A seamless phase IIB/III adaptive outcome trial: design rationale and implementation challenges

Randomised trials at the level of the individual

In global health research, short-term, small-scale clinical trials with fixed, two-arm trial designs that generally do not allow for major changes throughout the trial are the most common study design. Building on the introductory paper of this Series, this paper discusses data-driven approaches to clinical trial research across several adaptive trial designs, as well as the master protocol framework that can help to harmonise clinical trial research efforts in global health research. We provide a general framework for more efficient trial research, and we discuss the importance of considering different study designs in the planning stage with statistical simulations. We conclude this second Series paper by discussing the methodological and operational complexity of adaptive trial designs and master protocols and the current funding challenges that could limit uptake of these approaches in global health research.

Planning for the Next Pandemic: Ethics and Innovation Today for Improved Clinical Trials Tomorrow

The coronavirus pandemic has brought public attention to the steps required to produce valid scientific clinical research in drug development. Traditional ethical principles that guide clinical research remain the guiding compass for physicians, patients, public health officials, investigators, drug developers and the public. Accelerating the process of delivering safe and effective treatments and vaccines against COVID-19 is a moral imperative. The apparent clash between the regulated system of phased randomized clinical trials and urgent public health need requires leveraging innovation with ethical scientific rigor. We reflect on the Belmont principles of autonomy, beneficence and justice as the pandemic unfolds, and illustrate the role of innovative clinical trial designs in alleviating pandemic challenges. Our discussion highlights selected types of innovative trial design and correlates them with ethical parameters and public health benefits. Details are provided for platform trials and other innovative designs such as basket and umbrella trials, designs leveraging external data sources, multi-stage seamless trials, preplanned control arm data sharing between larger trials, and higher order systems of linked trials coordinated more broadly between individual trials and phases of development, recently introduced conceptually as "PIPELINEs."

Considerations on the clinical development of COVID-19 vaccine from trial design perspectives

COVID-19 has become a global pandemic, and an effective vaccine is needed. During the outbreak, the urgency for developing candidate vaccines has brought distinct challenges to clinical development. An efficacy trial, which measures whether the vaccine reduces the incidence of disease, is ordinarily required to fully evaluate vaccine efficacy. However, emergency use may be possible if promising immunogenicity results are observed. A ring vaccination trial, which recruits subjects connected to a known case either socially or geographically, is a solution to evaluate vaccine efficacy and control the spread of the disease simultaneously although its conduct is challenging. Nevertheless, when COVID-19 becomes a recurrent epidemic, an 'individual-level' efficacy trial is preferred. Innovative statistical designs, including seamless design, platform trial, master protocol design, are helpful to accelerate clinical development. A seamless Phase I/II design has been applied in multiple COVID-19 vaccine studies to date. However, Phase II/III design should be done very carefully. The control of type I error, maintaining trial blinding and statistical methods leading to unbiased estimates should be pre-specified in the clinical protocol. A Data Safety Monitoring Board is especially important, given the need to assure an adequate level of safety when society want a safe and effective vaccine.

Long-term effectiveness of the nine-valent human papillomavirus vaccine in Scandinavian women: interim analysis after 8 years of follow-up

A long-term follow-up (LTFU) of the nine-valent human papillomavirus (9vHPV) vaccine efficacy study in young women aged 16–26 years was initiated to evaluate if vaccine effectiveness for up to 14 years post-vaccination will remain above 90%. Vaccine effectiveness is measured as percent reduction in the incidence of HPV16/18/31/33/45/52/58-related high-grade cervical dysplasia in the LTFU cohort relative to expected incidence in a similar unvaccinated cohort. We report an interim analysis 8 years post-vaccination. Overall, 2029 participants from Denmark, Norway, and Sweden who received the 9vHPV vaccine during the clinical efficacy study continued into the LTFU study. National health registries were used to identify screening attendance and cervical pre-cancer/cancer diagnoses. Tissue samples were retrieved for HPV testing by PCR and pathology diagnosis adjudication. A control chart method was used to detect signals indicative of vaccine effectiveness waning below 90%. No new cases of HPV16/18/31/33/45/52/58-related high-grade cervical dysplasia were observed during the LTFU study period over 4084.2 person-years’ follow-up (per-protocol effectiveness population; n = 1448). Thus, there were no signals indicative of vaccine effectiveness waning below 90%. These observations show that the 9vHPV vaccine provides continued statistically significant protection through at least 6 years, with indications of continued effectiveness through 8 years.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00543543, NCT02653118.

