Clinical Trials最新文献

Background/aims: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic disproportionately impacted communities with lower access to health care in the United States, particularly before vaccines were widely available. These same communities are often underrepresented in clinical trials. Efforts to ensure equitable enrollment of participants in trials related to treatment and prevention of Covid-19 can raise concerns about exploitation if communities with lower access to health care are targeted for recruitment.

Methods: To enhance equity while avoiding exploitation, our site developed and implemented a three-part recruitment strategy for pediatric Covid-19 vaccine studies. First, we publicized a registry for potentially interested participants. Next, we applied public health community and social vulnerability indices to categorize the residence of families who had signed up for the registry into three levels to reflect the relative impact of the pandemic on their community: high, medium, and low. Finally, we preferentially offered study participation to interested families living in areas categorized by these indices as having high impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on their community.

Results: This approach allowed us to meet goals for study recruitment based on public health metrics related to disease burden, which contributed to a racially diverse study population that mirrored the surrounding community demographics. While this three-part recruitment strategy improved representation of minoritized groups from areas heavily impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic, important limitations were identified that would benefit from further study.

Conclusion: Future use of this approach to enhance equitable access to research while avoiding exploitation should test different methods to build trust and communicate with underserved communities more effectively.

Since the middle of the 20th century, oncology's dose-finding paradigm has been oriented toward identifying a drug's maximum tolerated dose, which is then carried forward into phase 2 and 3 trials and clinical practice. For most modern precision medicines, however, maximum tolerated dose is far greater than the minimum dose needed to achieve maximal benefit, leading to unnecessary side effects. Regulatory change may decrease maximum tolerated dose's predominance by enforcing dose optimization of new drugs. Dozens of already approved cancer drugs require re-evaluation, however, introducing a new methodologic and ethical challenge in cancer clinical trials. In this article, we assess the history and current landscape of cancer drug dose finding. We provide a set of strategic priorities for postapproval dose optimization trials of the future. We discuss ethical considerations for postapproval dose optimization trial design and review three major design strategies for these unique trials that would both adhere to ethical standards and benefit patients and funders. We close with a discussion of financial and reporting considerations in the realm of dose optimization. Taken together, we provide a comprehensive, bird's eye view of the postapproval dose optimization trial landscape and offer our thoughts on the next steps required of methodologies and regulatory and funding regimes.

The Patient-Centered Dosing Initiative, a patient-led effort advocating for a paradigm shift in determining cancer drug dosing strategies, pioneers a departure from traditional oncology drug dosing practices. Historically, oncology drug dosing relies on identifying the maximum tolerated dose through phase 1 dose escalation methodology, favoring higher dosing for greater efficacy, often leading to higher toxicity. However, this approach is not universally applicable, especially for newer treatments like targeted therapies and immunotherapies. Patient-Centered Dosing Initiative challenges this "more is better" ethos, particularly as metastatic breast cancer patients themselves, as they not only seek longevity but also a high quality of life since most metastatic breast cancer patients stay on treatment for the rest of their lives. Surveying 1221 metastatic breast cancer patients and 119 oncologists revealed an evident need for flexible dosing strategies, advocating personalized care discussions based on patient attributes. The survey results also demonstrated an openness toward flexible dosing and a willingness from both patients and clinicians to discuss dosing as part of their care. Patient-centered dosing emphasizes dialogue between clinicians and patients, delving into treatment efficacy-toxicity trade-offs. Similarly, clinical trial advocacy for multiple dosing regimens encourages adaptive strategies, moving away from strict adherence to maximum tolerated dose, supported by recent research in optimizing drug dosages. Recognizing the efficacy-effectiveness gap between clinical trials and real-world practice, Patient-Centered Dosing Initiative underscores the necessity for patient-centered dosing strategies. A focus on individual patient attributes aligns with initiatives like Project Optimus and Project Renewal, aiming to optimize drug dosages for improved treatment outcomes at both the pre- and post-approval phases. Patient-Centered Dosing Initiative's efforts extend to patient education, providing tools to initiate dosage-related conversations with physicians. In addition, it emphasizes physician-patient dialogues and post-marketing studies as essential in determining optimal dosing and refining drug regimens. A dose-finding paradigm prioritizing drug safety, tolerability, and efficacy benefits all stakeholders, reducing emergency care needs and missed treatments for patients, aligning with oncologists' and patients' shared goals. Importantly, it represents a win-win scenario across healthcare sectors. In summary, the Patient-Centered Dosing Initiative drives transformative changes in cancer drug dosing, emphasizing patient well-being and personalized care, aiming to enhance treatment outcomes and optimize oncology drug delivery.

