Design of clinical pharmacology trials

1. There are a variety of methods that could be used to increase the efficiency of the design of experiments. However, it is only recently that such methods have been considered in the design of clinical pharmacology trials. 2. Two such methods, termed data-dependent (e.g. simulation) and data-independent (e.g. analytical evaluation of the information in a particular design), are becoming increasingly used as efficient methods for designing clinical trials. These two design methods have tended to be viewed as competitive, although a complementary role in design is proposed here. 3. The impetus for the use of these two methods has been the need for a more fully integrated approach to the drug development process that specifically allows for sequential development (i.e. where the results of early phase studies influence later-phase studies). 4. The present article briefly presents the background and theory that underpins both the data-dependent and -independent methods with the use of illustrative examples from the literature. In addition, the potential advantages and disadvantages of each method are discussed.

Trials, tricks and transparency: how disclosure rules affect clinical knowledge

Scandals of selective reporting of clinical trial results by pharmaceutical firms have underlined the need for more transparency in clinical trials. We provide a theoretical framework which reproduces incentives for selective reporting and yields three key implications concerning regulation. First, a compulsory clinical trial registry complemented through a voluntary clinical trial results database can implement full transparency (the existence of all trials as well as their results is known). Second, full transparency comes at a price. It has a deterrence effect on the incentives to conduct clinical trials, as it reduces the firms'gains from trials. Third, in principle, a voluntary clinical trial results database without a compulsory registry is a superior regulatory tool; but we provide some qualified support for additional compulsory registries when medical decision-makers cannot anticipate correctly the drug companies' decisions whether to conduct trials. Keywords: pharmaceutical firms, strategic information transmission, clinical trials, registries, results databases, scientific knowledge JEL classification: D72, I18, L15

The need for combination antihypertensive therapy to reach target blood pressures: what has been learned from clinical practice and morbidity-mortality trials?

Pharmacological treatment of hypertension represents a cost-effective way for preventing cardiovascular and renal complications. To benefit maximally from antihypertensive treatment blood pressure (BP) should be brought to below 140/90 mmHg in every hypertensive patient, and even lower (< 130/80 mmHg) if diabetes or renal disease co-exists. Most of the time such targets cannot be reached using monotherapies. This is especially true in patients who exhibit a high cardiovascular risk. The co-administration of two agents acting by different mechanisms considerably increases BP control. Such preparations are not only efficacious, but also well tolerated, and some fixed low-dose combinations have a tolerability profile similar to placebo. This is for instance the case for the preparation containing the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor perindopril (2 mg) and the diuretic indapamide (0.625 mg), a fixed low-dose combination that has recently been shown in controlled interventional trials to be more effective than monotherapies in reducing albuminuria, regressing cardiac hypertrophy and improving macrovascular stiffness. Fixed-dose combinations are becoming more and more popular and are even proposed by current hypertension guidelines as a first-line option to treat hypertensive patients.

Clinical Development Strategies and Outcomes in First-in-Human Trials of Monoclonal Antibodies.

PURPOSE: We conducted a comprehensive review of the design, implementation, and outcome of first-in-human (FIH) trials of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) to clearly determine early clinical development strategies for this class of compounds. METHODS: We performed a PubMed search using appropriate terms to identify reports of FIH trials of mAbs published in peer-reviewed journals between January 2000 and April 2013. RESULTS: A total of 82 publications describing FIH trials were selected for analysis. Only 27 articles (33%) reported the criteria used for selecting the starting dose (SD). Dose escalation was performed using rule-based methods in 66 trials (80%). The median number of planned dose levels was five (range, two to 13). The median of the ratio between the highest planned dose and the SD was 27 (range, two to 3,333). Although in 56 studies (68%) at least one grade 3 or 4 toxicity event was reported, no dose-limiting toxicity was observed in 47 trials (57%). The highest planned dose was reached in all trials, but the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) was defined in only 13 studies (16%). The median of the ratio between MTD and SD was eight (range, four to 1,000). The recommended phase II dose was indicated in 34 studies (41%), but in 25 (73%) of these trials, this dose was chosen without considering toxicity as the main selection criterion. CONCLUSION: This literature review highlights the broad design heterogeneity of FIH trials testing mAbs. Because of the limited observed toxicity, the MTD was infrequently reached, and therefore, the recommended phase II dose for subsequent clinical trials was only tentatively defined.