Innovative trial designs and analyses for vaccine clinical development

In the past decades, the world has experienced several major virus outbreaks, e.g. West African Ebola outbreak, Zika virus in South America and most recently global coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Many vaccines have been developed to prevent a variety of infectious diseases successfully. However, several infections have not been preventable so far, like COVID-19, which induces an immediate urgent need for effective vaccines. These emerging infectious diseases often pose unprecedent challenges for the global heath community as well as the conventional vaccine development paradigm. With a long and costly traditional vaccine development process, there are extensive needs in innovative vaccine trial designs and analyses, which aim to design more efficient vaccines trials. Featured with reduced development timeline, less resource consuming or improved estimate for the endpoints of interests, these more efficient trials bring effective medicine to target population in a faster and less costly way. In this paper, we will review a few vaccine trials equipped with adaptive design features, Bayesian designs that accommodate historical data borrowing, the master protocol strategy emerging during COVID-19 vaccine development, Real-World-Data (RWD) embedded trials and the correlate of protection framework and relevant research works. We will also discuss some statistical methodologies that improve the vaccine efficacy, safety and immunogenicity analyses. Innovative clinical trial designs and analyses, together with advanced research technologies and deeper understanding of the human immune system, are paving the way for the efficient development of new vaccines in the future.

Analysis of the WHO ICTRP for novel coronavirus clinical trial registrations

Up-to-date information on the current progress made in the research and development to control the global COVID-19 pandemic is important. The study aimed to analyze the clinical trial characteristics and vaccine development progress of the new Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) registered with the World Health Organization International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP).A comprehensive search of COVID-19 clinical trials since the establishment of the ICTRP to June 11, 2020, was conducted to record and analyze relevant characteristics. Chi-Squared test was used to compare the statistical differences between different research types, interventions, and sources.A total of 3282 COVID-19 clinical trials in 17 clinical trial registration centers were registered with the WHO ICTRP. The main research sources for the present study were ClinicalTrials.gov and ChiCTR. There were significant differences in the parameters of study location (P = .000), number of participants (P = .000), study duration (P = .001), research stage (P = .000), randomization procedure (P = .000), and blinding method (P = .000) between the 2 registration sources. There were significant differences in all the parameters between different kinds of intervention methods. Hydroxychloroquine, plasma therapy, and Xiyanping injection were the high-frequency research drugs used. Ten different vaccine studies were registered under phases I-II.Amongst the studies researched, heterogeneity existed for various parameters. Differences in the type of study, interventions, and registration sources of the studies led to significant differences in certain parameters of the COVID-19 clinical trials. The statistics of high-frequency drugs and the progress of vaccine trials may provide an informative reference for the prevention and control of COVID-19.

The adaptive designs CONSORT extension (ACE) statement: a checklist with explanation and elaboration guideline for reporting randomised trials that use an adaptive design

Adaptive designs (ADs) allow pre-planned changes to an ongoing trial without compromising the validity of conclusions and it is essential to distinguish pre-planned from unplanned changes that may also occur. The reporting of ADs in randomised trials is inconsistent and needs improving. Incompletely reported AD randomised trials are difficult to reproduce and are hard to interpret and synthesise. This consequently hampers their ability to inform practice as well as future research and contributes to research waste. Better transparency and adequate reporting will enable the potential benefits of ADs to be realised.This extension to the Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statement was developed to enhance the reporting of randomised AD clinical trials. We developed an Adaptive designs CONSORT Extension (ACE) guideline through a two-stage Delphi process with input from multidisciplinary key stakeholders in clinical trials research in the public and private sectors from 21 countries, followed by a consensus meeting. Members of the CONSORT Group were involved during the development process.The paper presents the ACE checklists for AD randomised trial reports and abstracts, as well as an explanation with examples to aid the application of the guideline. The ACE checklist comprises seven new items, nine modified items, six unchanged items for which additional explanatory text clarifies further considerations for ADs, and 20 unchanged items not requiring further explanatory text. The ACE abstract checklist has one new item, one modified item, one unchanged item with additional explanatory text for ADs, and 15 unchanged items not requiring further explanatory text.The intention is to enhance transparency and improve reporting of AD randomised trials to improve the interpretability of their results and reproducibility of their methods, results and inference. We also hope indirectly to facilitate the much-needed knowledge transfer of innovative trial designs to maximise their potential benefits. In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on the BMJ and Trials journal websites."To maximise the benefit to society, you need to not just do research but do it well" Douglas G Altman.

