Search

Background: Faced with the high cost and limited efficiency of classical randomized controlled trials, researchers are increasingly applying adaptive designs to speed up the development of new drugs. However, the application of adaptive design to drug randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and whether the reporting is adequate are unclear. Thus, this study aimed to summarize the epidemiological characteristics of the relevant trials and assess their reporting quality by the Adaptive designs CONSORT Extension (ACE) checklist., Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to January 2020. We included drug RCTs that explicitly claimed to be adaptive trials or used any type of adaptative design. We extracted the epidemiological characteristics of included studies to summarize their adaptive design application. We assessed the reporting quality of the trials by Adaptive designs CONSORT Extension (ACE) checklist. Univariable and multivariable linear regression models were used to the association of four prespecified factors with the quality of reporting., Results: Our survey included 108 adaptive trials. We found that adaptive design has been increasingly applied over the years, and was commonly used in phase II trials (n = 45, 41.7%). The primary reasons for using adaptive design were to speed the trial and facilitate decision-making (n = 24, 22.2%), maximize the benefit of participants (n = 21, 19.4%), and reduce the total sample size (n = 15, 13.9%). Group sequential design (n = 63, 58.3%) was the most frequently applied method, followed by adaptive randomization design (n = 26, 24.1%), and adaptive dose-finding design (n = 24, 22.2%). The proportion of adherence to the ACE checklist of 26 topics ranged from 7.4 to 99.1%, with eight topics being adequately reported (i.e., level of adherence ≥ 80%), and eight others being poorly reported (i.e., level of adherence ≤ 30%). In addition, among the seven items specific for adaptive trials, three were poorly reported: accessibility to statistical analysis plan (n = 8, 7.4%), measures for confidentiality (n = 14, 13.0%), and assessments of similarity between interim stages (n = 25, 23.1%). The mean score of the ACE checklist was 13.9 (standard deviation [SD], 3.5) out of 26. According to our multivariable regression analysis, later published trials (estimated β = 0.14, p < 0.01) and the multicenter trials (estimated β = 2.22, p < 0.01) were associated with better reporting., Conclusion: Adaptive design has shown an increasing use over the years, and was primarily applied to early phase drug trials. However, the reporting quality of adaptive trials is suboptimal, and substantial efforts are needed to improve the reporting., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

The purpose of this study was to identify key deficiencies in pediatric oncology early phase clinical trial protocols in Germany and to provide guidance for efficient trial protocol development. A systematic review of the response letters of German competent authorities (CAs) and Ethics Committees to phase I/II pediatric oncology trial submissions in the period from 2014 to 2019 was performed. Documents were requested from all five Society for Paediatric Oncology and Haematology in Germany (GPOH) phase I/II trial networks plus all nine German Innovative Therapies for Children with Consortium Cancer (ITCC) centers. A blinded dataset containing aggregated data from 33 studies was analyzed for validation. All deficiencies were reviewed, listed, and weighted using a structured matrix according to frequency, category, significance, and feasibility. In total, documents of 17 trials from 6 different sites were collected. Two hundred fifty deficiencies identified by the CAs were identified and categorized into eight categories. "Toxicity and safety" was the most prominent category (27.6%), followed by "Manufacturing and Import" (18%). The majority of deficiencies were categorized as minor and potential measures as easy to address, but an important group of major and difficult to implement deficiencies was also identified. The blinded validation dataset confirmed these findings. The majority of the EC deficiencies could be resolved by changing the wording in the patient-facing documents. In conclusion, this study was able to detect a pattern of key deficiencies. Most of the shortcomings can be anticipated by minor changes in the protocol and increased awareness can prevent time-consuming revisions, withdrawals, or even rejections. A corresponding guideline describing key regulatory aspects is provided., (© 2021 The Authors. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

The quality and reporting of neuroendocrine tumour (NET) clinical trials has previously been found to be heterogeneous impairing trial interpretability. We aimed to perform an updated review of the quality of phase II/III clinical trials in NET to assess if trial design and reporting have improved since 2011. We performed a PubMed search for phase II/III trials evaluating systemic anticancer therapies or liver-directed therapies published between 2011 and 2018. Data collected comprised administrative data, study population characteristics, endpoints, reporting and statistical design parameters, and results. Sixty studies were included (5218 patients): 50 phase II and 10 phase III trials. Study populations were heterogeneous: 52% of trials allowed tumours from various primary sites, 28% allowed both well- and poorly-differentiated tumour morphology or did not specify, and 57% did not report proliferative indices and/or tumour grade in ≥80% of the study population. Only 36% of trials mandated radiological disease progression on participant enrolment using a validated measure. Statistical design and primary endpoint were clearly defined in 67% and 88% of trials, respectively. Toxicity (88%), radiological response rate (85%) and progression-free survival/time to progression (82%) were well reported in a majority of trials, but health-related quality of life was included in the minority. Of the randomised trials (n = 11), study populations were more homogeneous and study design was more often clearly defined; however, only 45% mandated radiological progression at baseline as measured per Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumours, and reporting of health-related quality of life (55%) remained suboptimal. The design and reporting of NET clinical trials, predominantly of single-arm phase II trials, remains suboptimal and has not considerably improved over time despite the growth in our knowledge of the biology and unique characteristics of NETs. Higher quality is seen in randomised trials, although certain design and reporting elements remain inadequate in some studies. We must prioritise the design and conduct of NET clinical trials to effectively inform future research and guide practice change., (© 2021 British Society for Neuroendocrinology.)