Targeted agents and immunotherapies have revolutionized cancer treatment, offering promising options for various cancer types. Unlike traditional therapies the principle of "more is better" is not always applicable to these new therapies due to their unique biomedical mechanisms. As a result, various phase I-II clinical trial designs have been proposed to identify the optimal biological dose that maximizes the therapeutic effect of targeted therapies and immunotherapies by jointly monitoring both efficacy and toxicity outcomes. This review article examines several innovative phase I-II clinical trial designs that utilize accumulated efficacy and toxicity outcomes to adaptively determine doses for subsequent patients and identify the optimal biological dose, maximizing the overall therapeutic effect. Specifically, we highlight three categories of phase I-II designs: efficacy-driven, utility-based, and designs incorporating multiple efficacy endpoints. For each design, we review the dose-outcome model, the definition of the optimal biological dose, the dose-finding algorithm, and the software for trial implementation. To illustrate the concepts, we also present two real phase I-II trial examples utilizing the EffTox and ISO designs. Finally, we provide a classification tree to summarize the designs discussed in this article.

Background: Identifying optimal doses in early-phase clinical trials is critically important. Therapies administered at doses that are either unsafe or biologically ineffective are unlikely to be successful in subsequent clinical trials or to obtain regulatory approval. Identifying appropriate doses for new agents is a complex process that involves balancing the risks and benefits of outcomes such as biological efficacy, toxicity, and patient quality of life.

Purpose: While conventional phase I trials rely solely on toxicity to determine doses, phase I-II trials explicitly account for both efficacy and toxicity, which enables them to identify doses that provide the most favorable risk-benefit trade-offs. It is also important to account for patient covariates, since one-size-fits-all treatment decisions are likely to be suboptimal within subgroups determined by prognostic variables or biomarkers. Notably, the selection of estimands can influence our conclusions based on the prognostic subgroup studied. For example, assuming monotonicity of the probability of response, higher treatment doses may yield more pronounced efficacy in favorable prognosis compared to poor prognosis subgroups when the estimand is mean or median survival. Conversely, when the estimand is the 3-month survival probability, higher treatment doses produce more pronounced efficacy in poor prognosis compared to favorable prognosis subgroups.

Methods and conclusions: Herein, we first describe why it is essential to consider clinical practice when designing a clinical trial and outline a stepwise process for doing this. We then review a precision phase I-II design based on utilities tailored to prognostic subgroups that characterize efficacy-toxicity risk-benefit trade-offs. The design chooses each patient's dose to optimize their expected utility and allows patients in different prognostic subgroups to have different optimal doses. We illustrate the design with a dose-finding trial of a new therapeutic agent for metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration launched Project Optimus with the aim of shifting the paradigm of dose-finding and selection toward identifying the optimal biological dose that offers the best balance between benefit and risk, rather than the maximum tolerated dose. However, achieving dose optimization is a challenging task that involves a variety of factors and is considerably more complicated than identifying the maximum tolerated dose, both in terms of design and implementation. This article provides a comprehensive review of various design strategies for dose-optimization trials, including phase 1/2 and 2/3 designs, and highlights their respective advantages and disadvantages. In addition, practical considerations for selecting an appropriate design and planning and executing the trial are discussed. The article also presents freely available software tools that can be utilized for designing and implementing dose-optimization trials. The approaches and their implementation are illustrated through real-world examples.

Background: The Opioid Analgesic Reduction Study is a double-blind, prospective, clinical trial investigating analgesic effectiveness in the management of acute post-surgical pain after impacted third molar extraction across five clinical sites. Specifically, Opioid Analgesic Reduction Study examines a commonly prescribed opioid combination (hydrocodone/acetaminophen) against a non-opioid combination (ibuprofen/acetaminophen). The Opioid Analgesic Reduction Study employs a novel, electronic infrastructure, leveraging the functionality of its data management system, Research Electronic Data Capture, to not only serve as its data reservoir but also provide the framework for its quality management program.