The Adaptive designs CONSORT Extension (ACE) statement: a checklist with explanation and elaboration guideline for reporting randomised trials that use an adaptive design

Adaptive designs (ADs) allow pre-planned changes to an ongoing trial without compromising the validity of conclusions and it is essential to distinguish pre-planned from unplanned changes that may also occur. The reporting of ADs in randomised trials is inconsistent and needs improving. Incompletely reported AD randomised trials are difficult to reproduce and are hard to interpret and synthesise. This consequently hampers their ability to inform practice as well as future research and contributes to research waste. Better transparency and adequate reporting will enable the potential benefits of ADs to be realised.This extension to the Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statement was developed to enhance the reporting of randomised AD clinical trials. We developed an Adaptive designs CONSORT Extension (ACE) guideline through a two-stage Delphi process with input from multidisciplinary key stakeholders in clinical trials research in the public and private sectors from 21 countries, followed by a consensus meeting. Members of the CONSORT Group were involved during the development process.The paper presents the ACE checklists for AD randomised trial reports and abstracts, as well as an explanation with examples to aid the application of the guideline. The ACE checklist comprises seven new items, nine modified items, six unchanged items for which additional explanatory text clarifies further considerations for ADs, and 20 unchanged items not requiring further explanatory text. The ACE abstract checklist has one new item, one modified item, one unchanged item with additional explanatory text for ADs, and 15 unchanged items not requiring further explanatory text.The intention is to enhance transparency and improve reporting of AD randomised trials to improve the interpretability of their results and reproducibility of their methods, results and inference. We also hope indirectly to facilitate the much-needed knowledge transfer of innovative trial designs to maximise their potential benefits.

Comparison of different human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine types and dose schedules for prevention of HPV-related disease in females and males

BACKGROUND

Uptake of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine remains low in many countries, although the bivalent and quadrivalent HPV vaccines given as a three-dose schedule are effective in the prevention of precancerous lesions of the cervix in women. Simpler immunisation schedules, such as those with fewer doses, might reduce barriers to vaccination, as may programmes that include males.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy, immunogenicity, and harms of different dose schedules and different types of HPV vaccines in females and males.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted electronic searches on 27 September 2018 in Ovid MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (in the Cochrane Library), and Ovid Embase. We also searched the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov (both 27 September 2018), vaccine manufacturer websites, and checked reference lists from an index of HPV studies and other relevant systematic reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with no language restriction. We considered studies if they enrolled HIV-negative males or females aged 9 to 26 years, or HIV-positive males or females of any age.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used methods recommended by Cochrane. We use the term 'control' to refer to comparator products containing an adjuvant or active vaccine and 'placebo' to refer to products that contain no adjuvant or active vaccine. Most primary outcomes in this review were clinical outcomes. However, for comparisons comparing dose schedules, the included RCTs were designed to measure antibody responses (i.e. immunogenicity) as the primary outcome, rather than clinical outcomes, since it is unethical to collect cervical samples from girls under 16 years of age. We analysed immunogenicity outcomes (i.e. geometric mean titres) with ratios of means, clinical outcomes (e.g. cancer and intraepithelial neoplasia) with risk ratios or rate ratios and, for serious adverse events and deaths, we calculated odds ratios. We rated the certainty of evidence with GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 20 RCTs with 31,940 participants. The length of follow-up in the included studies ranged from seven months to five years. Two doses versus three doses of HPV vaccine in 9- to 15-year-old females Antibody responses after two-dose and three-dose HPV vaccine schedules were similar after up to five years of follow-up (4 RCTs, moderate- to high-certainty evidence). No RCTs collected clinical outcome data. Evidence about serious adverse events in studies comparing dose schedules was of very low-certainty owing to imprecision and indirectness (three doses 35/1159; two doses 36/1158; 4 RCTs). One death was reported in the three-dose group (1/898) and none in the two-dose group (0/899) (low-certainty evidence). Interval between doses of HPV vaccine in 9- to 14-year-old females and males Antibody responses were stronger with a longer interval (6 or 12 months) between the first two doses of HPV vaccine than a shorter interval (2 or 6 months) at up to three years of follow-up (4 RCTs, moderate- to high-certainty evidence). No RCTs collected data about clinical outcomes. Evidence about serious adverse events in studies comparing intervals was of very low-certainty, owing to imprecision and indirectness. No deaths were reported in any of the studies (0/1898, 3 RCTs, low-certainty evidence). HPV vaccination of 10- to 26-year-old males In one RCT there was moderate-certainty evidence that quadrivalent HPV vaccine, compared with control, reduced the incidence of external genital lesions (control 36 per 3081 person-years; quadrivalent 6 per 3173 person-years; rate ratio 0.16, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.38; 6254 person-years) and anogenital warts (control 28 per 2814 person-years; quadrivalent 3 per 2831 person-years; rate ratio 0.11, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.38; 5645 person-years). The quadrivalent vaccine resulted in more injection-site adverse events, such as pain or redness, than control (537 versus 601 per 1000; risk ratio (RR) 1.12, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.18, 3895 participants, high-certainty evidence). There was very low-certainty evidence from two RCTs about serious adverse events with quadrivalent vaccine (control 12/2588; quadrivalent 8/2574), and about deaths (control 11/2591; quadrivalent 3/2582), owing to imprecision and indirectness. Nonavalent versus quadrivalent vaccine in 9- to 26-year-old females and males Three RCTs were included; one in females aged 9- to 15-years (n = 600), one in females aged 16- to 26-years (n = 14,215), and one in males aged 16- to 26-years (n = 500). The RCT in 16- to 26-year-old females reported clinical outcomes. There was little to no difference in the incidence of the combined outcome of high-grade cervical epithelial neoplasia, adenocarcinoma in situ, or cervical cancer between the HPV vaccines (quadrivalent 325/6882, nonavalent 326/6871; OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.16; 13,753 participants; high-certainty evidence). The other two RCTs did not collect data about clinical outcomes. There were slightly more local adverse events with the nonavalent vaccine (905 per 1000) than the quadrivalent vaccine (846 per 1000) (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.08; 3 RCTs, 15,863 participants; high-certainty evidence). Comparative evidence about serious adverse events in the three RCTs (nonavalent 243/8234, quadrivalent 192/7629; OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.14 to 2.61) was of low certainty, owing to imprecision and indirectness. HPV vaccination for people living with HIV Seven RCTs reported on HPV vaccines in people with HIV, with two small trials that collected data about clinical outcomes. Antibody responses were higher following vaccination with either bivalent or quadrivalent HPV vaccine than with control, and these responses could be demonstrated to have been maintained for up to 24 months in children living with HIV (low-certainty evidence). The evidence about clinical outcomes and harms for HPV vaccines in people with HIV is very uncertain (low- to very low-certainty evidence), owing to imprecision and indirectness.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The immunogenicity of two-dose and three-dose HPV vaccine schedules, measured using antibody responses in young females, is comparable. The quadrivalent vaccine probably reduces external genital lesions and anogenital warts in males compared with control. The nonavalent and quadrivalent vaccines offer similar protection against a combined outcome of cervical, vaginal, and vulval precancer lesions or cancer. In people living with HIV, both the bivalent and quadrivalent HPV vaccines result in high antibody responses. For all comparisons of alternative HPV vaccine schedules, the certainty of the body of evidence about serious adverse events reported during the study periods was low or very low, either because the number of events was low, or the evidence was indirect, or both. Post-marketing surveillance is needed to continue monitoring harms that might be associated with HPV vaccines in the population, and this evidence will be incorporated in future updates of this review. Long-term observational studies are needed to determine the effectiveness of reduced-dose schedules against HPV-related cancer endpoints, and whether adopting these schedules improves vaccine coverage rates.

