Early Phase Clinical Trial Designs - State of Play and Adapting for the Future

Advancing patient-centric care: integrating patient reported outcomes for tolerability assessment in early phase clinical trials - insights from an expert virtual roundtable

Early phase clinical trials provide an initial evaluation of therapies' risks and benefits to patients, including safety and tolerability, which typically relies on reporting outcomes by investigator and laboratory assessments. Use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to inform risks (tolerability) and benefits (improvement in disease symptoms) is more common in later than early phase trials. We convened a two-day expert roundtable covering: (1) the necessity and feasibility of a universal PRO core conceptual model for early phase trials; (2) the practical integration of PROs in early phase trials to inform tolerability assessment, guide dose decisions, or as real-time safety alerts to enhance investigator-reported adverse events. Participants (n = 22) included: patient advocates, regulators, clinicians, statisticians, pharmaceutical representatives, and PRO methodologists working across diverse clinical areas. In this manuscript, we report major recommendations resulting from the roundtable discussions corresponding to each theme. Additionally, we highlight priority areas necessitating further investigation.

Assessment of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Industry-Sponsored Phase I Oncology Studies: Considerations for Translating Theory Into Practice

An increasing interest in the identification of optimal dosage for oncology therapies has prompted key opinion leaders and regulators to encourage the integration of patient-reported outcome (PRO) assessments in phase I oncology clinical trials. Although the potential benefits of assessing PROs in early-phase studies have been acknowledged, the difficulties that arise from such a radical shift have been largely overlooked in the public discussion. In this commentary, the authors provide insight into the challenges that industry sponsors face in integrating PRO assessments into phase I oncology trials, with the ultimate goal of facilitating conversations that may help to resolve some of these issues.

Clinical outcome assessment trends in clinical trials-Contrasting oncology and non-oncology trials

BACKGROUND

Clinical outcome assessments (COAs) are key to patient-centered evaluation of novel interventions and supportive care. COAs are particularly informative in oncology where a focus on how patients feel and function is paramount, but their incorporation in trial outcomes have lagged that of traditional survival and tumor responses. To understand the trends of COA use in oncology and the impact of landmark efforts to promote COA use, we computationally surveyed oncology clinical trials in ClinicalTrials.gov comparing them to the rest of the clinical research landscape.

METHODS

Oncology trials were identified using medical subject heading neoplasm terms. Trials were searched for COA instrument names obtained from PROQOLID. Regression analyses assessed chronological and design-related trends.

RESULTS

Eighteen percent of oncology interventional trials initiated 1985-2020 (N = 35,415) reported using one or more of 655 COA instruments. Eighty-four percent of the COA-using trials utilized patient-reported outcomes, with other COA categories used in 4-27% of these trials. Likelihood of COA use increased with progressing trial phase (OR = 1.30, p < 0.001), randomization (OR = 2.32, p < 0.001), use of data monitoring committees (OR = 1.26, p < 0.001), study of non-FDA-regulated interventions (OR = 1.23, p = 0.001), and in supportive care versus treatment-focused trials (OR = 2.94, p < 0.001). Twenty-six percent of non-oncology trials initiated 1985-2020 (N = 244,440) reported COA use; they had similar COA-use predictive factors as oncology trials. COA use increased linearly over time (R = 0.98, p < 0.001), with significant increases following several individual regulatory events.

CONCLUSION

While COA use across clinical research has increased over time, there remains a need to further promote COA use particularly in early phase and treatment-focused oncology trials.

Core values of patients with advanced cancer considering participation in an early-phase clinical trial: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

This article identifies the core values that play a role in patients' decision-making process about participation in early-phase clinical cancer trials.

METHODS

Face-to-face, semi-structured serial interviews (n = 22) were performed with thirteen patients with advanced cancer recruited in two Dutch specialized cancer centers. In a cyclic qualitative analysis process, open and axial coding of the interviews finally led to an overview of the values that are woven into patients' common language about cancer and clinical trials.

RESULTS

Six core values were described, namely, acceptance creates room for reconsideration of values, reconciliation with one's fate, hope, autonomy, body preservation, and altruism. Previously found values in advanced cancer, such as acceptance, hope, autonomy, and altruism, were further qualified. Reconciliation with one's fate and body preservation were highlighted as new insights for early-phase clinical cancer trial literature.

