1
|
Strohbehn GW, Stadler WM, Boonstra PS, Ratain MJ. Optimizing the doses of cancer drugs after usual dose finding. Clin Trials 2024; 21:340-349. [PMID: 38148731 DOI: 10.1177/17407745231213882] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/28/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Garth W Strohbehn
- Veterans Affairs Center for Clinical Management Research, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
- Division of Medical Oncology, Lieutenant Colonel Charles S. Kettles VA Medical Center, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
- Rogel Cancer Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
- Institute for Health Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Walter M Stadler
- Section of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Philip S Boonstra
- Rogel Cancer Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
- Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Mark J Ratain
- Section of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
- Committee on Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacogenomics, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
- Center for Personalized Therapeutics, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Boonstra PS, Tabarrok A, Strohbehn GW. Targeted randomization dose optimization trials enable fractional dosing of scarce drugs. PLoS One 2023; 18:e0287511. [PMID: 37903093 PMCID: PMC10615276 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0287511] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/02/2022] [Accepted: 06/07/2023] [Indexed: 11/01/2023] Open
Abstract
Administering drug at a dose lower than that used in pivotal clinical trials, known as fractional dosing, can stretch scarce resources. Implementing fractional dosing with confidence requires understanding a drug's dose-response relationship. Clinical trials aimed at describing dose-response in scarce, efficacious drugs risk underdosing, leading dose-finding trials to not be pursued despite their obvious potential benefit. We developed a new set of response-adaptive randomized dose-finding trials and demonstrate, in a series of simulated trials across diverse dose-response curves, these designs' efficiency in identifying the minimum dose that achieves satisfactory efficacy. Compared to conventional designs, these trials have higher probabilities of identifying lower doses while reducing the risks of both population- and subject-level underdosing. We strongly recommend that, upon demonstration of a drug's efficacy, pandemic drug development swiftly proceeds with response-adaptive dose-finding trials. This unified strategy ensures that scarce effective drugs produce maximum social benefits.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Philip S. Boonstra
- Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America
- Rogel Cancer Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America
| | - Alex Tabarrok
- Department of Economics, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, United States of America
| | - Garth W. Strohbehn
- Rogel Cancer Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America
- Veterans Affairs Center for Clinical Management and Research, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America
- Institute for Health Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America
- Division of Medical Oncology, LTC Charles S Kettles VA Medical Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America
- Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Armitage RC. Socially optimal dosing for scarce vaccines: Ethical analysis through the principlism framework. J Eval Clin Pract 2023; 29:1090-1094. [PMID: 37128128 DOI: 10.1111/jep.13850] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/27/2023] [Accepted: 04/13/2023] [Indexed: 05/03/2023]
Abstract
RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES Under conditions of vaccine scarcity, the socially optimal dosing (SOD) strategy administers a lower dose of vaccine to a larger number of people than the individually optimal dosing (IOD) strategy, which administers a higher dose of vaccine to a smaller number of people. In the context of vaccines that generate diminishing returns of effectiveness with each additional dose beyond the first, SOD therefore generates a greater total amount of vaccine-induced protection than IOD and, as such, constitutes the socially optimal strategy. While the clinical and public health arguments in favour of SOD have previously been outlined, this article conducts an ethical analysis of SOD for scarce vaccines through the ethical framework of principlism. METHODS SOD is examined with regard to each principle within the principlism framework-nonmaleficence, beneficence, autonomy, and justice. RESULTS SOD is found to satisfy each of the ethical requirements under examination. Regarding nonmaleficence, SOD induces less iatrogenic harm than IOD since the dose of vaccine administered to each individual is lower in the former than the latter. Furthermore, both the good and bad effects of SOD are foreseen while only the good effects are intended, meaning this strategy simultaneously satisfies the doctrine of double effect. Regarding autonomy, SOD makes vaccine-induced protection available to a greater number of individuals who wish to receive it, thereby respecting their capacity for self-determination and to make independent decisions. Regarding beneficence, SOD renders the good-namely the protection of health-more widely available to the individuals that constitute the population in question. Finally, SOD promotes theories of justice that treat individuals equally and is unlikely to reduce the effectiveness of other distribution policies that allocate scarce vaccines in a just manner. CONCLUSION In conditions of vaccine scarcity, SOD favourably satisfies the ethical framework of principlism.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Richard C Armitage