Background: The Fragility Indexquantifies the reliability of positive trials by estimating the number of events, which would change statistically significant results to non-significant results., Methods: We identified randomized trials supporting drug approvals by the US FDA between 2009 and 2019 in lung, breast, prostate, and colon cancers and in melanoma. We reconstructed survival tablesand calculated the number of events, which would result in a non-significant result for the primary endpoint. The FI was then compared to the number of patients in each trial who withdrew consent or were lost to follow-up. Regression analyses were used to explore associations between RCT characteristics and FI and trials in which FI was lower or equal to number of participants who withdrew consent or were lost to follow-up., Results: Among 81 RCTs, the median FI was 28. The median number of patients who withdrew consent or were lost to follow up was 27. FI was equal or lower than the number of patients who withdrew consent or were lost to follow-up in 47 trials (58%). There was a modest increase in FI over time (p = 0.02). Trials with overall survival as the primary endpoint (p = 0.006) and those in the palliative setting (p < 0.001) had lower FI. There was no association with trial sample size or duration of follow-up., Findings: Statistical significance of RCTs in common solid tumours can be reversed often with a small number of additional events. Post-approval RCTs or real-world data analyses should be performed to ensure results of registration trials are robust., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Optimal Phase-II design to evaluate new therapies in refractory/relapsed Ewing sarcomas (ES) remains imperfectly defined., Objectives: Recurrent/refractory ES phase-I/II trials analysis to improve trials design., Methods: Comprehensive review of therapeutic trials registered on five databases (who.int/trialsearch, clinicaltrials.gov, clinicaltrialsregister.eu, e-cancer.fr, and umin.ac.jp) and/or published in PubMed/ASCO/ESMO websites, between 2005 and 2018, using the criterion: (Ewing sarcoma OR bone sarcoma OR sarcoma) AND (Phase-I or Phase-II)., Results: The 146 trials identified (77 phase-I/II, 67 phase-II, and 2 phase-II/III) tested targeted (34%), chemo- (23%), immune therapies (19%), or combined therapies (24%). Twenty-three trials were ES specific and 48 had a specific ES stratum. Usually multicentric (88%), few trials were international (30%). Inclusion criteria cover the recurrent ES age range for only 12% of trials and allowed only accrual of measurable diseases (RECIST criteria). Single-arm design was the most frequent (88%) testing mainly single drugs (61%), only 5% were randomized. Primary efficacy outcome was response rate (RR=CR+PR; Complete+Partial response) (n = 116/146; 79%), rarely progression-free or overall survival (16% PFS and 3% OS). H0 and H1 hypotheses were variable (3%-25% and 20%-50%, respectively). The 62 published trials enrolled 827 ES patients. RR was poor (10%; 15 CR=1.7%, 68 PR=8.3%). Stable disease was the best response for 186 patients (25%). Median PFS/OS was of 1.9 (range 1.3-14.7) and 7.6 months (5-30), respectively. Eleven (18%) published trials were considered positive, with median RR/PFS/OS of 15% (7%-30%), 4.5 (1.3-10), and 16.6 months (6.9-30), respectively., Conclusion: This review supports the need to develop the international randomized phase-II trials across all age ranges with PFS as primary endpoint., (© 2021 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objectives: Understanding trends in characteristics of early phase trials that allow minors with cancer to participate may inform additional efforts to improve cancer drug development for young people., Methods: We accessed data for oncology phase 1 or phase 1/2 trials in the United States from ClinicalTrials.gov with lower age bound for eligibility <18 years. Descriptive statistics were calculated and trends over time evaluated using logistic and multinomial logistic regression., Results: Six hundred twelve trials met inclusion criteria. Sixty-five percent of trials were for older adults that also allowed minors, while 9% were exclusively for patients ≤18 years of age. Eighty-three percent of trials included at least one novel agent, while 17% studied only conventional therapies. Fifty-eight percent of trials studied treatments not yet Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved (48% if exclusively for patients ≤18 years). Fifteen percent of trials for which dose-escalation method could be determined, utilized a model-based design. Eighteen percent of all trials were industry sponsored (48% if exclusively for patients ≤18 years). Forty-nine percent of all trials were multicenter (69% if exclusively for patients ≤18 years). There was an increase in trials exclusively focused on patients with central nervous system (CNS) tumors over the study period (P ≤ .02). No other temporal trends were seen. The median times from first-in-adult to first-in-pediatric for monotherapy and combination trials were 5.7 and 3.3 years, respectively., Conclusion: The paucity of clear temporal trends highlights the need for innovation in early drug development for young people. Our analysis serves as a benchmark against which to evaluate initiatives to improve pediatric cancer drug development., (© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

In drug development, treatments are most often selected at Phase 2 for further development when an initial trial of a new treatment produces a result that is considered positive. This selection due to a positive result means, however, that an estimator of the treatment effect, which does not take account of the selection is likely to over-estimate the true treatment effect (ie, will be biased). This bias can be large and researchers may face a disappointingly lower estimated treatment effect in further trials. In this paper, we review a number of methods that have been proposed to correct for this bias and introduce three new methods. We present results from applying the various methods to two examples and consider extensions of the examples. We assess the methods with respect to bias of estimation of the treatment effect and compare the probabilities that a bias-corrected treatment effect estimate will exceed a decision threshold. Following previous work, we also compare average power for the situation where a Phase 3 trial is launched given that the bias-corrected observed Phase 2 treatment effect exceeds a launch threshold. Finally, we discuss our findings and potential application of the bias correction methods., (© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

The estimated probability of progressing from phase 3 analgesic clinical trials to regulatory approval is approximately 57%, suggesting that a considerable number of treatments with phase 2 trial results deemed sufficiently successful to progress to phase 3 do not yield positive phase 3 results. Deficiencies in the quality of clinical trial conduct could account for some of this failure. An Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials meeting was convened to identify potential areas for improvement in trial conduct in order to improve assay sensitivity (ie, ability of trials to detect a true treatment effect). We present recommendations based on presentations and discussions at the meeting, literature reviews, and iterative revisions of this article. The recommendations relate to the following areas: 1) study design (ie, to promote feasibility), 2) site selection and staff training, 3) participant selection and training, 4) treatment adherence, 5) data collection, and 6) data and study monitoring. Implementation of these recommendations may improve the quality of clinical trial data and thus the validity and assay sensitivity of clinical trials. Future research regarding the effects of these strategies will help identify the most efficient use of resources for conducting high quality clinical trials. PERSPECTIVE: Every effort should be made to optimize the quality of clinical trial data. This manuscript discusses considerations to improve conduct of pain clinical trials based on research in multiple medical fields and the expert consensus of pain researchers and stakeholders from academia, regulatory agencies, and industry., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Immunotherapies have revolutionized cancer treatment. Unlike chemotherapies, immune agents often take longer to show benefit, and the complex and unique mechanism of action of these agents renders the use of multiple endpoints more appropriate in some trials. These new features of immunotherapy make conventional phase II trial designs, which assume a single binary endpoint that is quickly ascertainable, inefficient and dysfunctional., Methods: We propose a flexible and efficient time-to-event Bayesian optimal phase II (TOP) design. The TOP design is efficient in that it allows real-time "go/no-go" interim decision making in the presence of late-onset responses by using all available data and maximizes statistical power for detecting effective treatments. TOP is flexible in the number of interim looks and capable of handling simple and complicated endpoints under a unified framework. We conduct simulation studies to evaluate the operating characteristics of the TOP design., Results: In the considered trial settings, compared to some existing Bayesian designs, the TOP design shortens the trial duration by 4-10 months and improves the power to detect effective treatment up to 90%, with well-controlled type I errors., Conclusions: The TOP design is transparent and easy to implement, as its decision rules can be tabulated and included in the protocol prior to the conduct of the trial. The TOP design provides a flexible, efficient, and easy-to-implement method to accelerate and improve the development of immunotherapies., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Historically, phase II oncology trials assessed a treatment's efficacy by examining its tumor response rate in a single-arm trial. Then, approximately 25 years ago, certain statistical and pharmacological considerations ignited a debate around whether randomized designs should be used instead. Here, based on an extensive literature review, we review the arguments on either side of this debate. In particular, we describe the numerous factors that relate to the reliance of single-arm trials on historical control data and detail the trial scenarios in which there was general agreement on preferential utilization of single-arm or randomized design frameworks, such as the use of single-arm designs when investigating treatments for rare cancers. We then summarize the latest figures on phase II oncology trial design, contrasting current design choices against historical recommendations on best practice. Ultimately, we find several ways in which the design of recently completed phase II trials does not appear to align with said recommendations. For example, despite advice to the contrary, only 66.2% of the assessed trials that employed progression-free survival as a primary or coprimary outcome used a randomized comparative design. In addition, we identify that just 28.2% of the considered randomized comparative trials came to a positive conclusion as opposed to 72.7% of the single-arm trials. We conclude by describing a selection of important issues influencing contemporary design, framing this discourse in light of current trends in phase II, such as the increased use of biomarkers and recent interest in novel adaptive designs., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Introduction: Over the last few decades, numerous late-phase multi-regional clinical trials have been conducted to develop a novel treatment for Alzheimer's disease (AD), with no effective results., Objective: To inform the design and interpretation of future clinical trials, the aim of this study was first to examine the current landscape of late-phase clinical trials to determine key study design characteristics, and then assess the regional variation between Japan and North America for the most utilized clinical efficacy endpoint in the most targeted stage of the disease., Methods: The study design and the mechanism of action of the interventional drugs tested in the late-phase clinical trials initiated in the last 5 years (2014-2018) were assessed based on the records in ClinicalTrials.gov database. The regional variation of the most utilized clinical efficacy endpoint in the most targeted population was assessed using data from two similarly designed observational studies conducted in Japan (Japanese Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative, J-ADNI) and North America (Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative, ADNI). For the most utilized clinical efficacy endpoint, the change from baseline (CFB) at Month 6, Year 1 and Year 2 was estimated using the growth curve model with a random intercept and slope, including gender as a fixed factor and age, apolipoprotein E ε4 genotype and years of education as covariates., Results: Of 48 Phase III trials that were initiated during the study period, 25 were disease-modifying treatment trials in which individuals with early AD were the most studied (56%) and Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) was the most frequently utilized primary clinical efficacy endpoint (64%). The baseline characteristics of the early AD population between J-ADNI and ADNI were generally comparable, except for years of education. When comparing CDR-SB in early AD, J-ADNI had generally better baseline scores and the overall progression was similar (CFB at Year 2, ADNI 2.7 and J-ADNI 2.3, p = 0.190), despite slower progression in functional domains (CFB at Year 2, ADNI 1.4 and J-ADNI 1.0, p = 0.031)., Conclusion: Over the years, the target population has shifted toward early stage of the disease, wherein the clinical progression is slower and difficult to measure. Moreover, our results suggest that regional variation could have an impact on functional measurements due to cultural differences in pivotal clinical trials. Therefore, caution should be exercised according to the characteristics of the endpoint used.