CONCLUSIONS

This article furthers the understanding of core values that play a role in the lives and decision-making of patients with advanced cancer who explore participation in early-phase clinical cancer trials. These values do not necessarily have to be compatible with one another, making tragic choices necessary. Understanding the role of core values can contribute to professional sensitivity regarding what motivates patients' emotions, thoughts, and decisions and help patients reflect on and give words to their values and preferences. It supports mutual understanding and dialog from which patients can make decisions according to their perspectives on a good life for themselves and their fellows in the context of participation in an early-phase clinical cancer trial.

A review of patient-reported outcome assessments in registration trials of FDA-approved new oncology drugs (2014-2018)

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) encourages the assessment of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in oncology clinical trials. A 2015 review showed that approximately 26% of industry-sponsored oncology trials included assessment of PROs. However, the proportion of recent trials that supported new oncology drug approvals and assessed PROs is unknown. This review found that assessment of PROs was included in about 75% of registration trials that supported 55 new FDA drug approvals during 2014-2018. Patient-reported outcome assessment was included more in randomized controlled trials than in open-label trials (88% vs. 69%, respectively) and more in phase 3 than in phase 2 trials (89% vs. 66%, respectively).

Using Patient-Reported Outcomes in Dose-Finding Oncology Trials: Surveys of Key Stakeholders and the National Cancer Research Institute Consumer Forum

Background

Patient-reported adverse events may be a useful adjunct for assessing a drug’s tolerability in dose-finding oncology trials (DFOT). We conducted surveys of international stakeholders and the National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI) Consumer Forum to understand attitudes about patient-reported outcome (PRO) use in DFOT.

Methods

A 35-question survey of clinicians, trial managers, statisticians, funders, and regulators of DFOT was distributed via professional bodies examining experience using PROs, benefits/barriers, and their potential role in defining tolerable doses. An 8-question survey of the NCRI Consumer Forum explored similar themes.

Results

International survey: 112 responses from 15 September–30 November 2020; 103 trialists [48 clinicians (42.9%), 38 statisticians (34.0%), 17 trial managers (15.2%)], 7 regulators (6.3%), 2 funders (1.8%)]. Most trialists had no experience designing (73, 70.9%), conducting (52, 50.5%), or reporting (88, 85.4%) PROs in DFOT. Most agreed that PROs could identify new toxicities (75, 67.0%) and provide data on the frequency (86, 76.8%) and duration (81, 72.3%) of toxicities. The top 3 barriers were lack of guidance regarding PRO selection (73/103, 70.9%), missing PRO data (71/103, 68.9%), and overburdening staff (68/103, 66.0%). NCRI survey: 57 responses on 21 March 2021. A total of 28 (49.1%) were willing to spend <15 min/day completing PROs. Most (55, 96.5%) preferred to complete PROs online. 61 (54.5%) trialists and 57 (100%) consumers agreed that patient-reported adverse events should be used to inform dose-escalation decisions.

Conclusion

Stakeholders reported minimal experience using PROs in DFOT but broadly supported their use. Guidelines are needed to standardize PRO selection, analysis, and reporting in DFOT.

Occurrence of Type 1 Diabetes in A Patient Enrolled in An Immunotherapy Combination Phase 1 Clinical Trial: A Case Study

Advances in cancer immunotherapy treatments have shown promising results in patients with metastatic malignancy who have been refractory to prior treatments. Immune checkpoint inhibitors such as pembrolizumab in combination with other systemic agents may unleash immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Immunotherapy-induced Type 1 diabetes is rare; however, if left undiagnosed, it may cause life-threatening metabolic endocrinopathies. Advanced practice registered nurses are in a unique position to recognize and identify this irAE and in doing so can provide pathways for early diagnosis and treatments, thus leading to improved clinical and patient outcomes.

Trends in patient-reported outcome use in early phase dose-finding oncology trials - an analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported adverse events (AEs) may be a useful adjunct to clinician-assessed AEs for assessing tolerability in early phase, dose-finding oncology trials (DFOTs). We reviewed DFOTs on ClinicalTrials.gov to describe trends in patient-reported outcome (PRO) use.

