Search

Asthma is a heterogeneous disease, with multiple underlying inflammatory pathways and structural airway abnormalities that impact disease persistence and severity. Recent progress has been made in developing targeted asthma therapeutics, especially for subjects with eosinophilic asthma. However, there is an unmet need for new approaches to treat patients with severe and exacerbation-prone asthma, who contribute disproportionately to disease burden. Extensive deep phenotyping has revealed the heterogeneous nature of severe asthma and identified distinct disease subtypes. A current challenge in the field is to translate new and emerging knowledge about different pathobiologic mechanisms in asthma into patient-specific therapies, with the ultimate goal of modifying the natural history of disease. Here, we describe the Precision Interventions for Severe and/or Exacerbation-Prone Asthma (PrecISE) Network, a groundbreaking collaborative effort of asthma researchers and biostatisticians from around the United States. The PrecISE Network was designed to conduct phase II/proof-of-concept clinical trials of precision interventions in the population with severe asthma, and is supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health. Using an innovative adaptive platform trial design, the PrecISE Network will evaluate up to 6 interventions simultaneously in biomarker-defined subgroups of subjects. We review the development and organizational structure of the PrecISE Network, and choice of interventions being studied. We hope that the PrecISE Network will enhance our understanding of asthma subtypes and accelerate the development of therapeutics for severe asthma.

Severe asthma accounts for almost half the cost associated with asthma. Severe asthma is driven by heterogeneous molecular mechanisms. Conventional clinical trial design often lacks the power and efficiency to target subgroups with specific pathobiological mechanisms. Furthermore, the validation and approval of new asthma therapies is a lengthy process. A large proportion of that time is taken by clinical trials to validate asthma interventions. The National Institutes of Health Precision Medicine in Severe and/or Exacerbation Prone Asthma (PrecISE) program was established with the goal of designing and executing a trial that uses adaptive design techniques to rapidly evaluate novel interventions in biomarker-defined subgroups of severe asthma, while seeking to refine these biomarker subgroups, and to identify early markers of response to therapy. The novel trial design is an adaptive platform trial conducted under a single master protocol that incorporates precision medicine components. Furthermore, it includes innovative applications of futility analysis, cross-over design with use of shared placebo groups, and early futility analysis to permit more rapid identification of effective interventions. The development and rationale behind the study design are described. The interventions chosen for the initial investigation and the criteria used to identify these interventions are enumerated. The biomarker-based adaptive design and analytic scheme are detailed as well as special considerations involved in the final trial design.

The Precision Interventions for Severe and/or Exacerbation-prone Asthma (PrecISE) study is an adaptive platform trial designed to investigate novel interventions to severe asthma. The study is conducted under a master protocol and utilizes a crossover design with each participant receiving up to five interventions and at least one placebo. Treatment assignments are based on the patients' biomarker profiles and precision health methods are incorporated into the interim and final analyses. We describe key elements of the PrecISE study including the multistage adaptive enrichment strategy, early stopping of an intervention for futility, power calculations, and the primary analysis strategy.

BACKGROUND:Lack of evidence-based outcomes data leads to uncertainty in developing treatment regimens in children who are newly diagnosed with ulcerative colitis. We hypothesised that pretreatment clinical, transcriptomic, and microbial factors predict disease course. METHODS:In this inception cohort study, we recruited paediatric patients aged 4-17 years with newly diagnosed ulcerative colitis from 29 centres in the USA and Canada. Patients initially received standardised mesalazine or corticosteroids, with pre-established criteria for escalation to immunomodulators (ie, thiopurines) or anti-tumor necrosis factor-α (TNFα) therapy. We used RNA sequencing to define rectal gene expression before treatment, and 16S sequencing to characterise rectal and faecal microbiota. The primary outcome was week 52 corticosteroid-free remission with no therapy beyond mesalazine. We assessed factors associated with the primary outcome using logistic regression models of the per-protocol population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01536535. FINDINGS:Between July 10, 2012, and April 21, 2015, of 467 patients recruited, 428 started medical therapy, of whom 400 (93%) were evaluable at 52 weeks and 386 (90%) completed the study period with no protocol violations. 150 (38%) of 400 participants achieved week 52 corticosteroid-free remission, of whom 147 (98%) were taking mesalazine and three (2%) were taking no medication. 74 (19%) of 400 were escalated to immunomodulators alone, 123 (31%) anti-TNFα therapy, and 25 (6%) colectomy. Low baseline clinical severity, high baseline haemoglobin, and week 4 clinical remission were associated with achieving week 52 corticosteroid-free remission (n=386, logistic model area under the curve [AUC] 0·70, 95% CI 0·65-0·75; specificity 77%, 95% CI 71-82). Baseline severity and remission by week 4 were validated in an independent cohort of 274 paediatric patients with newly diagnosed ulcerative colitis. After adjusting for clinical predictors, an antimicrobial peptide gene signature (odds ratio [OR] 0·57, 95% CI 0·39-0·81; p=0·002) and abundance of Ruminococcaceae (OR 1·43, 1·02-2·00; p=0·04), and Sutterella (OR 0·81, 0·65-1·00; p=0·05) were independently associated with week 52 corticosteroid-free remission. INTERPRETATION:Our findings support the utility of initial clinical activity and treatment response by 4 weeks to predict week 52 corticosteroid-free remission with mesalazine alone in children who are newly diagnosed with ulcerative colitis. The development of personalised clinical and biological signatures holds the promise of informing ulcerative colitis therapeutic decisions. FUNDING:US National Institutes of Health.

The Precision Interventions for Severe and/or Exacerbation-prone Asthma (PrecISE) study is an adaptive platform trial designed to investigate novel interventions to severe asthma. The study is conducted under a master protocol and utilizes a crossover design with each participant receiving up to five interventions and at least one placebo. Treatment assignments are based on the patients' biomarker profiles and precision health methods are incorporated into the interim and final analyses. We describe key elements of the PrecISE study including the multistage adaptive enrichment strategy, early stopping of an intervention for futility, power calculations, and the primary analysis strategy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose Pharmacoepidemiologic studies are often expected to be sufficiently powered to study rare outcomes, but there is sequential loss of power with implementation of study design options minimizing bias. We illustrate this using a study comparing pancreatic cancer incidence after initiating dipeptidyl-peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) versus thiazolidinediones or sulfonylureas. Methods We identified Medicare beneficiaries with at least one claim of DPP-4i or comparators during 2007-2009 and then applied the following steps: (i) exclude prevalent users, (ii) require a second prescription of same drug, (iii) exclude prevalent cancers, (iv) exclude patients age <66 years and (v) censor for treatment changes during follow-up. Power to detect hazard ratios (effect measure strongly driven by the number of events) = 2.0 estimated after step 5 was compared with the naïve power estimated prior to step 1. Results There were 19 388 and 28 846 DPP-4i and thiazolidinedione initiators during 2007-2009. The number of drug initiators dropped most after requiring a second prescription, outcomes dropped most after excluding patients with prevalent cancer and person-time dropped most after requiring a second prescription and as-treated censoring. The naïve power (>99%) was considerably higher than the power obtained after the final step (~75%). Conclusions In designing new-user active-comparator studies, one should be mindful how steps minimizing bias affect sample-size, number of outcomes and person-time. While actual numbers will depend on specific settings, application of generic losses in percentages will improve estimates of power compared with the naive approach mostly ignoring steps taken to increase validity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]