Background: In the era of molecularly targeted agents (MTAs), it is recommended to account for toxicity over several cycles to identify the recommended phase II dose (RP2D). We investigated the relationship between the risk of toxicity at cycle 1 and the cumulative incidence of toxicity over subsequent cycles in trials of single MTAs., Methods: On individual patient data from 26 phase I clinical trials of single MTAs provided by the National Cancer Institute, we estimated the probability of first-severe toxicity per treatment cycle as well as the cumulative incidence at, below, and above the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). Toxicity was further subclassified into nonhematologic and hematologic. A prediction table was developed to estimate the cumulative incidence up to six cycles based on the toxicity rate observed in the first cycle., Results: Overall, 942 patients were included. For patients treated at the MTD, the probability of first-severe toxicity decreased from 24.8% (95% prediction interval [PI] = 20.3% to 32.9%) to 2.2% (95% PI = 0.1% to 7.7%) from cycle 1 to 6, whereas the cumulative incidence of toxicity reached 51.7% (95% PI = 40.5% to 66.3%) after six cycles. Toxicity rates ranging from 20.0% to 30.0% in the first cycle were associated with 46.8% (95% PI = 39.5% to 54.2%) and 65.8% (95% PI = 57.7% to 73.1%) cumulative incidence after six cycles., Conclusion: This study examined the risk of severe toxicity over time of single MTAs. The cumulative incidence of toxicity at the MTD was higher than the usually accepted toxicity targets, challenging the definition of the RP2D of MTAs. The prediction table may help calibrate the target rate at the RP2D., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Purpose: We aimed to determine whether treatment effect size differed between randomised controlled phase II trials and subsequent phase III trials and examine potential predictor of positive phase III trials., Methods: We searched MEDLINE for randomised controlled phase II studies published from January 2006 to December 2015. Matched phase III trials that investigated same intervention in the same setting of the same cancer were identified through Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov and conference proceedings. For each pair of phase II and phase III trials, we extracted hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for both overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) and evaluated the differences by ratio of HRs (rHRs): the HR for phase II trial to that for phase III trial. A summary rHR was obtained through a random-effect meta-analysis. Univariable analyses were conducted to identify predictors of positive phase III trials., Results: We identified 57 pairs of phase II and phase III trials. Compared with phase III trials, treatment effect sizes of PFS were, on average, 26% larger in phase II trials (rHR = 0.74, P < 0.001, 95% CI: 0.68-0.80). Treatment effect sizes of OS were 27% greater in phase II trials than in phase III trials (rHR = 0.73, P < 0.001, 95% CI: 0.66-0.79). Fifteen (26.3%) phase III trials were positive, and the only predictor of positive phase III trials was positive phase II trials CONCLUSION: Treatment effects in randomised controlled phase II trials were greater than those in matched phase III trials. Caution must be taken when interpreting promising results from randomised controlled phase II trials., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Progress in and better understanding of cancer biology causes a shift in cancer drug development: away from the evaluation of drugs in large tumour histology defined patient populations towards targeted agents in increasingly heterogeneous molecularly defined subpopulations. This requires novel approaches in clinical trial design by academia and industry, and development of new assessment tools by regulatory authorities. Pharmaceutical industry is developing new targeted agents generating many clinical studies, including target combinations. This requires improved operational efficiency by development of innovative trial designs, strategies for early-stage decision making and early selection of candidate drugs with a high likelihood of success. In addition, patient awareness and ethical considerations necessitate that agents will be rapidly available to patients. Regulatory Authorities such as the European Medicine Agency and national agencies recognise that these changes require a different attitude towards benefit-risk analysis for drug approval. The gold standard of randomised confirmatory Phase III trials is not always ethical or feasible when developing drugs for treatment of small cancer populations. Alternative strategies comprise accelerated approval via conditional marketing approval, which can be granted in the EU based on small non-randomised Phase II trials. The paper describes innovative trial designs with their pros and cons and efforts of pharmaceutical industry and regulatory authorities to deal with the paradigm shift. Furthermore, all stakeholders should continue to share their experiences and discuss problems in order to understand the position and concerns of the other stakeholders to learn from each other and to progress the field of novel oncology clinical trial design., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Diary-derived symptom score and rescue medication use endpoints, such as symptom-free days (SFDs) and rescue medication-free days (RFD), are frequently used as clinical trial endpoints. Estimates of meaningful change for SFDs and RFDs have not been generated in pediatric populations. This research aimed to generate evidence supporting estimates of the individual within-patient changes that constitute an important or meaningful change in SFDs, RFDs, and updated estimates on the Childhood Asthma Control Test (C-ACT) in pediatric asthma populations aged 5-11 years., Methods: Semistructured, qualitative interviews were conducted with children (ages 8-11 years) who had asthma and parents/caregivers of children (4-11 years) with asthma. Before the interview (4-9 days) participants were asked to complete a morning and evening diary., Results: On average, parent/caregiver estimates of the difference in SFDs between a "very bad" and a "little bad" week for their children's asthma were largely concordant with the values reported by their children (differences of 1.8 and 1.4 SFDs, respectively). Both parents/caregivers and children were able to articulate what a meaningful level of change would be on the C-ACT at the item level. This qualitative study generated C-ACT item-level meaningful change estimates in the region of 1-3 category change, which potentially suggests that, if scaled up to represent C-ACT total score, this would lead to change estimates of 7-15 points., Conclusions: Our findings suggest that both children with asthma and parents/caregivers can quantitatively estimate and to some extent qualitatively articulate meaningful change in SFDs and RFDs., (Copyright © 2019 ISPOR–The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The importance of implementing paediatric clinical trials for neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) in compliance with the Good Clinical Practices of the International Conference of Harmonisation (ICH-GCP) and other applicable regulatory and ethics guidelines is increasingly being recognised as an essential pathway to provide safe and effective medicines for millions of untreated children living in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). This paper describes the learnings and challenges faced by the Pediatric Praziquantel Consortium team during the implementation of an industry-sponsored Phase II clinical study in pre-school-aged children infected with schistosomiasis, conducted in remote rural settings in Côte d'Ivoire. The importance of close interactions with the ethics committee, the regulatory and administrative authorities and the rural communities are highlighted. The difficulties faced included obtaining a valid informed consent from the child's parent or guardian, the collection of blood samples from children during the study while respecting cultural beliefs as well as the weak medical research infrastructure. The paper illustrates how a public-private collaborative partnership can promote capacity-building and high-quality NTD paediatric clinical research in SSA., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The emergence of the Zika virus (ZIKV) in Latin America in 2015-2016 led to an expeditious search for vaccine candidates, with a DNA-based candidate having progressed to Phase II. However, several features of ZIKV infection and epidemiology are not understood, which may be key to maximizing efficacy and ensuring safety of ZIKV vaccines., Areas Covered: Conceivable problems related to vaccine development and policy include: (1) paucity of diagnostics to satisfactorily discriminate between past ZIKV and dengue virus (DENV) exposure; (2) insufficient knowledge of the mechanisms of ZIKV neurovirulence, amongst other unknowns in the biology of this infection, is particularly relevant from a vaccine safety perspective; and (3) the potential for disease enhancement, as observed with DENV infection and vaccine., Expert Opinion: Vaccine candidates that entered phase I/II trials have demonstrated protection in naïve animal models, while ZIKV epidemics occurred in populations that had encountered DENV before. The resulting cross-reactive antibodies pose problems for reliable serologic diagnostic assays, and for the potential of disease enhancement. The alleged neurological complications also warrant further exploration in order to reassure regulators of the safety profile of these vaccines in target populations. These research aspects should be an integral part of the efforts to develop a vaccine.