METHODS

DFOTs commencing 01 January 2007 - 20 January 2020 with 'PROs' or 'quality of life' as an outcome were extracted and inclusion criteria confirmed. Study and PRO characteristics were extracted. Completed trials that reported PRO outcomes and published manuscripts on ClinicalTrials.gov were identified, and PRO reporting details were extracted.

RESULTS

5.3% (548/10 372) DFOTs included PROs as an outcome. 231 (42.2%) were eligible: adult (224, 97%), solid tumour (175, 75.8%), and seamless phase 1/2 (108, 46.8%). PRO endpoints were identified in more trials (2.3 increase/year, 95% CI: 1.6-2.9) from an increasing variety of countries (0.7/year) (95% CI: 0.4-0.9) over time. PROs were typically secondary endpoints (207, 89.6%). 15/77 (19.5%) completed trials reported results on the ClinicalTrials.gov results database, and of those eight included their PRO results. Eighteen trials had published manuscripts available on ClinicalTrials.gov. Three (16.7%) used PROs to confirm the maximum tolerated dose. No trials identified who completed the PROs or how PROs were collected.

CONCLUSIONS

PRO use in DFOT has increased but remains limited. Future work should explore the role of PROs in DFOT and determine what guidelines are needed to standardise PRO use.

Pragmatic patient engagement in designing pragmatic oncology clinical trials

Oncology trials are the cornerstone of effective and safe therapeutic discoveries. However, there is increasing demand for pragmatism and patient engagement in the design, implementation and dissemination of oncology trials. Many researchers are uncertain about making trials more practical and even less knowledgeable about how to meaningfully engage patients without compromising scientific rigor to meet regulatory requirements. The present work provides practical guidance for addressing both pragmaticism and meaningful patient engagement. Applying evidence-based approaches like PRECIS-2-tool and the 10-Step Engagement Framework offer practical guidance to make future trials in oncology truly pragmatic and patient-centered. Consequently, such patient-centered trials have improved participation, faster recruitment and greater retention, and uptake of innovative technologies in community-based care.

The Contribution of Clinical Pharmacologists in Precision Medicine: An Opportunity for Health Care Improvement

Background

Clinical pharmacologists play an important role and have professional value in the field, especially regarding their role within precision medicine (PM) and personalized therapies.

Objective

In this work, we sought to stimulate debate on the role of clinical pharmacologists.

Methods

A literature review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement, through electronic consultation of 2 databases, PubMed/Medline and Embase, and Google Scholar with manual research taking into account the peer-reviewed literature such as observational studies, reviews, original research articles, comments, mini-reviews, and opinion papers published in English between 2010 and February 2020. Titles and abstracts were screened by 1 author, and studies identified for full-text analysis and selected according to inclusion criteria were agreed on by 2 reviewers.

Results

We identified a total of 535 peer-reviewed articles and the number of full texts eligible for the project was 43. Several publications highlight the clinical value of pharmacologists in highly complex hospitals, where the strategies of PM are implemented. Although there are still no studies measuring the clinical efficiency and the efficacy of clinical pharmacology services, and the applicability of PM protocols, this review shows the considerable debate around the future mission of clinical pharmacology services as a bridging discipline capable of combining the complex knowledge and different professional skills needed to fully implement PM.

Conclusions

Various strategies have been conceived and planned to facilitate the transition from mainstream medicine to PM, which will enable patients to be treated more accurately, with significant advantages in terms of safety and effectiveness of treatments. Therefore, in the future, to ensure that the evolutionary process of medicine can involve as many patients and caregivers as possible, infrastructures capable of bringing together different multidisciplinary skills among health professionals will have to be implemented. Clinical pharmacologists could be the main drivers of this strategy because they already, with their multidisciplinary training, operate in a series of services in high-level hospitals, facilitating the clinical governance of the most challenging patients. The implementation of these strategies will lastly allow national health organizations to adequately address the management and therapeutic challenges related to the advent of new drugs and cell and gene therapies by facilitating the removal of economic and organizational barriers to ensure equitable access to PM. (Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 2021; 82:XXX–XXX)

Precision Oncology, Signaling and Anticancer Agents in Cancer Therapeutics

BACKGROUND

The global alliance for genomics and healthcare facilities provides innovational solutions to expedite research and clinical practices for complex and incurable health conditions. Precision oncology is an emerging field explicitly tailored to facilitate cancer diagnosis, prevention and treatment based on patients' genetic profile. Advancements in "omics" techniques, next-generation sequencing, artificial intelligence and clinical trial designs provide a platform for assessing the efficacy and safety of combination therapies and diagnostic procedures.

