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.

Safety, pharmacokinetics, and antiretroviral activity of multiple doses of ibalizumab (formerly TNX-355), an anti-CD4 monoclonal antibody in HIV-1 infected adults

Context: Despite tremendous strides in HIV treatment over the past decade, resistance remains a major problem. A growing number of patients develop resistance and require new therapies to suppress viral replication. ^ Objective: To assess the safety of multiple administrations of the anti-CD4 receptor (anti-CD4) monoclonal antibody ibalizumab given as intravenous (IV) infusions, in three dosage regimens, in subjects infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV-1). ^ Design: Phase 1, multi-center, open-label, randomized clinical trial comparing the safety, pharmacokinetics and antiviral activity of three dosages of ibalizumab. ^ Setting: Six clinical trial sites in the United States. ^ Participants: A total of twenty-two HIV-positive patients on no anti-retroviral therapy or a stable failing regimen. ^ Intervention: Randomized to one of two treatment groups in Arms A and B followed by non-randomized enrollment in Arm C. Patients randomized to Arm A received 10 mg/kg of ibalizumab every 7 days, for a total of 10 doses; patients randomized to Arm B received a total of six doses of ibalizumab; a single loading dose of 10 mg/kg on Day 1 followed by five maintenance doses of 6 mg/kg every 14 days, starting at Week 1. Patients assigned to Arm C received 25 mg/kg of ibalizumab every 14 days for a total of 5 doses. All patients were followed for safety for an additional 7 to 8 weeks. ^ Main Outcome Measures: Clinical and laboratory assessments of safety and tolerability of multiple administrations of ibalizumab in HIV-infected patients. Secondary measures of efficacy include HIV-1 RNA (viral load) measurements. ^ Results: 21 patients were treatment-experienced and 1 was naïve to HIV therapy. Six patients were failing despite therapy and 15 were on no current HIV treatment. Mean baseline viral load (4.78 log 10; range 3.7-5.9) and CD4+ cell counts (332/μL; range 89-494) were similar across cohorts. Mean peak decreases in viral load from baseline of 0.99 log10(1.11 log10, and 0.96 log 10 occurred by Wk 2 in Cohorts A, B and C, respectively. Viral loads decreased by >1.0 log10 in 64%; 4 patients viral loads were suppressed to < 400 copies/mL. Viral loads returned towards baseline by Week 9 with reduced susceptibility to ibalizumab. CD4+ cell counts rose transiently and returned toward baseline. Maximum median elevations above BL in CD4+ cell counts for Cohorts A, B and C were +257, +198 and +103 cells/μL, respectively and occurred within 3 Wks in 16 of 22 subjects. The half-life of ibalizumab was 3-3.5 days and elimination was characteristic of capacity-limited kinetics. Administration of ibalizumab was well tolerated. Four serious adverse events were reported during the study. None of these events were related to study drug. Headache, nausea and cough were the most frequently reported treatment emergent adverse events and there were no laboratory abnormalities related to study drug. ^ Conclusions: Ibalizumab administered either weekly or bi-weekly was safe, well tolerated, and demonstrated antiviral activity. Further studies with ibalizumab in combination with standard antiretroviral treatments are warranted.^

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.^