With few notable exceptions, drug development for heart failure (HF) has become progressively more challenging, and there remain no definitively proven therapies for patients with acute HF or HF with preserved ejection fraction. Inspection of temporal trends suggests an increasing rate of disagreement between early-phase and phase III trial end points. Preliminary results from phase II HF trials are frequently promising, but increasingly followed by disappointing phase III results. Given this potential disconnect, it is reasonable to carefully re-evaluate the purpose, design, and execution of phase II HF trials, with particular attention directed toward the surrogate end points commonly used by these studies. In this review, we offer a critical reappraisal of the role of phase II HF trials and surrogate end points, highlighting challenges in their use and interpretation, lessons learned from past experiences, and specific strengths and weaknesses of various surrogate outcomes. We conclude by proposing a series of approaches that should be considered for the goal of optimizing the efficiency of HF drug development. This review is based on discussions between scientists, clinical trialists, industry and government sponsors, and regulators that took place at the Cardiovascular Clinical Trialists Forum in Washington, DC, on December 2, 2016.

Background: It is increasingly recognized that older adults with cancer represent a diverse cohort of patients and that other comorbidities may have an equal impact on survival and quality of life as any diagnosis of malignancy. Competing risk has consequently emerged as an important concept in the design and reporting of geriatric oncology trials., Methods: We performed a systematic review of phase II and III oncology trials for systemic therapy in older patients with solid organ malignancy from the year 2000 until April 30, 2017. Forty-one trials including 7864 patients were identified for evaluation., Results: Only 15 trials (36.6%) employed disease-related end points to account for death from other causes, and only one study used statistical analysis that addressed competing risk. Seventeen studies (41.5%) of trials included some assessment of comorbidity or frailty. Twenty-one trials (51.2%) included any assessment of quality of life., Conclusions: This review demonstrates clear areas for improvement for future studies and highlights the need for careful consideration of trial design, data collection, and appropriate statistical methodology for reporting of competing risks in geriatric oncology trials.

Objective: To describe the current state of knowledge concerning the quality of reporting in phase II clinical trials in oncology and to describe the various methods published allowing this quality evaluation., Methods: databases including MEDLINE and COCHRANE were searched. Reviews and meta-analyses analyzing the quality of the reporting of phase II trials in oncology were included. Descriptive analysis of the results was performed., Results: Thirteen publications were retained. Only 2 publications adopted a systematic approach of evaluation of the quality of reporting by overall scores. The Key Methodological Score (KMS), proposed by Grellety et al., gathering 3 items, seemed adapted for such an evaluation. A score of 3/3 was found in 16.1% of the 156 phase II trials analysed by this score. The other reviews used a qualitative analysis to evaluate the reporting, via an analysis of a single criterion, generally the statistical plan of the study. This item was considered as having been correctly reported in less than 50% of the analysed articles., Conclusion: The quality of reporting in phase II trials in oncology is a field that has been investigated very little (13 publications). When it is studied, the estimated level of quality is not satisfactory, whatever the method employed. The use of an overall score of evaluation is a path which should be pursued, in order to get reliable results. It also seems necessary to propose strong recommendations, which would create a consensus for the methodology and the reporting of these studies., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Conventional phase I algorithms for finding a phase-2 recommended dose (P2RD) based on toxicity alone is problematic because the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) is not necessarily the optimal dose with the most desirable risk-benefit trade-off. Moreover, the increasingly common practice of treating an expansion cohort at a chosen MTD has undesirable consequences that may not be obvious., Patients and Methods: We review the phase I-II paradigm and the EffTox design, which utilizes both efficacy and toxicity to choose optimal doses for successive patient cohorts and find the optimal P2RD. We conduct a computer simulation study to compare the performance of the EffTox design with the traditional 3 + 3 design and the continuous reassessment method., Results: By accounting for the risk-benefit trade-off, the EffTox phase I-II design overcomes the limitations of conventional toxicity-based phase I designs. Numerical simulations show that the EffTox design has higher probabilities of identifying the optimal dose and treats more patients at the optimal dose., Conclusions: Phase I-II designs, such as the EffTox design, provide a coherent and efficient approach to finding the optimal P2RD by explicitly accounting for risk-benefit trade-offs underlying medical decisions.