METHOD

Data were collected from Pubmed and Google scholar using keywords: "Precision medicine", "precision medicine and cancer", "anticancer agents in precision medicine" and reviewed comprehensively.

RESULTS

Personalized therapeutics including immunotherapy, cancer vaccines, serve as a groundbreaking solution for cancer treatment. Herein, we take a measurable view of precision therapies and novel diagnostic approaches targeting cancer treatment. The contemporary applications of precision medicine have also been described along with various hurdles identified in the successful establishment of precision therapeutics.

CONCLUSION

This review highlights the key breakthroughs related to immunotherapies, targeted anticancer agents, and target interventions related to cancer signaling mechanisms. The success story of this field in context to drug resistance, safety, patient survival and in improving quality of life is yet to be elucidated. We conclude that, in the near future, the field of individualized treatments may truly revolutionize the nature of cancer patient care.

Transcranial direct current stimulation improves quality of life and physical fitness in diabetic polyneuropathy: a pilot double blind randomized controlled trial

Purpose

Diabetes Mellitus (DM) is a chronic disease which presents a big prevalence in the world and several patients with this condition fail to respond to the available treatments. There is a huge unmet clinical need for the development of new therapeutic approaches for this condition. This study aims to evaluate the effects of anodal tDCS on Quality of Life and physical fitness in patients with diabetic polyneuropathy.

Methods

A pilot, parallel, sham, randomized, double-blind trial was conducted with twenty patients. Five consecutive sessions of C3/Fp2 tDCS montage were performed. To assess the primary outcome Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36) was used. Physical fitness level, according to lower and upper body strength, flexibility, Time Up and Go Test (TUG) and Six-Minute Walking Test (6MWT) were measured as secondary outcomes. The measures were performed at 3 different times (baseline, 1st and 2nd weeks).

Results

SF-36 increased throughout the protocol, but no difference between groups were found. However, there was a significant difference between groups at 1st and 2nd weeks, which shows a permanent growth in the active-tDCS group. Physical health and functioning, functional capacity and bodily pain showed significant improvements in active-tDCS group in 1st and 2nd weeks during inter-group analysis. Emotional scores showed significant interaction group-time with interaction effects only for active-group in 1st and 2nd weeks. TUG and 6MWT showed significant improvements only in active-tDCS group.

Conclusions

It is suggested that five sessions of anodal M1 tDCS improves QoL and functionality of patients with diabetic polyneuropathy.

In-Silico Modeling in Drug Metabolism and Interaction: Current Strategies of Lead Discovery

BACKGROUND

Drug metabolism is a complex mechanism of human body systems to detoxify foreign particles, chemicals, and drugs through bio alterations. It involves many biochemical reactions carried out by invivo enzyme systems present in the liver, kidney, intestine, lungs, and plasma. After drug administration, it crosses several biological membranes to reach into the target site for binding and produces the therapeutic response. After that, it may undergo detoxification and excretion to get rid of the biological systems. Most of the drugs and its metabolites are excreted through kidney via urination. Some drugs and their metabolites enter into intestinal mucosa and excrete through feces. Few of the drugs enter into hepatic circulation where they go into the intestinal tract. The drug leaves the liver via the bile duct and is excreted through feces. Therefore, the study of total methodology of drug biotransformation and interactions with various targets is costly.

METHODS

To minimize time and cost, in-silico algorithms have been utilized for lead-like drug discovery. Insilico modeling is the process where a computer model with a suitable algorithm is developed to perform a controlled experiment. It involves the combination of both in-vivo and in-vitro experimentation with virtual trials, eliminating the non-significant variables from a large number of variable parameters. Whereas, the major challenge for the experimenter is the selection and validation of the preferred model, as well as precise simulation in real physiological status.

RESULTS

The present review discussed the application of in-silico models to predict absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion (ADME) properties of drug molecules and also access the net rate of metabolism of a compound.

CONCLUSION

It helps with the identification of enzyme isoforms; which are likely to metabolize a compound, as well as the concentration dependence of metabolism and the identification of expected metabolites. In terms of drug-drug interactions (DDIs), models have been described for the inhibition of metabolism of one compound by another, and for the compound-dependent induction of drug-metabolizing enzymes.

