A phase I clinical trial of a new 5-valent rotavirus vaccine

We conducted a phase I, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate a new 5-valent oral rotavirus vaccine’s safety and immunogenicity profiles. Subjects were randomly assigned to receive 3 orally administered doses of a live-attenuated human-bovine (UK) reassortant rotavirus vaccine, containing five viral antigens (G1, G2, G3, G4 and G9), or a placebo. The frequency and severity of adverse events were assessed. Immunogenicity was evaluated by the titers of anti-rotavirus IgA and the presence of neutralizing antibodies anti-rotavirus. No severe adverse events were observed. There was no difference in the frequency of mild adverse events between experimental and control groups. The proportion of seroconversion was consistently higher in the vaccine group, for all serotypes, after each one of the doses. The 5-valent vaccine has shown a good profile of safety and immunogenicity in this small sample of adult volunteers.

A phase I randomized, double-blind, controlled trial of 2009 influenza A (H1N1) inactivated monovalent vaccines with different adjuvant systems

Methods We conducted a phase I, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-arm (10) parallel study involving healthy adults to evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of influenza A (H1N1) 2009 non-adjuvanted and adjuvanted candidate vaccines. Subjects received two intramuscular injections of one of the candidate vaccines administered 21 days apart. Antibody responses were measured by means of hemagglutination-inhibition assay before and 21 days after each vaccination. The three co-primary immunogenicity end points were the proportion of seroprotection >70%, seroconversion >40%, and the factor increase in the geometric mean titer >2.5. Results A total of 266 participants were enrolled into the study. No deaths or serious adverse events were reported. The most commonly solicited local and systemic adverse events were injection-site pain and headache, respectively. Only three subjects (1.1%) reported severe injection-site pain. Four 2009 influenza A (H1N1) inactivated monovalent candidate vaccines that met the three requirements to evaluate influenza protection, after a single dose, were identified: 15 μg of hemagglutinin antigen without adjuvant; 7.5 μg of hemagglutinin antigen with aluminum hydroxide, MPL and squalene; 3.75 μg of hemagglutinin antigen with aluminum hydroxide and MPL; and 3.75 μg of hemagglutinin antigen with aluminum hydroxide and squalene. Conclusions Adjuvant systems can be safely used in influenza vaccines, including the adjuvant monophosphoryl lipid A (MPL) derived from Bordetella pertussis with squalene and aluminum hydroxide, MPL with aluminum hydroxide, and squalene and aluminum hydroxide.

Gefitinib in Combination with Irradiation with or Without Cisplatin in Patients with Inoperable Stage III Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Phase I Trial

To establish the feasibility and tolerability of gefitinib (ZD1839, Iressa) with radiation (RT) or concurrent chemoradiation (CRT) with cisplatin (CDDP) in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Continuous administration of sorafenib in combination with transarterial chemoembolization in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: results of a phase I study

It is unknown whether sorafenib can be combined with transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. This study assesses the safety and tolerability of a continuous regimen of sorafenib combined with TACE.

Phase I/IIa study of cilengitide and temozolomide with concomitant radiotherapy followed by cilengitide and temozolomide maintenance therapy in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma

Invasion and migration are key processes of glioblastoma and are tightly linked to tumor recurrence. Integrin inhibition using cilengitide has shown synergy with chemotherapy and radiotherapy in vitro and promising activity in recurrent glioblastoma. This multicenter, phase I/IIa study investigated the efficacy and safety of cilengitide in combination with standard chemoradiotherapy in newly diagnosed glioblastoma.

Rituximab, bendamustine, and lenalidomide in patients with aggressive B cell lymphoma not eligible for high-dose chemotherapy or anthracycline-based therapy: phase I results of the SAKK 38/08 trial

This phase I trial was designed to develop a new effective and well-tolerated regimen for patients with aggressive B cell lymphoma not eligible for front-line anthracycline-based chemotherapy or aggressive second-line treatment strategies. The combination of rituximab (375 mg/m(2) on day 1), bendamustine (70 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 2), and lenalidomide was tested with a dose escalation of lenalidomide at three dose levels (10, 15, or 20 mg/day) using a 3 + 3 design. Courses were repeated every 4 weeks. The recommended dose was defined as one level below the dose level identifying ≥2/6 patients with a dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) during the first cycle. Thirteen patients were eligible for analysis. Median age was 77 years. WHO performance status was 0 or 1 in 12 patients. The Charlson Comorbidity Index showed relevant comorbidities in all patients. Two DLTs occurred at the second dose level (15 mg/day) within the first cycle: one patient had prolonged grade 3 neutropenia, and one patient experienced grade 4 cardiac adverse event (myocardial infarction). Additional grade 3 and 4 toxicities were as follows: neutropenia (31 %), thrombocytopenia (23 %), cardiac toxicity (31 %), fatigue (15 %), and rash (15 %). The dose of lenalidomide of 10 mg/day was recommended for a subsequent phase II in combination with rituximab 375 mg/m(2) on day 1 and bendamustine 70 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 2.

Phase I trial of combretastatin A4 phosphate (CA4P) in combination with bevacizumab in patients with advanced cancer

The vascular disrupting agent (VDA) combretastatin A4 phosphate (CA4P) induces significant tumor necrosis as a single agent. Preclinical models have shown that the addition of an anti-VEGF antibody to a VDA attenuates the revascularization of the surviving tumor rim and thus significantly increases antitumor activity.