Purpose: Evaluate the association between the use of phase I expansion cohorts (ECs) and drug performance in phase II as well as time to approval by the FDA. Experimental Design: We performed a systematic search of MEDLINE for single-agent dose-finding adult oncology phase I trials published in 2006 to 2011 and subsequent phase II trials. Successful phase II trials were those that met their primary endpoints. Dates of approval were obtained from the Drugs@FDA website in April 2014. A logistic regression model was used to determine the associations between variables and success in phase II. Results: We identified 533 phase I trials evaluating 381 drugs; 112 drugs had at least one phase I trial with an expansion cohort. Phase I trials with expansion cohorts of two to 20 patients were associated with a higher rate of successful phase II trials than those with no expansion cohort [48% vs. 27%; OR, 2.1; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.1-4.0; P = 0.037]. Phase II success rates were the same for expansion cohort with two to 20 and more than 20 patients (48% vs. 52%). Other positive associations were disease-specific trials (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.0-2.9; P = 0.037), industry sponsorship (OR, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.5-5.7; P = 0.0024), and response rate of 6% to 20% (OR, 2.89; 95% CI, 1.6-5.2; P = 0.0007). Drugs tested in phase I trials with expansion cohorts had a higher rate of 5-year approval (19% vs. 5%; HR, 4.4; 95% CI, 2.2-8.8; P < 0.001). Conclusions: The use of expansion cohorts in phase I trials was associated with success of subsequent phase II trials. However, confounders may play a role in this association. Clin Cancer Res; 23(15); 4020-6. ©2017 AACR ., (©2017 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: The application of adaptive design methodology within a clinical trial setting is becoming increasingly popular. However the application of these methods within trials is not being reported as adaptive designs hence making it more difficult to capture the emerging use of these designs. Within this review, we aim to understand how adaptive design methodology is being reported, whether these methods are explicitly stated as an 'adaptive design' or if it has to be inferred and to identify whether these methods are applied prospectively or concurrently., Methods: Three databases; Embase, Ovid and PubMed were chosen to conduct the literature search. The inclusion criteria for the review were phase II, phase III and phase II/III randomised controlled trials within the field of Oncology that published trial results in 2015. A variety of search terms related to adaptive designs were used., Results: A total of 734 results were identified, after screening 54 were eligible. Adaptive designs were more commonly applied in phase III confirmatory trials. The majority of the papers performed an interim analysis, which included some sort of stopping criteria. Additionally only two papers explicitly stated the term 'adaptive design' and therefore for most of the papers, it had to be inferred that adaptive methods was applied. Sixty-five applications of adaptive design methods were applied, from which the most common method was an adaptation using group sequential methods., Conclusions: This review indicated that the reporting of adaptive design methodology within clinical trials needs improving. The proposed extension to the current CONSORT 2010 guidelines could help capture adaptive design methods. Furthermore provide an essential aid to those involved with clinical trials.

The increasing burden and the continued suboptimal outcomes for patients with heart failure underlines the importance of continued research to develop novel therapeutics for this disorder. This can only be accomplished with successful translation of basic science discoveries into direct human application through effective clinical trial design and execution that results in a substantially improved clinical course and outcomes. In this respect, phase II clinical trials play a pivotal role in determining which of the multitude of potential basic science discoveries should move to the large and expansive registration trials in humans. A critical examination of the phase II trials in heart failure reveals multiple shortcomings in their concept, design, execution, and interpretation. To further a dialogue on the challenges and potential for improvement and the role of phase II trials in patients with heart failure, the Food and Drug Administration facilitated a meeting on October 17, 2016, represented by clinicians, researchers, industry members, and regulators. This document summarizes the discussion from this meeting and provides key recommendations for future directions., (© 2017 American Heart Association, Inc.)

In many randomized controlled trials, the primary analysis focuses on the average treatment effect and does not address whether treatment benefits are widespread or limited to a select few. This problem affects many disease areas, since it stems from how randomized trials, often the gold standard for evaluating treatments, are designed and analyzed. Our goal is to learn about the fraction who benefit from a new treatment using randomized trial data. We consider the case where the outcome is ordinal, with binary outcomes as a special case. In general, the fraction who benefit is non-identifiable, and the best that can be obtained are sharp lower and upper bounds. Our contributions include (i) proving the plug-in estimator of the bounds can be inconsistent if support restrictions are made on the joint distribution of the potential outcomes; (ii) developing the first consistent estimator for this case; and (iii) applying this estimator to a randomized trial of a medical treatment to determine whether the estimates can be informative. Our estimator is computed using linear programming, allowing fast implementation. R code is provided., (© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

In spite of the marketing of numerous new antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), their real-life effectiveness has often been disappointing. We therefore retrospectively investigated how many adult patients with drug-resistant epilepsy would have been potential candidates for the last five phase II and III trials that have been performed at our center. Out of a group of 216 consecutively collected patients, only 18 (8.3%) would have been acceptable for recruitment. Treatment with enzyme-inducing AEDs or concomitant medications (47.2%), too few seizures during a baseline period (41.7%), and EEGs showing a pattern not consistent with a diagnosis of focal epilepsy (e.g. generalized spike-wave) (31.5%) were the leading exclusion criteria. If only one criterion prevented recruitment, too few seizures during the baseline period and treatment with enzyme-inducing medications were the most frequent limitations for potential recruitment. Due to the limiting inclusion and exclusion factors of clinical AED trials, only a small fraction of patients with drug-resistant epilepsy is suitable. When new AEDs have passed such trials and are introduced, we have no information about the potential efficacy and tolerability in >90% of our patients with AED-resistant epilepsies. This may be one reason for the disappointing efficacy of many new AEDs after launch., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Although many phase I trials report tumor response, formal analysis of efficacy is deferred to phase II. We reviewed paired phase I and II pediatric oncology trials to ascertain the relationship between phase I and II objective response rate (OR%). Single-agent phase I trials were paired with corresponding phase II trials (comparable study drug, dosing schedule, and population). Phase I trials without efficacy data or a matching phase II trial were excluded. OR% was tabulated for all trials, and phase II authors' subjective conclusions regarding efficacy were documented; 35 pairs of trials were analyzed. The correlation between phase I and II OR% was 0.93. Between phase II studies with a "positive" conclusion versus a "negative" one, there was a statistically significant difference in mean phase I OR% (32.0% vs. 4.5%, P<0.001). Thirteen phase II studies were undertaken despite phase I OR% of 0%; only 1 had a "positive" conclusion, and none exceeded OR% of 15%. OR% are highly correlated between phase I and II pediatric oncology trials. Although not a formal measure of drug efficacy, phase I OR% may provide an estimate of phase II response, inform phase II study design, and should be given greater consideration.

