clinical trials. In this dissertation, we will present a new Bayesian decision-theoretic approach to the problem of designing a randomized group sequential clinical trial, focusing on two-arm trials with time-to-failure outcomes. Forward simulation is used to obtain optimal decision boundaries for each of a set of possible models. At each interim analysis, we use Bayesian model selection to adaptively choose the model having the largest posterior probability of being correct, and we then make the interim decision based on the boundaries that are optimal under the chosen model. We provide a simulation study to compare this method, which we call Bayesian Doubly Optimal Group Sequential (BDOGS), to corresponding frequentist designs using either O'Brien-Fleming (OF) or Pocock boundaries, as obtained from EaSt 2000. Our simulation results show that, over a wide variety of different cases, BDOGS either performs at least as well as both OF and Pocock, or on average provides a much smaller trial. ^

Outcome-based adaptive randomization for binary data in clinical trials---Compare and contrast

Monte Carlo simulation has been conducted to investigate parameter estimation and hypothesis testing in some well known adaptive randomization procedures. The four urn models studied are Randomized Play-the-Winner (RPW), Randomized Pôlya Urn (RPU), Birth and Death Urn with Immigration (BDUI), and Drop-the-Loses Urn (DL). Two sequential estimation methods, the sequential maximum likelihood estimation (SMLE) and the doubly adaptive biased coin design (DABC), are simulated at three optimal allocation targets that minimize the expected number of failures under the assumption of constant variance of simple difference (RSIHR), relative risk (ORR), and odds ratio (OOR) respectively. Log likelihood ratio test and three Wald-type tests (simple difference, log of relative risk, log of odds ratio) are compared in different adaptive procedures. ^ Simulation results indicates that although RPW is slightly better in assigning more patients to the superior treatment, the DL method is considerably less variable and the test statistics have better normality. When compared with SMLE, DABC has slightly higher overall response rate with lower variance, but has larger bias and variance in parameter estimation. Additionally, the test statistics in SMLE have better normality and lower type I error rate, and the power of hypothesis testing is more comparable with the equal randomization. Usually, RSIHR has the highest power among the 3 optimal allocation ratios. However, the ORR allocation has better power and lower type I error rate when the log of relative risk is the test statistics. The number of expected failures in ORR is smaller than RSIHR. It is also shown that the simple difference of response rates has the worst normality among all 4 test statistics. The power of hypothesis test is always inflated when simple difference is used. On the other hand, the normality of the log likelihood ratio test statistics is robust against the change of adaptive randomization procedures. ^

Interim analysis of clinical trials: Simulation studies of fractional Brownian motion

Interim clinical trial monitoring procedures were motivated by ethical and economic considerations. Classical Brownian motion (Bm) techniques for statistical monitoring of clinical trials were widely used. Conditional power argument and α-spending function based boundary crossing probabilities are popular statistical hypothesis testing procedures under the assumption of Brownian motion. However, it is not rare that the assumptions of Brownian motion are only partially met for trial data. Therefore, I used a more generalized form of stochastic process, called fractional Brownian motion (fBm), to model the test statistics. Fractional Brownian motion does not hold Markov property and future observations depend not only on the present observations but also on the past ones. In this dissertation, we simulated a wide range of fBm data, e.g., H = 0.5 (that is, classical Bm) vs. 0.5< H <1, with treatment effects vs. without treatment effects. Then the performance of conditional power and boundary-crossing based interim analyses were compared by assuming that the data follow Bm or fBm. Our simulation study suggested that the conditional power or boundaries under fBm assumptions are generally higher than those under Bm assumptions when H > 0.5 and also matches better with the empirical results. ^

A comparison of adherence with minocycline treatment in Parkinson's disease and rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials

Background: Little is known about the effects on patient adherence when the same study drug is administered in the same dose in two populations with two different diseases in two different clinical trials. The Minocycline in Rheumatoid Arthritis (MIRA) trial and the NIH Exploratory Trials in Parkinson's disease (NET-PD) Futility Study I provide a unique opportunity to do the above and to compare methods measuring adherence. This study may increase understanding of the influence of disease and adverse events on patient adherence and will provide insights to investigators selecting adherence assessment methods in clinical trials of minocycline and other drugs in future.^ Methods: Minocycline adherence by pill count and the effect of adverse events was compared in the MIRA and NET-PD FS1 trials using multivariable linear regression. Within the MIRA trial, agreement between assay and pill count was compared. The association of adverse events with assay adherence was examined using multivariable logistic regression.^ Results: Adherence derived from pill count in the MIRA and NET-PD FS1 trials did not differ significantly. Adverse events potentially related to minocycline did not appear useful to predict minocycline adherence. In the MIRA trial, adherence measured by pill count appears higher than adherence measured by assay. Agreement between pill count and assay was poor (kappa statistic = 0.25).^ Limitations: Trial and disease are completely confounded and hence the independent effect of disease on adherence to minocycline treatment cannot be studied.^ Conclusion: Simple pill count may be preferred over assay in the minocycline clinical trials to measure adherence. Assays may be less sensitive in a clinical setting where appointments are not scheduled in relation to medication administration time, given assays depend on many pharmacokinetic and instrument-related factors. However, pill count can be manipulated by the patient. Another study suggested that self-report method is more sensitive than pill count method in differentiating adherence from non-adherence. An effect of medication-related adverse events on adherence could not be detected.^