Efficacy, Immunogenicity, and Safety of a 9-Valent Human Papillomavirus Vaccine: Subgroup Analysis of Participants From Asian Countries

Background

A 9-valent human papillomavirus-6/11/16/18/31/33/45/52/58 (9vHPV) vaccine extends coverage to 5 next most common oncogenic types (31/33/45/52/58) in cervical cancer versus quadrivalent HPV (qHPV) vaccine. We describe efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety in Asian participants (India, Hong Kong, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and Thailand) from 2 international studies: a randomized, double-blinded, qHPV vaccine-controlled efficacy study (young women aged 16–26 years; NCT00543543; Study 001); and an immunogenicity study (girls and boys aged 9–15 years; NCT00943722; Study 002).

Methods

Participants (N = 2519) were vaccinated at day 1 and months 2 and 6. Gynecological samples (Study 001 only) and serum were collected for HPV DNA and antibody assessments, respectively. Injection-site and systemic adverse events (AEs) were monitored. Data were analyzed by country and vaccination group.

Results

9vHPV vaccine prevented HPV-31/33/45/52/58–related persistent infection with 90.4%–100% efficacy across included countries. At month 7, ≥97.9% of participants seroconverted for each HPV type. Injection-site AEs occurred in 77.7%–83.1% and 81.9%–87.5% of qHPV and 9vHPV vaccine recipients in Study 001, respectively, and 62.4%–85.7% of girls/boys in Study 002; most were mild to moderate.

Conclusions

The 9vHPV vaccine is efficacious, immunogenic, and well tolerated in Asian participants. Data support 9vHPV vaccination programs in Asia.

Clinical Trials Registration

NCT00543543; NCT00943722.

Response adaptive randomization procedures in seamless phase II/III clinical trials

It is desirable to work efficiently and cost effectively to evaluate new therapies in a time-sensitive and ethical manner without compromising the integrity and validity of the development process. The seamless phase II/III clinical trial has been proposed to meet this need, and its efficient, ethical and economic advantages can be strengthened by its combination with innovative response adaptive randomization (RAR) procedures. In particular, well-designed frequentist RAR procedures can target theoretically optimal allocation proportions, and there are explicit asymptotic results. However, there has been little research into seamless phase II/III clinical trials with frequentist RAR because of the difficulty in performing valid statistical inference and controlling the type I error rate. In this paper, we propose the framework for a family of frequentist RAR designs for seamless phase II/III trials, derive the asymptotic distribution of the parameter estimators using martingale processes and offer solutions to control the type I error rate. The numerical studies demonstrate our theoretical findings and the advantages of the proposed methods.