In Phase II oncology trials, therapies are increasingly being evaluated for their effectiveness in specific populations of interest. Such targeted trials require designs that allow for stratification based on the participants' molecular characterisation. A targeted design proposed by Jones and Holmgren (JH) Jones CL, Holmgren E: 'An adaptive Simon two-stage design for phase 2 studies of targeted therapies', Contemporary Clinical Trials 28 (2007) 654-661.determines whether a drug only has activity in a disease sub-population or in the wider disease population. Their adaptive design uses results from a single interim analysis to decide whether to enrich the study population with a subgroup or not; it is based on two parallel Simon two-stage designs. We study the JH design in detail and extend it by providing a few alternative ways to control the familywise error rate, in the weak sense as well as the strong sense. We also introduce a novel optimal design by minimising the expected sample size. Our extended design contributes to the much needed framework for conducting Phase II trials in stratified medicine. © 2016 The Authors Pharmaceutical Statistics Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd., (© 2016 The Authors Pharmaceutical Statistics Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Purpose: To update a key recommendation of the American Society of Clinical Oncology antiemetic guideline. This update addresses the use of the oral combination of netupitant (a neurokinin 1 [NK1] receptor antagonist) and palonosetron (a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 [5-HT3] receptor antagonist) for the prevention of acute and delayed nausea and vomiting in patients receiving chemotherapy., Methods: An update committee conducted a targeted systematic literature review and identified two phase III clinical trials and a randomized phase II dose-ranging study., Results: In one phase III trial, the oral combination of netupitant and palonosetron was associated with higher complete response rates (no emesis and no rescue medications) compared with palonosetron alone in patients treated with anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide chemotherapy (74% v 67% overall; P = .001). In another phase III trial, the oral combination of netupitant and palonosetron was safe and effective across multiple cycles of moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapies. In the phase II dose-ranging study, each dose of netupitant (coadministered with palonosetron 0.50 mg) produced higher complete response rates than palonosetron alone among patients receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy. The highest dose of netupitant (ie, 300 mg) was most effective., Recommendations: All patients who receive highly emetogenic chemotherapy regimens (including anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide) should be offered a three-drug combination of an NK1 receptor antagonist, a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, and dexamethasone. The oral combination of netupitant and palonosetron plus dexamethasone is an additional treatment option in this setting. The remaining recommendations from the 2011 ASCO guideline are unchanged pending a full update. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/guidelines/antiemetics and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki., (© 2015 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Background: In a recent phase 2 clinical trial in spinocerebellar ataxia type 3/Machado Joseph disease (SCA3/MJD), a neurogenetic disorder without specific therapy, benefits of lithium carbonate were found only on secondary efficacy outcomes, all related to ataxic features. In order to help designing future studies, we further analyzed the trial data searching for treatment response modifiers and metric properties of spinocerebellar ataxia (SCA) scales., Methods: Efficacy analysis was performed with the Neurological Examination Score for the Assessment of Spinocerebellar Ataxia (NESSCA) and the Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia (SARA) subscores and with the subgroup of patients with independent gait according to the 8-meter walking-time (8MW). Interactions of clinical/molecular findings with treatment response, minimally important differences (MIDs), and sample size estimations for NESSCA, SARA, Spinocerebellar Ataxia Functional Index (SCAFI) and Composite Cerebellar Functional Score (CCFS) were evaluated., Results: 62 SCA3/MJD patients had been randomly assigned (1:1) for the double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. While cerebellar NESSCA (range: 0-7 points) differed between groups 0.64 points (95% CI 0.23 to 1.05, p<0.001) over the whole 48weeks of study, favoring lithium, no effect was found on non-ataxia subscores. Among patients able to perform the 8MW on baseline, NESSCA (p=0.010) and SCAFI (p=0.015) differed between groups favoring lithium. Finally, estimated sample sizes for the scales were provided., Conclusion: Lithium efficacy on cerebellar NESSCA, and on SCAFI and CCFS in the primary analysis, together with the lack of effect on non-ataxia features suggests that lithium should be tested in phase 3 trials in SCA3/MJD and that ataxia scales should be preferred to multisystem neurological instruments as the primary outcome. The inclusion of early stage patients is advisable in future clinical trials in SCA3/MJD., Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01096082., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Tuberculosis (TB) remains a major killer amongst the infectious diseases. Current treatment involves a four-drug regimen for at least 6 months. New drugs and regimens are required to shorten treatment duration, reduce toxicity and combat drug resistance, but the optimal methodology to define the critical path for novel regimens is not well defined. We undertook a systematic review to summarise outcomes reported in Phase II trials of patients with newly diagnosed pulmonary TB to assess the need for a core outcome set. A systematic search of databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE and LILACs) was conducted on 1 May 2015 to retrieve relevant peer-reviewed articles. Reference lists of included studies were also searched. This systematic review considered all reported outcomes. Risk of bias was considered via sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, reasons for exclusions, and selective reporting. Of 55 included studies, 20 were Phase IIB studies based on culture conversion, 32 were Phase IIA studies based on quantitative bacteriology, and three considered alternative outcomes. Large variation in reported outcomes and trial characteristics was observed across the included studies. Bacteriological results were as often expressed in terms of positivity as negativity, with varying definitions of culture conversion. Variation in reporting was particularly marked for Phase IIA studies, where multiple time intervals were typically selected for analysis and sometimes resulted in differing interpretations of the efficacy of drugs or regimens. Within both Phase IIA and IIB studies, there was variation in the time points at which the study participants were sampled, as well as in the bacteriological media and methods used. For successful future meta-analysis of early-phase studies, the findings of this review suggest that development of a core outcome set would be desirable. This would enable trial results to be more easily compared and combined, potentially leading to more effective development of new treatment strategies for patients with TB. Pending development of, and agreement on, such a core outcome set, we suggest some interim recommendations for reporting of future phase II studies of pulmonary tuberculosis.

Developing a successful treatment for alopecia areata (AA), clearly has not been at the forefront of the agenda for new drug/device development among the pharmaceutical and medical device industry. The National Alopecia Areata Foundation (NAAF), a patient advocacy group, initiated a plan to facilitate and drive clinical research toward finding safe and efficacious treatments for AA. As such, Alopecia Areata Uniform Protocols for clinical trials to test new treatments for AA were developed. The design of the uniform protocol is to accomplish the development of a plug-and-play template as well as to provide a framework wherein data from studies utilizing the uniform protocol can be compared through consistency of inclusions/exclusions, safety, and outcome assessment measures. A core uniform protocol for use by pharmaceutical companies in testing proof of concept for investigational products to treat AA. The core protocol includes standardized title, informed consent, inclusion/exclusion criteria, disease outcome assessments, and safety assessments. The statistical methodology to assess successful outcomes will also be standardized. The protocol as well as the informed consent form has been approved in concept by Liberty IRB and is ready to present to pharmaceutical companies.