Clinical end points in coronary stent trials: a case for standardized definitions

BACKGROUND: Although most clinical trials of coronary stents have measured nominally identical safety and effectiveness end points, differences in definitions and timing of assessment have created confusion in interpretation. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Academic Research Consortium is an informal collaboration between academic research organizations in the United States and Europe. Two meetings, in Washington, DC, in January 2006 and in Dublin, Ireland, in June 2006, sponsored by the Academic Research Consortium and including representatives of the US Food and Drug Administration and all device manufacturers who were working with the Food and Drug Administration on drug-eluting stent clinical trial programs, were focused on consensus end point definitions for drug-eluting stent evaluations. The effort was pursued with the objective to establish consistency among end point definitions and provide consensus recommendations. On the basis of considerations from historical legacy to key pathophysiological mechanisms and relevance to clinical interpretability, criteria for assessment of death, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, and stent thrombosis were developed. The broadly based consensus end point definitions in this document may be usefully applied or recognized for regulatory and clinical trial purposes. CONCLUSION: Although consensus criteria will inevitably include certain arbitrary features, consensus criteria for clinical end points provide consistency across studies that can facilitate the evaluation of safety and effectiveness of these devices.

Clinical endpoints in peripheral endovascular revascularization trials: a case for standardized definitions

BACKGROUND: Endovascular therapy is a rapidly expanding option for the treatment of patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD), leading to a myriad of published studies reporting on various revascularization strategies. However, these reports are often difficult to interpret and compare because they do not utilize uniform clinical endpoint definitions. Moreover, few of these studies describe clinical outcomes from a patients' perspective. METHODS AND RESULTS: The DEFINE Group is a collaborative effort of an ad-hoc multidisciplinary team from various specialties involved in peripheral arterial disease therapy in Europe and the United States. DEFINE's goal was to arrive at a broad based consensus for baseline and endpoint definitions in peripheral endovascular revascularization trials for chronic lower limb ischemia. In this project, which started in 2006, the individual team members reviewed the existing pertinent literature. Following this, a series of telephone conferences and face-to-face meetings were held to agree upon definitions. Input was also obtained from regulatory (United States Food and Drug Administration) and industry (device manufacturers with an interest in peripheral endovascular revascularization) stakeholders, respectively. The efforts resulted in the current document containing proposed baseline and endpoint definitions in chronic lower limb PAD. Although the consensus has inevitably included certain arbitrary choices and compromises, adherence to these proposed standard definitions would provide consistency across future trials, thereby facilitating evaluation of clinical effectiveness and safety of various endovascular revascularization techniques. CONCLUSION: This current document is based on a broad based consensus involving relevant stakeholders from the medical community, industry and regulatory bodies. It is proposed that the consensus document may have value for study design of future clinical trials in chronic lower limb ischemia as well as for regulatory purposes.

Standardized definitions and clinical endpoints in trials investigating endovascular repair of aortic dissections.

OBJECTIVES Endovascular therapy is a rapidly expanding option for the treatment of patients with aortic dissection (AD) and various studies have been published. These trials, however, are often difficult to interpret and compare because they do not utilize uniform clinical endpoint definitions. METHODS The DEFINE Group is a collaborative effort of an ad hoc multidisciplinary team from various specialties involved in AD therapy in Europe and the United States. DEFINE's goal was to arrive at a broad based consensus for baseline and endpoint definitions in trials for endovascular therapy of various vascular pathologies. In this project, which started in December 2006, the individual team members reviewed the existing pertinent literature. Following this, a series of telephone conferences and face-to-face meetings were held to agree upon definitions. Input was also obtained from regulatory (United States Food and Drug Administration) and industry (device manufacturers with an interest in peripheral endovascular revascularization) stakeholders, respectively. RESULTS These efforts resulted in the present document containing proposed baseline and endpoint definitions for clinical and morphological outcomes. Although the consensus has inevitably included certain arbitrary consensus choices and compromises, adherence to these proposed standard definitions would provide consistency across future trials, thereby facilitating evaluation of clinical effectiveness and safety of various endovascular revascularization techniques. CONCLUSIONS This current document is based on a broad based consensus involving relevant stakeholders from the medical community, industry and regulatory bodies. It is proposed that the consensus document may have value for study design of future clinical trials in endovascular AD therapy as well as for regulatory purposes.