- Academic Unit of Population and Lifespan Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Jacobson SI, Kacew AJ, Knoebel RW, Hsieh PH, Ratain MJ, Strohbehn GW. Alternative Trastuzumab Dosing Schedules Are Associated With Reductions in Health Care Greenhouse Gas Emissions. JCO Oncol Pract 2023; 19:799-807. [PMID: 37450776 PMCID: PMC10538895 DOI: 10.1200/op.23.00227] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/12/2023] [Revised: 05/24/2023] [Accepted: 06/15/2023] [Indexed: 07/18/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Cancer care-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions harm human health. Many cancer drugs are administered at greater-than-necessary doses, frequencies, and durations. Alternative dosing strategies may enable reductions in cancer care GHG emissions without compromising patient outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS We used streamlined life-cycle analysis in a case-control simulation to estimate the relative reductions in GHG emissions that would be expected to result from using each of three alternative dosing strategies of trastuzumab (6-month adjuvant treatment duration, once every 4-week dosing, and both) in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)+ breast cancer. Using primary data and conversion factors from the environmental science literature, we estimated per-patient relative reduction in GHG emissions and, using SEER data, health impacts (in terms of disability-adjusted life-years [DALYs] and excess mortality per kg CO2) on bystanders for each alternative dosing strategy. RESULTS Compared with the trastuzumab dosing strategy commonly used at baseline (12-month duration of adjuvant therapy and once every 3-week dosing in all settings), adoption of both 6-month adjuvant trastuzumab and once every 4-week trastuzumab dosing would reduce GHG emissions by 4.5%, 18.7%, and 14.6% in the neoadjuvant, adjuvant, and metastatic settings, respectively. We estimate that US-based adoption of alternative trastuzumab dosing would reduce annual DALYs and excess lives lost due to environmental impact of US-based trastuzumab therapy for HER2+ breast cancer by 1.5 and 0.9, respectively. CONCLUSION Alternative dosing strategies may materially reduce the population health impacts of cancer care by reducing environmental impact. Regulatory decision making and health technology assessments should consider a treatment's environmental and population health impacts. Clinical trials of alternative dosing strategies are justified on the basis of environmental and population health impacts.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Alec J. Kacew
- University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine, Chicago, IL
| | | | - Po-Hung Hsieh
- Committee on Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacogenomics, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL
- United States Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD
| | - Mark J. Ratain
- Committee on Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacogenomics, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL
- Department of Medicine, Section of Hematology/Oncology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL
- Center for Personalized Therapeutics, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL
| | - Garth W. Strohbehn
- University of Michigan Rogel Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, MI
- Veterans Affairs Center for Clinical Management Research, Ann Arbor, MI
- Division of Medical Oncology, LTC Charles S Kettles VA Medical Center, Ann Arbor, MI
- Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
- Center for Global Health Equity, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Strohbehn GW, Lichter AS, Ratain MJ. US Government Payer-Funded Trials to Address Oncology's Drug-Dosing Conundrum: A Congressional Call to Action? J Clin Oncol 2023; 41:2488-2492. [PMID: 36780590 DOI: 10.1200/jco.22.02049] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/15/2023] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Garth W Strohbehn
- Veterans Affairs Center for Clinical Management Research, Ann Arbor, MI.,LTC Charles S Kettles VA Medical Center, Ann Arbor, MI.,University of Michigan Rogel Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, MI.,Optimal Cancer Care Alliance, Ann Arbor, MI
| | | | - Mark J Ratain
- Optimal Cancer Care Alliance, Ann Arbor, MI.,University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.,University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, IL.,Center for Personalized Therapeutics, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL
| |
Collapse
|