Background and Aim: The primary aim of this study was to determine whether randomised phase 2 (RP2) trials predict phase 3 trial outcome better than single arm phase 2 (SAP2) studies. Although theoretical superiority of RP2 trials has been postulated, no empiric studies have been conducted., Methods: Published phase 3 trials testing systemic cancer therapy were identified through a Medline search. Those of superiority design, which cited phase 2 trials supporting the experimental arm, were included. Trial design and outcome details were extracted. Statistical analysis was performed using the Generalized Estimating Equation method correlating phase 2 features with phase 3 outcome, accounting for any phase 3 duplication., Results: Of 189 eligible phase 3 trials, 18.5% were in haematological malignancies and 81.5% in solid tumors. The primary outcome was positive in 79 (41.8%). These were supported by 336 phase 2 trials (range 1-9 per phase 3 trial) including 66 RP2 trials. Positive phase 2 outcome, randomised or not, correlated with positive phase 3 outcome (p=0.03). RP2 studies were not superior to SAP2 studies at predicting phase 3 study success. Phase 2 trial features not predictive of phase 3 outcome included primary endpoint, sponsorship, sample size, similarity in patient population and therapy., Conclusions: RP2 studies were not superior to SAP2 trials at predicting phase 3 study success. Further research into phase 2 trial design is required given the added resources required to conduct RP2 studies and the lack of empiric evidence supporting superiority over single arm studies., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

For phase II oncology trials, Simon's two-stage design is the most commonly used strategy. However, when clinically unevaluable patients occur, the total number of patients included at each stage differs from what was initially planned. Such situations raise concerns about the operating characteristics of the trial design. This paper evaluates three classical ad hoc strategies and a novel one proposed in this work for handling unevaluable patients. This latter is called the rescue strategy which adapts the critical stopping rules to the number of unevaluable patients at each stage without modifying the planned sample size. blue Simulations show that none of these strategies perfectly match the original target constraints for type I and II error rates. Our rescue strategy is nevertheless the one which best approaches the target error rates requirement. A re-analysis of one real phase II clinical trials on metastatic cancer illustrates the use of the proposed strategy.

Phase II studies in oncology are frequently conducted as two-stage single-arm trials with a binary endpoint indicating tumor response. As a common feature of these designs, the sample sizes of the two stages and the decision rules for the interim and the final analysis have to be pre-specified and adhered to strictly during the course of the trial in order to assure control of the type I error rate. In practice, however, the attained sample sizes often deviate from the planned ones leading to the situation of overrunning or underrunning. The currently available approaches to deal with this problem are either based on assumptions that are rarely met in practice or do not guarantee that the significance level is kept. However, strict control of the type I error rate plays an important role also for single-arm cancer trials, as they are frequently a fundamental part of the registration information. We propose a general methodology that allows handling both unintentional and intentional overrunning and underrunning while strictly controlling the type I error rate. Application of the proposed procedure and some of its characteristics are illustrated with a real phase II oncology trial., (Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

We develop a new modeling approach to enhance a recently proposed method to detect increases of contrast-enhancing lesions (CELs) on repeated magnetic resonance imaging, which have been used as an indicator for potential adverse events in multiple sclerosis clinical trials. The method signals patients with unusual increases in CEL activity by estimating the probability of observing CEL counts as large as those observed on a patient's recent scans conditional on the patient's CEL counts on previous scans. This conditional probability index (CPI), computed based on a mixed-effect negative binomial regression model, can vary substantially depending on the choice of distribution for the patient-specific random effects. Therefore, we relax this parametric assumption to model the random effects with an infinite mixture of beta distributions, using the Dirichlet process, which effectively allows any form of distribution. To our knowledge, no previous literature considers a mixed-effect regression for longitudinal count variables where the random effect is modeled with a Dirichlet process mixture. As our inference is in the Bayesian framework, we adopt a meta-analytic approach to develop an informative prior based on previous clinical trials. This is particularly helpful at the early stages of trials when less data are available. Our enhanced method is illustrated with CEL data from 10 previous multiple sclerosis clinical trials. Our simulation study shows that our procedure estimates the CPI more accurately than parametric alternatives when the patient-specific random effect distribution is misspecified and that an informative prior improves the accuracy of the CPI estimates., (Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Objective: The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement requires detailed reporting of interventions for randomized controlled trials. We hypothesized that there was variable reporting of chemotherapy compliance in published randomized controlled trials in breast cancer, and therefore surveyed the literature to assess this parameter and determine the study characteristics associated with reporting quality., Methods: Published Phase III randomized controlled trials (January 2005-December 2011; English language) evaluating chemotherapy in breast cancer were identified through a systematic literature search. Articles scored 1 point each for reporting of the four measures: number of chemotherapy cycles, dose modification, early treatment discontinuation and relative dose intensity. Logistic regression identified study characteristics associated with reporting quality score of ≥ 2., Results: Of the 115 eligible randomized controlled trials, 79 (69%) were published in high-impact journals, 66 (57%) were published since 2008, 43 (37%) reported advanced-stage disease and 37 (32%) were industry sponsored. Relative dose intensity, number of cycles, dose modification and early treatment discontinuation were reported in 70 (61%), 53 (46%), 65 (57%) and 81 (70%) articles, respectively. Eighty-two (71%) articles showed a quality score of ≥ 2; 25 (22%) articles reported all four compliance measures. Articles published since 2008 (P = 0.035) and those reporting advanced-stage disease (P < 0.001) showed significantly higher quality of compliance., Conclusions: Our results demonstrate variable reporting of chemotherapy compliance in published randomized controlled trials with a modest improvement noted in recent years. Incorporating standards for reporting chemotherapy compliance in scientific guidelines or the journal peer review process may decrease the variability and improve the quality of reporting., (© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