Methods: Within the Opioid Analgesic Reduction Study, Research Electronic Data Capture is expanded into a multi-function management tool, serving as the hub for its clinical data management, project management and credentialing, materials management, and quality management. Research Electronic Data Capture effectively captures data, displays/tracks study progress, triggers follow-up, and supports quality management processes.

Results: At 72% study completion, over 12,000 subject data forms have been executed in Research Electronic Data Capture with minimal missing (0.15%) or incomplete or erroneous forms (0.06%). Five hundred, twenty-three queries were initiated to request clarifications and/or address missing data and data discrepancies.

Conclusion: Research Electronic Data Capture is an effective digital health technology that can be maximized to contribute to the success of a clinical trial. The Research Electronic Data Capture infrastructure and enhanced functionality used in Opioid Analgesic Reduction Study provides the framework and the logic that ensures complete, accurate, data while guiding an effective, efficient workflow that can be followed by team members across sites. This enhanced data reliability and comprehensive quality management processes allow for better preparedness and readiness for clinical monitoring and regulatory reporting.

Background: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard design to determine the effectiveness of an intervention, as the only method of decreasing section bias and minimising random error. However, participant recruitment to randomised controlled trials is a major challenge, with many trials failing to recruit the targeted sample size accordingly to the planned protocol. Thus, the aim of this review is to detail the recruitment challenges of preoperative exercise clinical trials.

Methods: A comprehensive search was performed on MEDLINE, Embase, The Cochrane Library, CINAHL, AMED and PsycINFO from inception to July 2021. Randomised controlled trials investigating the effectiveness of preoperative exercise on postoperative complication and/or length of hospital stay in adult cancer patients were included. Main outcomes included recruitment rate, retention rate, number of days needed to screen and recruit one patient and trial recruitment duration. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise outcomes of interest.

Results: A total of 27 trials were identified, including 3656 patients screened (N = 21) and 1414 randomised (median recruitment rate (interquartile range) = 53.6% (25.2%-67.6%), N = 21). The sample size of the included trials ranged from 19 to 270 (median = 48.0; interquartile range = 40.0-85.0) and the duration of trial recruitment ranged from 3 to 50 months (median = 19.0 months; interquartile range = 10.5-34.0). Overall, a median of 3.6 days was needed to screen one patient, whereas 13.7 days were needed to randomise one participant. Over the trials duration, the median dropout rate was 7.9%. Variations in recruitment outcomes were observed across trials of different cancer types but were not statistically significant.

Conclusion: The recruitment of participants to preoperative exercise randomised controlled trials is challenging, but patient retention appears to be less of a problem. Future trials investigating the effectiveness of a preoperative exercise programme following cancer surgery should consider the time taken to recruit patients. Strategies associated with improved recruitment should be investigated in future studies.

Combination therapy is increasingly being explored as a promising approach for improving cancer treatment outcomes. However, identifying effective dose combinations in early oncology drug development is challenging due to limited sample sizes in early-phase clinical trials. This task becomes even more complex when multiple agents are being escalated simultaneously, potentially leading to a loss of monotonic toxicity order with respect to the dose. Traditional single-agent trial designs are insufficient for this multi-dimensional problem, necessitating the development and implementation of dose-finding methods specifically designed for drug combinations. While, in practice, approaches to this problem have focused on preselecting combinations with a known toxicity order and applying single-agent designs, this limits the number of combinations considered and may miss promising dose combinations. In recent years, several novel designs have been proposed for exploring partially ordered drug combination spaces with the goal of identifying a maximum tolerated dose combination, based on safety, or an optimal dose combination, based on toxicity and efficacy. However, their implementation in clinical practice remains limited. In this article, we describe the application of the partial order continual reassessment method and its extensions for combination therapies in early-phase clinical trials. We present completed trials that use safety endpoints to identify maximum tolerated dose combinations and adaptively use both safety and efficacy endpoints to determine optimal treatment strategies. We discuss the effectiveness of the partial-order continual reassessment method and its extensions in identifying optimal treatment strategies and provide our experience with executing these novel adaptive designs in practice. By utilizing innovative dose-finding methods, researchers and clinicians can more effectively navigate the challenges of combination therapy development, ultimately improving patient outcomes in the treatment of cancer.