Nine-valent HPV vaccine efficacy against related diseases and definitive therapy: comparison with historic placebo population

OBJECTIVE

Nine-valent human papillomavirus (9vHPV) vaccine efficacy against disease and cervical surgeries related to all nine vaccine components was assessed compared with a historic placebo population. This was not assessed in the 9vHPV vaccine efficacy trial since the trial was quadrivalent HPV (qHPV) vaccine-controlled, efficacy was measured for the five HPV types covered only by 9vHPV vaccine (HPV31/33/45/52/58), but not the four types covered by both vaccines (HPV6/11/16/18).

METHODS

Three international, randomized, double-blind studies were conducted using the same methodology. In the 9vHPV vaccine study (NCT00543543), 7106 and 7109 women received 9vHPV or qHPV vaccine, respectively. In the historic qHPV vaccine studies (FUTURE I [NCT00092521] and II [NCT00092534]), 8810 and 8812 women received qHPV vaccine or placebo, respectively, based on the same eligibility criteria. Cervical cytological testing was performed regularly. Biopsy or definitive therapy specimens were assessed for HPV DNA.

RESULTS

Among women negative for 14 HPV types prior to vaccination, incidence of high-grade cervical disease (9vHPV, n = 2 cases; placebo, n = 141 cases) and cervical surgery (9vHPV, n = 3 cases; placebo, n = 170 cases) related to the nine HPV types was reduced by 98.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 93.6-99.7) and 97.8% (95% CI, 93.4-99.4), respectively. The 9vHPV vaccine did not prevent disease related to vaccine HPV types detected at baseline, but significantly reduced cervical, vulvar, and vaginal diseases related to other vaccine HPV types.

CONCLUSIONS

Effective implementation of the 9vHPV vaccine may substantially reduce the burden of HPV-related diseases and related medical procedures.

TRIAL REGISTRATIONS

clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00543543, NCT00092521, NCT00092534.

Efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety of a 9-valent human papillomavirus vaccine in Latin American girls, boys, and young women

BACKGROUND

A 9-valent human papillomavirus (HPV6/11/16/18/31/33/45/52/58; 9vHPV) vaccine was developed to expand coverage of the previously developed quadrivalent (HPV6/11/16/18; qHPV) vaccine.

METHODS

Efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety outcomes were assessed in Latin American participants enrolled in 2 international studies of the 9vHPV vaccine, including a randomized, double-blinded, controlled with qHPV vaccine, efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety study in young women aged 16-26 years, and an immunogenicity and safety study in girls and boys aged 9-15 years. Participants (N=5312) received vaccination at Day 1, Month 2, and Month 6. Gynecological swabs were collected regularly in young women for cytological and HPV DNA testing. Serum was analyzed for HPV antibodies in all participants. Adverse events (AEs) were also monitored in all participants.

RESULTS

The 9vHPV vaccine prevented HPV 31-, 33-, 45-, 52-, and 58-related high-grade cervical, vulvar, and vaginal dysplasia with 92.3% efficacy (95% confidence interval 54.4, 99.6). Anti-HPV6, 11, 16, and 18 geometric mean titers at Month 7 were similar in the 9vHPV and qHPV vaccination groups. Anti-HPV antibody responses following vaccination were higher among girls and boys than in young women. Most (>99%) 9vHPV vaccine recipients seroconverted for all 9 HPV types at Month 7. Antibody responses to the 9 HPV types persisted over 5 years. The most common AEs were injection-site related, mostly of mild to moderate intensity.

CONCLUSIONS

The 9vHPV vaccine is efficacious, immunogenic, and well tolerated in Latin American young women, girls, and boys. These data support 9vHPV vaccination programs in Latin America, a region with substantial cervical cancer burden.

Critical concepts in adaptive clinical trials

Adaptive clinical trials are an innovative trial design aimed at reducing resources, decreasing time to completion and number of patients exposed to inferior interventions, and improving the likelihood of detecting treatment effects. The last decade has seen an increasing use of adaptive designs, particularly in drug development. They frequently differ importantly from conventional clinical trials as they allow modifications to key trial design components during the trial, as data is being collected, using preplanned decision rules. Adaptive designs have increased likelihood of complexity and also potential bias, so it is important to understand the common types of adaptive designs. Many clinicians and investigators may be unfamiliar with the design considerations for adaptive designs. Given their complexities, adaptive trials require an understanding of design features and sources of bias. Herein, we introduce some common adaptive design elements and biases and specifically address response adaptive randomization, sample size reassessment, Bayesian methods for adaptive trials, seamless trials, and adaptive enrichment using real examples.