Clinical Perspectives from Randomized Phase 3 Trials on Prostate Cancer: An Analysis of the ClinicalTrials.gov Database

AbstractBackground It is not easy to overview pending phase 3 trials on prostate cancer (PCa), and awareness of these trials would benefit clinicians. Objective To identify all phase 3 trials on {PCa} registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov database with pending results. Design and setting On September 29, 2014, a database was established from the records for 175 538 clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. A search of this database for the substring “prostat” identified 2951 prostate trials. Phase 3 trials accounted for 441 studies, of which 333 concerned only PCa. We selected only ongoing or completed trials with pending results, that is, for which the primary endpoint had not been published in a peer-reviewed medical journal. Results and limitations We identified 123 phase 3 trials with pending results. Trials were conducted predominantly in North America (n = 63; 51) and Europe (n = 47; 38). The majority were on nonmetastatic disease (n = 82; 67), with 37 (30) on metastatic disease and four trials (3) including both. In terms of intervention, systemic treatment was most commonly tested (n = 71; 58), followed by local treatment 34 (28), and both systemic and local treatment (n = 11; 9), with seven (6) trials not classifiable. The 71 trials on systemic treatment included androgen deprivation therapy (n = 34; 48), chemotherapy (n = 15; 21), immunotherapy (n = 9; 13), other systemic drugs (n = 9; 13), radiopharmaceuticals (n = 2; 3), and combinations (n = 2; 3). Local treatments tested included radiation therapy (n = 27; 79), surgery (n = 5; 15), and both (n = 2; 2). A limitation is that not every clinical trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. Conclusion There are many {PCa} phase 3 trials with pending results, most of which address questions regarding systemic treatments for both nonmetastatic and metastatic disease. Radiation therapy and androgen deprivation therapy are the interventions most commonly tested for local and systemic treatment, respectively. Patient summary This report describes all phase 3 trials on prostate cancer registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov database with pending results. Most of these trials address questions regarding systemic treatments for both nonmetastatic and metastatic disease. Radiation therapy and androgen deprivation therapy are the interventions most commonly tested for local and systemic treatment, respectively.

Predictive Value Of Phase I Trials For Safety In Later Trials And Final Approved Dose: Analysis Of 61 Approved Cancer Drugs.

Phase I trials use a small number of patients to define a maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and the safety of new agents. We compared data from phase I and registration trials to determine whether early trials predicted later safety and final dose. We searched the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) website for drugs approved in nonpediatric cancers (January 1990-October 2012). The recommended phase II dose (R2PD) and toxicities from phase I were compared with doses and safety in later trials. In 62 of 85 (73%) matched trials, the dose from the later trial was within 20% of the RP2D. In a multivariable analysis, phase I trials of targeted agents were less predictive of the final approved dose (OR, 0.2 for adopting ± 20% of the RP2D for targeted vs. other classes; P = 0.025). Of the 530 clinically relevant toxicities in later trials, 70% (n = 374) were described in phase I. A significant relationship (P = 0.0032) between increasing the number of patients in phase I (up to 60) and the ability to describe future clinically relevant toxicities was observed. Among 28,505 patients in later trials, the death rate that was related to drug was 1.41%. In conclusion, dosing based on phase I trials was associated with a low toxicity-related death rate in later trials. The ability to predict relevant toxicities correlates with the number of patients on the initial phase I trial. The final dose approved was within 20% of the RP2D in 73% of assessed trials.

Periodontal treatment during pregnancy decreases the rate of adverse pregnancy outcome: a controlled clinical trial