Understanding the Continual Reassessment Method for Dose Finding Studies: An Overview for Non-Statisticians

The Continual Reassessment Method (CRM) has gained popularity since its proposal by O’Quigley et al. [1]. Many variations have been published and discussed in the statistical literature, but there has been little attention to making the design considerations accessible to non-statisticians. As a result, some clinicians or reviewers of clinical trials tend to be wary of the CRM due to safety concerns. This paper presents the CRM in a non-technical way, describing the original CRM with some of its modified versions. It also describes the specifications that define a CRM design, along with two simulated examples of CRMs for illustration.

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.

Somatostatin-based radiotherapy with [90Y-DOTA]-TOC in neuroendocrine tumors: long-term outcome of a phase I dose escalation study

BACKGROUND We describe the long-term outcome after clinical introduction and dose escalation of somatostatin receptor targeted therapy with [90Y-DOTA]-TOC in patients with metastasized neuroendocrine tumors. METHODS In a clinical phase I dose escalation study we treated patients with increasing [90Y-DOTA]-TOC activities. Multivariable Cox regression and competing risk regression were used to compare efficacy and toxicities of the different dosage protocols. RESULTS Overall, 359 patients were recruited; 60 patients were enrolled for low dose (median: 2.4 GBq/cycle, range 0.9-7.8 GBq/cycle), 77 patients were enrolled for intermediate dose (median: 3.3 GBq/cycle, range: 2.0-7.4 GBq/cycle) and 222 patients were enrolled for high dose (median: 6.7 GBq/cycle, range: 3.7-8.1 GBq/cycle) [90Y-DOTA]-TOC treatment. The incidences of hematotoxicities grade 1-4 were 65.0%, 64.9% and 74.8%; the incidences of grade 4/5 kidney toxicities were 8.4%, 6.5% and 14.0%, and the median survival was 39 (range: 1-158) months, 34 (range: 1-118) months and 29 (range: 1-113) months. The high dose protocol was associated with an increased risk of kidney toxicity (Hazard Ratio: 3.12 (1.13-8.59) vs. intermediate dose, p = 0.03) and a shorter overall survival (Hazard Ratio: 2.50 (1.08-5.79) vs. low dose, p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS Increasing [90Y-DOTA]-TOC activities may be associated with increasing hematological toxicities. The dose related hematotoxicity profile of [90Y-DOTA]-TOC could facilitate tailoring [90Y-DOTA]-TOC in patients with preexisting hematotoxicities. The results of the long-term outcome suggest that fractionated [90Y-DOTA]-TOC treatment might allow to reduce renal toxicity and to improve overall survival. (ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT00978211).

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.

Electrochemical simulation of phase I metabolism for 21 drugs using four different working electrodes in an automated screening setup with MS detection.

BACKGROUND Electrochemical conversion of xenobiotics has been shown to mimic human phase I metabolism for a few compounds. MATERIALS & METHODS Twenty-one compounds were analyzed with a semiautomated electrochemical setup and mass spectrometry detection. RESULTS The system was able to mimic some metabolic pathways, such as oxygen gain, dealkylation and deiodination, but many of the expected and known metabolites were not produced. CONCLUSION Electrochemical conversion is a useful approach for the preparative synthesis of some types of metabolites, but as a screening method for unknown phase I metabolites, the method is, in our opinion, inferior to incubation with human liver microsomes and in vivo experiments with laboratory animals, for example.

Treatment with the HIV protease inhibitor Nelfinavir triggers the unfolded protein response and may overcome proteasome inhibitor resistance of multiple myeloma in combination with bortezomib: a phase I trial (SAKK 65/08).

Downregulation of the unfolded protein response mediates proteasome inhibitor resistance in Multiple Myeloma.The Human Immunodeficieny Virus protease inhibitor nelfinavir activates the unfolded protein response in vitro. We determined dose limiting toxicity and recommended dose for phase II of nelfinavir in combination with the proteasome inhibitor bortezomib. 12 patients with advanced hematological malignancies were treated with nelfinavir (2500 - 5000 mg/d p.o., d 1-14, 3+3 dose escalation) and bortezomib (1.3 mg/m2, d 1, 4, 8, 11; 21 day cycles). A run in phase with nelfinavir monotherapy allowed pharmakokinetic/pharmakodynamic assessment of nelfinavir in the presence or absence of concomittant bortezomib. Endpoints included dose limiting toxicity, activation of the unfolded protein response, proteasome activity, toxicity and response to trial treatment. Nelfinavir 2 x 2500 mg was the recommended phase II dose identified. Nelfinavir alone significantly upregulated expression of proteins related to the unfolded protein response in peripheral blood mononuclear cells and inhibited proteasome activity. Of 10 evaluable patients in the dose escalation cohort, 3 achieved a partial response, 4 stable disease for ≥ 2 cycles, while 3 had progressive disease as best response. In an exploratory extension cohort with 6 relapsed, bortezomib-refractory, lenalidomide-resistant myeloma patients treated at the recommended phase II dose, 3 reached a partial response, 2 a minor response and one progressive disease. The combination of nelfinavir with bortezomib is safe and shows promising signals for activity in advanced, bortezomib-refractory MM. Induction of the unfolded protein response by nelfinavir may overcome the biological features of proteasome inhibitor resistance. (Trial registration NCT01164709).

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.^

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.^