Noninferiority Trials to Evaluate Drug Effects in Rheumatoid Arthritis

Hurdles in new drug development in rheumatic diseases

INTRODUCTION

Rheumatic diseases are heterogenous conditions with multifactorial underlying physiologic pathogeneses. Despite recent progress in the identification and development of advanced therapies primarily focusing on disrupting the immunological abnormalities that cause these conditions, rheumatic disease management remains challenging in a notable proportion of patients, with many exhibiting uncontrolled or refractory disease activity. New and improved therapies are needed to respond to this treatment gap. However, there are important hurdles that can affect the expedited identification and assessment of new treatments.

METHODS

We present a review of key hurdles in the development of antirheumatic agents, as well as possible solutions to these obstacles.

RESULTS

We highlight the challenges presented by incomplete understanding of the complexity of rheumatic disease pathophysiology and the resultant difficulties in the identification, development, and evaluation of new therapies. We further explore the diversity of the underlying disease processes leading to heterogeneity in patient response to treatment, necessitating the re-design of clinical trials of antirheumatic agents to detect efficacy signals and better inform clinical disease management. Finally, emergent strategies and methodologies with potential to improve upon these hurdles are presented.

CONCLUSION

New and modified study designs and research tools that leverage ongoing advancements in the elucidation of rheumatic disease pathogenesis coupled with progress in methods to mine available data will be instrumental in overcoming current hurdles in antirheumatic drug development.

Bayesian Methods in Human Drug and Biological Products Development in CDER and CBER

The Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) and the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have been leaders in protecting and promoting the U.S. public health by helping to ensure that safe and effective drugs and biological products are available in the United States for those who need them. The null hypothesis significance testing approach, along with other considerations, is typically used to demonstrate the effectiveness of a drug or biological product. The Bayesian framework presents an alternative approach to demonstrate the effectiveness of a treatment. This article discusses the Bayesian framework for drug and biological product development, highlights key settings in which Bayesian approaches may be appropriate, and provides recent examples of the use of Bayesian approaches within CDER and CBER.

Utility of Modeling and Simulation Approach to Support the Clinical Relevance of Dissolution Specifications: a Case Study from Upadacitinib Development

Dissolution specifications are often essential in assuring the quality and consistency of therapeutic benefits of drug lots released to the market as in vitro dissolution is often considered to be a surrogate for bioavailability. Despite the importance of demonstrating the clinical relevance of the dissolution specifications, it is often challenging to achieve this goal. In this case study, a modeling and simulation approach was utilized to support the clinical relevance of the dissolution specifications for upadacitinib extended-release tablets. A level A in vitro in vivo correlation was developed and utilized in predicting upadacitinib plasma exposures for formulations which correspond to the upper and lower dissolution limits. Exposure-response models for upadacitinib efficacy and safety in patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were utilized to conduct clinical trial simulations to evaluate the efficacy and safety of formulations at the upper and lower dissolution boundaries. Each simulated clinical trial consisted of three treatment arms: (1) upadacitinib 15 mg QD using the target formulation, (2) upadacitinib 15 mg QD using a formulation at the lower dissolution boundary, and (3) upadacitinib 15 mg QD using a formulation at the upper dissolution boundary. Each simulated trial included 300 patients per arm and simulations were replicated 200 times. Results demonstrated that formulations at the lower and upper dissolution boundaries are predicted to have noninferior efficacy and comparable safety to the target 15 mg extended-release formulation. This approach was successfully utilized in demonstrating the clinical relevance of upadacitinib extended-release tablet dissolution specifications. Graphical Abstract.