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of non-surgical treatment of periodontal disease during the second trimester of gestation on adverse pregnancy outcomes. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Pregnant patients during the 1st and 2nd trimesters at antenatal care in a Public Health Center were divided into 2 groups: NIG - "no intervention" (n=17) or IG- "intervention" (n=16). IG patients were submitted to a non-surgical periodontal treatment performed by a single periodontist consisting of scaling and root planning (SRP), professional prophylaxis (PROPH) and oral hygiene instruction (OHI). NIG received PROPH and OHI during pregnancy and were referred for treatment after delivery. Periodontal evaluation was performed by a single trained examiner, blinded to periodontal treatment, according to probing depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL), plaque index (PI) and sulcular bleeding index (SBI) at baseline and 35 gestational weeks-28 days post-partum. Primary adverse pregnancy outcomes were preterm birth (<37 weeks), low birth weight (<2.5 kg), late abortion (14-24 weeks) or abortion (<14 weeks). The results obtained were statistically evaluated according to OR, unpaired t test and paired t test at 5% signifcance level. RESULTS: No signifcant differences were observed between groups at baseline examination. Periodontal treatment resulted in stabilization of CAL and PI (p>0.05) at IG and worsening of all periodontal parameters at NIG (p<0.0001), except for PI. Signifcant differences in periodontal conditions of IG and NIG were observed at 2nd examination (p<0.001). The rate of adverse pregnancy outcomes was 47.05% in NIG and 6.25% in IG. Periodontal treatment during pregnancy was associated to a decreased risk of developing adverse pregnancy outcomes [OR=13.50; CI: 1.47-123.45; p=0.02]. CONCLUSIONS: Periodontal treatment during the second trimester of gestation contributes to decrease adverse pregnancy outcomes.

Short-Term effect of COX-2 selective inhibitor as an adjunct for the treatment of periodontal disease: a clinical double-blind study in humans

Adjunctive therapeutic strategies that modulate the inflammatory mediators can play a significant role in periodontal therapy. In this double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 60 subjects diagnosed as periodontitis patients were evaluated for 28 days after periodontal treatment combined with selective cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor. The experimental group received scaling and root planning (SRP) combined with the Loxoprofen antiinflammatory drug (SRP+Loxoprofen). The control group received SRP combined with placebo (SRP+placebo). Plaque index (PI), probing pocket depth (PD) and bleeding on probing (BOP) were monitored with an electronic probe at baseline and after 14 and 28 days. Both groups displayed clinical improvement in PD, PI and BOP. They also showed statistically similar values (p>0.05) of PD reduction on day 14 (0.4 mm) and on day 28 (0.6 mm). At the baseline, few deeper sites (>7 mm) from SRP+Loxoprofen group were responsible and most PD reduction was observed after 14 days (p<0.05). The percentage of remaining deep pockets (>7 mm) after 14 days in the SRP+Loxoprofen group was significantly lower (p<0.05) than in the SRP+placebo group. Loxoprofen presents potential effect as an adjunct of periodontal disease treatment, but long-term clinical trials are necessary to confirm its efficacy.

Sertraline vs. ELectrical Current Therapy for Treating Depression Clinical Trial - SELECT TDCS: Design, rationale and objectives

Background: Despite significant advancements in psychopharmacology, treating major depressive disorder (MDD) is still a challenge considering the efficacy, tolerability, safety, and economical costs of most antidepressant drugs. One approach that has been increasingly investigated is modulation of cortical activity with tools of non-invasive brain stimulation - such as transcranial magnetic stimulation and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). Due to its profile, tDCS seems to be a safe and affordable approach. Methods and design: The SELECT TDCS trial aims to compare sertraline vs. tDCS in a double-blinded, randomized, factorial trial enrolling 120 participants to be allocated to four groups to receive sertraline + tDCS, sertraline, tDCS or placebo. Eligibility criteria are moderate-to-severe unipolar depression (Hamilton Depression Rating Scale >17) not currently on sertraline treatment. Treatment will last 6 weeks and the primary outcome is depression change in the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Score (MADRS). Potential biological markers that mediate response, such as BDNF serum levels, Val66Met BDNF polymorphism, and heart rate variability will also be examined. A neuropsychological battery with a focus on executive functioning will be administered. Discussion: With this design we will be able to investigate whether tDCS is more effective than placebo in a sample of patients free of antidepressants and in addition, we will be able to secondarily compare the effect sizes of sertraline vs. tDCS and also the comparison between tDCS and combination of tDCS and sertraline. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

The effect of internal thoracic artery grafts on long-term clinical outcomes after coronary bypass surgery