Molecular profiling for precision cancer therapies

The number of druggable tumor-specific molecular aberrations has grown substantially in the past decade, with a significant survival benefit obtained from biomarker matching therapies in several cancer types. Molecular pathology has therefore become fundamental not only to inform on tumor diagnosis and prognosis but also to drive therapeutic decisions in daily practice. The introduction of next-generation sequencing technologies and the rising number of large-scale tumor molecular profiling programs across institutions worldwide have revolutionized the field of precision oncology. As comprehensive genomic analyses become increasingly available in both clinical and research settings, healthcare professionals are faced with the complex tasks of result interpretation and translation. This review summarizes the current and upcoming approaches to implement precision cancer medicine, highlighting the challenges and potential solutions to facilitate the interpretation and to maximize the clinical utility of molecular profiling results. We describe novel molecular characterization strategies beyond tumor DNA sequencing, such as transcriptomics, immunophenotyping, epigenetic profiling, and single-cell analyses. We also review current and potential applications of liquid biopsies to evaluate blood-based biomarkers, such as circulating tumor cells and circulating nucleic acids. Last, lessons learned from the existing limitations of genotype-derived therapies provide insights into ways to expand precision medicine beyond genomics.

Challenges and Chances in the Preclinical to Clinical Translation of Anticancer Metallodrugs

Despite being “sentenced to death” for quite some time, anticancer platinum compounds are still the most frequently prescribed cancer therapies in the oncological routine and recent exciting news from late-stage clinical studies on combinations of metallodrugs with immunotherapies suggest that this situation will not change soon. It is perhaps surprising that relatively simple molecules like cisplatin, discovered over 50 years ago, are still widely used clinically, while none of the highly sophisticated metal compounds developed over the last decade, including complexes with targeting ligands and multifunctional (nano)formulations, have managed to obtain clinical approval. In this book chapter, we summarize the current status of ongoing clinical trials for anticancer metal compounds and discuss the reasons for previous failures, as well as new opportunities for the clinical translation of metal complexes.

New clinical trial designs in the era of precision medicine

Cancer treatment has made significant strides towards the promise of personalized medicine. Recent scientific advances have shown that there are numerous genetic deregulations that are common in multiple cancer types, raising the possibility of developing drugs targeting those deregulations irrespective of the tumour type. Precision Cancer Medicine (PCM) was born out of accumulated evidence matching targeted agents with these tumour molecular deregulations. At the same time, the therapeutic armamentarium is rapidly increasing and the number of new drugs (including immune-oncology agents) entering drug development continues to rise. These factors, added to strong collaboration with regulatory agencies, which have approved novel agents based on data obtained from phase 1/2 trials, have led to unprecedented evolution in the design of early-stage clinical trials. Currently, we have seen rapid phase 1 dose-escalation trials followed by remarkably large expansion cohorts, and are witnessing the emergence of new trials, such as adaptive studies with basket and umbrella designs aimed at optimizing the biomarker-drug co-development process. Alongside the growing complexity of these clinical trials, new frameworks for stronger and faster collaboration between all stakeholders in drug development, including academic institutions and frameworks, clinicians, pharma companies and regulatory agencies, have been established. In this review article, we describe the main challenges and opportunities that these new trial designs may provide for a more efficient drug development process, which may ultimately help ensure that PCM becomes a reality for patients.

Highlighting the need for reliable clinical trials in glioblastoma

INTRODUCTION

Several recent phase III studies have attempted to improve the dismal survival seen in glioblastoma patients, with disappointing results despite prior promising phase II data. Areas covered: A literature review of prior phase II and phase III studied in glioblastoma was performed to help identify possible areas of concern. Numerous issues in previous phase II trials for glioblastoma were found that may have contributed to these discouraging outcomes and discordant results. Expert commentary: These concerns include the improper selection of therapeutics warranting investigation in a phase III trial, suboptimal design of phase II studies (often lacking a control arm), absence of molecular data, the use of imaging criteria as a surrogate endpoint, and a lack of pharmacodynamic testing. Hopefully, by recognizing prior phase II trial limitations that contributed to failed phase III trials, we can adapt quickly to improve our ability to accurately discover survival-prolonging treatments for glioblastoma patients.