Final efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety analyses of a nine-valent human papillomavirus vaccine in women aged 16-26 years: a randomised, double-blind trial

BACKGROUND

Primary analyses of a study in young women aged 16-26 years showed efficacy of the nine-valent human papillomavirus (9vHPV; HPV 6, 11, 16, 18, 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58) vaccine against infections and disease related to HPV 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58, and non-inferior HPV 6, 11, 16, and 18 antibody responses when compared with quadrivalent HPV (qHPV; HPV 6, 11, 16, and 18) vaccine. We aimed to report efficacy of the 9vHPV vaccine for up to 6 years following first administration and antibody responses over 5 years.

METHODS

We undertook this randomised, double-blind, efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety study of the 9vHPV vaccine study at 105 study sites in 18 countries. Women aged 16-26 years old who were healthy, with no history of abnormal cervical cytology, no previous abnormal cervical biopsy results, and no more than four lifetime sexual partners were randomly assigned (1:1) by central randomisation and block sizes of 2 and 2 to receive three intramuscular injections over 6 months of 9vHPV or qHPV (control) vaccine. All participants, study investigators, and study site personnel, laboratory staff, members of the sponsor's study team, and members of the adjudication pathology panel were masked to vaccination groups. The primary outcomes were incidence of high-grade cervical disease (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or 3, adenocarcinoma in situ, invasive cervical carcinoma), vulvar disease (vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2/3, vulvar cancer), and vaginal disease (vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2/3, vaginal cancer) related to HPV 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58 and non-inferiority (excluding a decrease of 1·5 times) of anti-HPV 6, 11, 16, and 18 geometric mean titres (GMT). Tissue samples were adjudicated for histopathology diagnosis and tested for HPV DNA. Serum antibody responses were assessed by competitive Luminex immunoassay. The primary evaluation of efficacy was a superiority analysis in the per-protocol efficacy population, supportive efficacy was analysed in the modified intention-to-treat population, and the primary evaluation of immunogenicity was a non-inferiority analysis. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00543543.

FINDINGS

Between Sept 26, 2007, and Dec 18, 2009, we recruited and randomly assigned 14 215 participants to receive 9vHPV (n=7106) or qHPV (n=7109) vaccine. In the per-protocol population, the incidence of high-grade cervical, vulvar and vaginal disease related to HPV 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58 was 0·5 cases per 10 000 person-years in the 9vHPV and 19·0 cases per 10 000 person-years in the qHPV groups, representing 97·4% efficacy (95% CI 85·0-99·9). HPV 6, 11, 16, and 18 GMTs were non-inferior in the 9vHPV versus qHPV group from month 1 to 3 years after vaccination. No clinically meaningful differences in serious adverse events were noted between the study groups. 11 participants died during the study follow-up period (six in the 9vHPV vaccine group and five in the qHPV vaccine group); none of the deaths were considered vaccine-related.

INTERPRETATION

The 9vHPV vaccine prevents infection, cytological abnormalities, high-grade lesions, and cervical procedures related to HPV 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58. Both the 9vHPV vaccine and qHPV vaccine had a similar immunogenicity profile with respect to HPV 6, 11, 16, and 18. Vaccine efficacy was sustained for up to 6 years. The 9vHPV vaccine could potentially provide broader coverage and prevent 90% of cervical cancer cases worldwide.

FUNDING

Merck & Co, Inc.

9-Valent human papillomavirus vaccine: a review of the clinical development program

INTRODUCTION

The 9-valent human papillomavirus (9vHPV) vaccine covers the same HPV types (6/11/16/18) as the quadrivalent HPV (qHPV) vaccine and 5 additional cancer-causing types (31/33/45/52/58). Epidemiological studies indicate that the 9vHPV vaccine could prevent approximately 90% of cervical cancers, 70-85% of high-grade cervical dysplasia (precancers), 85-95% of HPV-related vulvar, vaginal, and anal cancers, and 90% of genital warts. Areas covered: Study design features and key findings from the 9vHPV vaccine clinical development program are reviewed. In particular, 9vHPV vaccine efficacy was established in a Phase III study in young women age 16-26 years. Efficacy results in young women were extrapolated to pre- and young adolescent girls and boys and young men by immunological bridging (i.e., demonstration of non-inferior immunogenicity in these groups versus young women). Expert commentary: The development of the 9vHPV vaccine is the outcome of 20 years of continuous clinical research. Broad vaccination programs could help substantially decrease the incidence of HPV-related disease.