We consider seamless phase II/III clinical trials that compare K treatments with a common control in phase II then test the most promising treatment against control in phase III. The final hypothesis test for the selected treatment can use data from both phases, subject to controlling the familywise type I error rate. We show that the choice of method for conducting the final hypothesis test has a substantial impact on the power to demonstrate that an effective treatment is superior to control. To understand these differences in power, we derive decision rules maximizing power for particular configurations of treatment effects. A rule with such an optimal frequentist property is found as the solution to a multivariate Bayes decision problem. The optimal rules that we derive depend on the assumed configuration of treatment means. However, we are able to identify two decision rules with robust efficiency: a rule using a weighted average of the phase II and phase III data on the selected treatment and control, and a closed testing procedure using an inverse normal combination rule and a Dunnett test for intersection hypotheses. For the first of these rules, we find the optimal division of a given total sample size between phases II and III. We also assess the value of using phase II data in the final analysis and find that for many plausible scenarios, between 50% and 70% of the phase II numbers on the selected treatment and control would need to be added to the phase III sample size in order to achieve the same increase in power. © 2014 The Authors. Statistics in Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd., (© 2014 The Authors. Statistics in Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Interim monitoring is routinely conducted in phase II clinical trials to terminate the trial early if the experimental treatment is futile. Interim monitoring requires that patients' responses be ascertained shortly after the initiation of treatment so that the outcomes are known by the time the interim decision must be made. However, in some cases, response outcomes require a long time to be assessed, which causes difficulties for interim monitoring. To address this issue, we propose a Bayesian trial design to allow for continuously monitoring phase II clinical trials in the presence of delayed responses. We treat the delayed responses as missing data and handle them using a multiple imputation approach. Extensive simulations show that the proposed design yields desirable operating characteristics under various settings and dramatically reduces the trial duration., (Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: Since the first methodological publications on adaptive study design approaches in the 1990s, the application of these approaches in drug development has raised increasing interest among academia, industry and regulators. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) as well as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have published guidance documents addressing the potentials and limitations of adaptive designs in the regulatory context. Since there is limited experience in the implementation and interpretation of adaptive clinical trials, early interaction with regulators is recommended. The EMA offers such interactions through scientific advice and protocol assistance procedures., Methods: We performed a text search of scientific advice letters issued between 1 January 2007 and 8 May 2012 that contained relevant key terms. Letters containing questions related to adaptive clinical trials in phases II or III were selected for further analysis. From the selected letters, important characteristics of the proposed design and its context in the drug development program, as well as the responses of the Committee for Human Medicinal Products (CHMP)/Scientific Advice Working Party (SAWP), were extracted and categorized. For 41 more recent procedures (1 January 2009 to 8 May 2012), additional details of the trial design and the CHMP/SAWP responses were assessed. In addition, case studies are presented as examples., Results: Over a range of 5½ years, 59 scientific advices were identified that address adaptive study designs in phase II and phase III clinical trials. Almost all were proposed as confirmatory phase III or phase II/III studies. The most frequently proposed adaptation was sample size reassessment, followed by dropping of treatment arms and population enrichment. While 12 (20%) of the 59 proposals for an adaptive clinical trial were not accepted, the great majority of proposals were accepted (15, 25%) or conditionally accepted (32, 54%). In the more recent 41 procedures, the most frequent concerns raised by CHMP/SAWP were insufficient justifications of the adaptation strategy, type I error rate control and bias., Conclusions: For the majority of proposed adaptive clinical trials, an overall positive opinion was given albeit with critical comments. Type I error rate control, bias and the justification of the design are common issues raised by the CHMP/SAWP.

Purpose: To date, response criteria and optimal methods for assessment of outcome have not been standardized in patients with leptomeningeal metastasis (LM)., Methods: A Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology working group of experts in LM critically reviewed published literature regarding randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and trial design in patients with LM., Results: A literature review determined that 6 RCTs regarding the treatment of LM have been published, all of which assessed the response to intra-CSF based chemotherapy. Amongst these RCTs, only a single trial attempted to determine whether intra-CSF chemotherapy was of benefit compared with systemic therapy. Otherwise, this pragmatic question has not been formally addressed in patients with solid cancers and LM. The methodology of the 6 RCTs varied widely with respect to pretreatment evaluation, type of treatment, and response to treatment. Additionally there was little uniformity in reporting of treatment-related toxicity. One RCT suggests no advantage of combined versus single-agent intra-CSF chemotherapy in patients with LM. No specific intra-CSF regimen has shown superior efficacy in the treatment of LM, with the exception of liposomal cytarabine in patients with lymphomatous meningitis. Problematic with all RCTs is the lack of standardization with respect to response criteria. There was considerable variation in definitions of response by clinical examination, neuroimaging, and CSF analysis., Conclusion: Based upon a review of published RCTs in LM, there exists a significant unmet need for guidelines for evaluating patients with LM in clinical practice as well as for response assessment in clinical trials., (© The Author(s) 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Neuro-Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

A majority of cancer diagnoses and deaths occur in patients age ≥ 65 years. With the aging of the US population, the number of older adults with cancer will grow. Although the coming wave of older patients with cancer was anticipated in the early 1980s, when the need for more research on the cancer-aging interface was recognized, many knowledge gaps remain when it comes to treating older and/or frailer patients with cancer. Relatively little is known about the best way to balance the risks and benefits of existing cancer therapies in older patients; however, these patients continue to be underrepresented in clinical trials. Furthermore, the available clinical trials often do not include end points pertinent to the older adult population, such as preservation of function, cognition, and independence. As part of its ongoing effort to advance research in the field of geriatric oncology, the Cancer and Aging Research Group held a conference in November 2012 in collaboration with the National Cancer Institute, the National Institute on Aging, and the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology. The goal was to develop recommendations and establish research guidelines for the design and implementation of therapeutic clinical trials for older and/or frail adults. The conference sought to identify knowledge gaps in cancer clinical trials for older adults and propose clinical trial designs to fill these gaps. The ultimate goal of this conference series is to develop research that will lead to evidence-based care for older and/or frail adults with cancer.

Anticancer drugs are combined in an effort to treat a heterogeneous tumor or to maximize the pharmacodynamic effect. The development of combination regimens, while desirable, poses unique challenges. These include the selection of agents for combination therapy that may lead to improved efficacy while maintaining acceptable toxicity, the design of clinical trials that provide informative results for individual agents and combinations, and logistic and regulatory challenges. The phase I trial is often the initial step in the clinical evaluation of a combination regimen. In view of the importance of combination regimens and the challenges associated with developing them, the Clinical Trial Design (CTD) Task Force of the National Cancer Institute Investigational Drug Steering Committee developed a set of recommendations for the phase I development of a combination regimen. The first two recommendations focus on the scientific rationale and development plans for the combination regimen; subsequent recommendations encompass clinical design aspects. The CTD Task Force recommends that selection of the proposed regimens be based on a biologic or pharmacologic rationale supported by clinical and/or robust and validated preclinical evidence, and accompanied by a plan for subsequent development of the combination. The design of the phase I clinical trial should take into consideration the potential pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interactions as well as overlapping toxicity. Depending on the specific hypothesized interaction, the primary endpoint may be dose optimization, pharmacokinetics, and/or pharmacodynamics (i.e., biomarker)., (©2014 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Recent international phase III clinical trials of novel therapies for hospitalized heart failure (HHF) have failed to improve the unacceptably high postdischarge event rate. These large studies have demonstrated notable geographic and site-specific variation in patient profiles and enrollment. Possible contributors to the lack of success in HHF outcome trials include challenges in selecting clinical sites capable of (1) providing adequate numbers of appropriately selected patients and (2) properly executing the study protocol. We propose a "pretrial registry" as a novel tool for improving the efficiency and quality of international HHF trials by focusing on the selection and cultivation of high-quality sites. A pretrial registry may help assess a site's ability to achieve adequate enrollment of the target patient population, integrate protocol requirements into clinical workflow, and accomplish appropriate follow-up. Although such a process would be associated with additional upfront resource investment, this appropriation may be modest in comparison with the downstream costs associated with maintenance of poorly performing sites, failed clinical trials, and the global health and economic burden of HHF. This review is based on discussions between scientists, clinical trialists, and regulatory representatives regarding methods for improving international HHF trials that took place at the United States Food and Drug Administration on January 12th, 2012., (Copyright © 2014 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Ximelagatran was denied marketing approval in the USA and was withdrawn from those markets in which it had been approved, because of concerns over potential liver toxicity. A retrospective analysis of phase 2 data relating to liver toxicity is performed using the methods of extreme value modelling. The analysis reveals that the phase 2 data were predictive of the phase 3 results and, had the methods been available at the time, such analysis would have provided valuable information relating to the decision to proceed with further development of the compound., (Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)