Objectives: We sought to compare long-term outcomes after coronary bypass surgery with and without an internal thoracic artery graft. Methods: We analyzed clinical outcomes over a median follow-up of 6.7 years among 3,087 patients who received coronary bypass surgery as participants in one of 8 clinical trials comparing surgical intervention with angioplasty. We used 2 statistical methods (covariate adjustment and propensity score matching) to adjust for the nonrandomized selection of internal thoracic artery grafts. Results: Internal thoracic artery grafting was associated with lower mortality, with hazard ratios of 0.77 (confidence interval, 0.62-0.97; P = .02) for covariate adjustment and 0.77 (confidence interval, 0.57-1.05; P = .10) for propensity score matching. The composite end point of death or myocardial infarction was reduced to a similar extent, with hazard ratios of 0.83 (confidence interval, 0.69-1.00; P = .05) for covariate adjustment to 0.78 (confidence interval, 0.61-1.00; P = .05) for propensity score matching. There was a trend toward less angina at 1 year, with odds ratios of 0.81 (confidence interval, 0.61-1.09; P = .16) in the covariate-adjusted model and 0.81 (confidence interval, 0.55-1.19; P = .28) in the propensity score-adjusted model. Conclusions: Use of an internal thoracic artery graft during coronary bypass surgery seems to improve long-term clinical outcomes. (J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2011; 142: 829-35)

Clinical profile of patients enroled in a cell therapy trial for severe coronary artery disease

Aims and objectives. To compare the clinical profile of patients included in a clinical trial of autologous bone marrow cells as an adjunctive therapy to coronary artery bypass grafting with that of patients undergoing routine coronary artery bypass grafting. Background. The therapeutic potential of autologous bone marrow cells has been explored in the treatment of severe coronary artery disease. There are few data regarding the clinical and socio-economic profile of patients included in clinical trials using bone marrow cell. Design. Case-control study. Method. Sixty-seven patients (61 SD 9) years, 82% men) with multivessel coronary artery disease were divided into two groups: patients in the bone marrow cell group (n = 34) underwent incomplete coronary artery bypass grafting + intramyocardial injection of autologous bone marrow cells (lymphomonocytic fraction -2.0 (SD 0.2 x 108) cells/patient) in the ischaemic, non-revascularised myocardium, whereas patients in the coronary artery bypass grafting group (n = 33) underwent routine bypass surgery. Demographics, socio-economic status, clinical and echocardiographic data were collected. Statistical analysis included the Fisher`s exact test (categorical variables) and the Student`s t-test (continuous variables). Results. There were no significant differences between groups regarding age, gender, BMI, heart rate, blood pressure and echo data. There was a greater prevalence of obesity (65 vs. 33%; OR = 3.7 [1.3-10.1]), of previous myocardial infarction (68 vs. 39%; OR = 3.2 [1.2-8.8]) and prior revascularisation procedures (59 vs. 24%; OR = 4.5 [1.6-12.7]) in the autologous bone marrow cells group and of smokers in the coronary artery bypass grafting group (51 vs. 23%; OR = 3.5 [1.2-10.4]). Conclusions. Patients included in this clinical trial of autologous bone marrow cells for severe coronary artery disease presented a greater prevalence of myocardial revascularisation procedures, indicating a more severe clinical presentation of the disease. Fewer smokers in this group could be attributable to life style changes after previous cardiovascular events and/or interventions. Relevance to clinical practice. The knowledge of the clinical profile of patients included in cell therapy trials may help researchers in the identification of patients that may be enroled in future clinical trials of this new therapeutic strategy.

Clinical End Points and Response Criteria in Mycosis Fungoides and Sezary Syndrome: A Consensus Statement of the International Society for Cutaneous Lymphomas, the United States Cutaneous Lymphoma Consortium, and the Cutaneous Lymphoma Task Force of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer

Mycosis fungoides (MF) and Sezary syndrome (SS), the major forms of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, have unique characteristics that distinguish them from other types of non-Hodgkin`s lymphomas. Clinical trials in MF/SS have suffered from a lack of standardization in evaluation, staging, assessment, end points, and response criteria. Recently defined criteria for the diagnosis of early MF, guidelines for initial evaluation, and revised staging and classification criteria for MF and SS now offer the potential for uniform staging of patients enrolled in clinical trials for MF/SS. This article presents consensus recommendations for the general conduct of clinical trials of patients with MF/SS as well as methods for standardized assessment of potential disease manifestations in skin, lymph nodes, blood, and visceral organs, and definition of end points and response criteria. These guidelines should facilitate collaboration among investigators and collation of data from sponsor-generated or investigator-initiated clinical trials involving patients with MF or SS. J Clin Oncol 29:2598-2607. (C) 2011 by American Society of Clinical Oncology