Impact of baseline covariates on the immunogenicity of the 9-valent HPV vaccine - A combined analysis of five phase III clinical trials

BACKGROUND

The immunogenicity profile of the 9-valent HPV (9vHPV) vaccine was evaluated across five phase III clinical studies conducted in girls and boys 9-15 years of age and young women 16-26 years of age. The effect of baseline characteristics of subjects on vaccine-induced HPV antibody responses was assessed.

METHODS

Immunogenicity data from 11,304 subjects who received ≥1 dose of 9vHPV vaccine in five Phase III studies were analyzed. Vaccine was administered as a 3-dose regimen. HPV antibody titers were assessed 1 month after dose 3 using a competitive Luminex immunoassay and summarized as geometric mean titers (GMTs). Covariates examined were age, gender, race, region of residence, and HPV serostatus and PCR status at day 1.

RESULTS

GMTs to all 9 vaccine HPV types decreased with age at vaccination initiation, and were otherwise generally similar among the demographic subgroups defined by gender, race and region of residence. For all subgroups defined by race or region of residence, GMTs were higher in girls and boys than in young women. Vaccination of subjects who were seropositive at day 1 to a vaccine HPV type resulted in higher GMTs to that type, compared with those in subjects who were seronegative for that type at day 1.

CONCLUSIONS

9vHPV vaccine immunogenicity was robust among subjects with differing baseline characteristics. It was generally comparable across subjects of different races and from different regions. Greater immunogenicity in girls and boys versus young women (the population used to establish 9vHPV vaccine efficacy in clinical studies) indicates that the anti-HPV responses generated by the vaccine in adolescents from all races or regions were sufficient to induce high-level protective efficacy. This immunogenicity profile supports a widespread 9vHPV vaccination program and early vaccination.

Human papillomavirus 9-valent vaccine for cancer prevention: a systematic review of the available evidence

In 2014, the Food and Drug Administration approved a new human papillomavirus 9-valent vaccine (9vHPV), targeting nine HPV types: HPV types 6, 11, 16, and 18, which are also targeted by the quadrivalent HPV vaccine (qHPV), plus five additional high cancer risk HPV types (HPV types 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58). The aim of the current study was to systematically retrieve, qualitatively and quantitatively pool, as well as critically appraise all available evidence on 9vHPV from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We conducted a systematic review of the literature on 9vHPV efficacy, immunogenicity and safety, as well as a systematic search of registered, completed, and ongoing RCTs. We retrieved and screened 227 records for eligibility. A total of 10 publications reported on RCTs’ results on 9vHPV and were included in the review. Sixteen RCTs on 9vHPV have been registered on RCT registries. There is evidence that 9vHPV generated a response to HPV types 6, 11, 16 and 18 that was non-inferior to qHPV. Vaccine efficacy against five additional HPV type-related diseases was directly assessed on females aged 16–26 years (risk reduction against high-grade cervical, vulvar or vaginal disease = 96·7%, 95% CI 80·9%–99·8%). Bridging efficacy was demonstrated for males and females aged 9–15 years and males aged 16–26 years (the lower bound of the 95% CIs of both the geometric mean titer ratio and difference in seroconversion rates meeting the criteria for non-inferiority for all HPV types). Overall, 9vHPV has been proved to be safe and well tolerated. Other RCTs addressed: 9vHPV co-administration with other vaccines, 9vHPV administration in subjects that previously received qHPV and 9vHPV efficacy in regimens containing fewer than three doses. The inclusion of additional HPV types in 9vHPV offers great potential to expand protection against HPV infection. However, the impact of 9vHPV on reducing the global burden of HPV-related disease will greatly depend on vaccine uptake, coverage, availability, and affordability.

CBER's Experience With Adaptive Design Clinical Trials

There is considerable interest among pharmaceutical and other medical product developers in adaptive clinical trials, in which knowledge learned during the course of a trial affects ongoing conduct or analysis of the trial. When the FDA released a draft Guidance document on adaptive design clinical trials in early 2010, expectations were high that it would lead to an increase in regulatory submissions involving adaptive design features, particularly for confirmatory trials. A 6-year (2008-2013) retrospective survey was performed within the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) at the FDA to gather information regarding the submission and evaluation of adaptive design trial proposals. We present an up-to-date summary of adaptive design proposals seen in CBER and provide an overview of our experiences. We share our concerns regarding the statistical issues and operational challenges raised during the review process for adaptive design trials. We also provide general recommendations for developing proposals for such trials. Our motivation in writing this paper was to encourage the best study design proposals to be submitted to CBER. Sometimes these can be adaptive, and sometimes a simpler design is most efficient.

Design of a long-term follow-up effectiveness, immunogenicity and safety study of women who received the 9-valent human papillomavirus vaccine

The 9-valent human papillomavirus (HPV) (9vHPV) vaccine targets four HPV types (6/11/16/18) also covered by the quadrivalent HPV (qHPV) vaccine and five additional types (31/33/45/52/58). Vaccine efficacy to prevent HPV infection and disease was established in a Phase III clinical study in women 16-26years of age. A long-term follow-up (LTFU) study has been initiated as an extension of the Phase III clinical study to assess effectiveness of the 9vHPV vaccine up to at least 14years after the start of vaccination. It includes participants from Denmark, Norway and Sweden and uses national health registries from these countries to assess incidence of cervical pre-cancers and cancers due to the 7 oncogenic types in the vaccine (HPV 16/18/31/33/45/52/58). Incidences will be compared to the estimated incidence rate in an unvaccinated cohort of similar age and risk level. This LTFU study uses a unique design: it is an extension of a Phase III clinical study and also has elements of an epidemiological study (i.e., endpoints based on standard clinical practice; surveillance using searches from health registries); it uses a control chart method to determine whether vaccine effectiveness may be waning. Control chart methods which were developed in industrial and manufacturing settings for process and production monitoring, can be used to monitor disease incidence in real-time and promptly detect a decrease in vaccine effectiveness. Experience from this innovative study design may be applicable to other medicinal products when long-term outcomes need to be assessed, there is no control group, or outcomes are rare.

DIA's Adaptive Design Scientific Working Group (ADSWG): Best Practices Case Studies for "Less Well-understood" Adaptive Designs

Adaptive design (AD) clinical trials use accumulating subject data to modify the parameters of the design of an ongoing study, without compromising the validity and integrity of the study. The 2010 US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Draft Guidance on Adaptive Design Clinical Trials described a subset of 7 primary design types as "less well-understood." FDA defined these designs as those with limited regulatory experience. To better understand the properties of these less well-understood ADs and to promote their use when applicable, the Best Practices Subteam for DIA's Adaptive Design Scientific Working Group conducted an extensive nonsystematic search and reviewed trials from multiple sponsors who had employed these designs. Here, we review 10 specific case studies for which less well-understood ADs were employed and share feedback about their challenges and successes, as well as details about the regulatory interactions from these trials. We learned that these designs and associated statistical methodologies can make difficult research situations more amenable for study and, therefore, are needed in our toolbox. While they can be used to study many diseases, they are particularly valuable for rare diseases, small populations, studies involving terminal illnesses, and vaccine trials, in which it is important to find efficient ways to bring effective treatments to market more rapidly. It is imperative, however, that these methodologies be utilized appropriately, which requires careful planning and precise operational execution.

Safety Profile of the 9-Valent HPV Vaccine: A Combined Analysis of 7 Phase III Clinical Trials

OBJECTIVES

The overall safety profile of the 9-valent human papillomavirus (9vHPV) vaccine was evaluated across 7 Phase III studies, conducted in males and females (nonpregnant at entry), 9 to 26 years of age.

METHODS

Vaccination was administered as a 3-dose regimen at day 1, and months 2 and 6. More than 15 000 subjects received ≥1 dose of 9vHPV vaccine. In 2 of the studies, >7000 control subjects received ≥1 dose of quadrivalent HPV (qHPV) vaccine. Serious and nonserious adverse events (AEs) and new medical conditions were recorded throughout the study. Subjects testing positive for pregnancy at day 1 were not vaccinated; those who became pregnant after day 1 were discontinued from further vaccination until resolution of the pregnancy. Pregnancies detected after study start (n = 2950) were followed to outcome.

RESULTS

The most common AEs (≥5%) experienced by 9vHPV vaccine recipients were injection-site AEs (pain, swelling, erythema) and vaccine-related systemic AEs (headache, pyrexia). Injection-site AEs were more common in 9vHPV vaccine than qHPV vaccine recipients; most were mild-to-moderate in intensity. Discontinuations and vaccine-related serious AEs were rare (0.1% and <0.1%, respectively). Seven deaths were reported; none were considered vaccine related. The proportions of pregnancies with adverse outcome were within ranges reported in the general population.

CONCLUSIONS

The 9vHPV vaccine was generally well tolerated in subjects aged 9 to 26 years with an AE profile similar to that of the qHPV vaccine; injection-site AEs were more common with 9vHPV vaccine. Its additional coverage and safety profile support widespread 9vHPV vaccination.

Phase II studies to select the formulation of a multivalent HPV L1 virus-like particle (VLP) vaccine

Our objective was to develop a multivalent prophylactic HPV vaccine that protects against infection and disease caused by HPV16/18 (oncogenic types in existing prophylactic vaccines) plus additional oncogenic types by conducting 3 Phase II studies comparing the immunogenicity (i.e., anti-HPV6/11/16/18 geometric mean titers [GMT]) and safety of 7 vaccine candidates with the licensed quadrivalent HPV6/11/16/18 vaccine (qHPV vaccine) in young women ages 16-26. In the first study (Study 1), subjects received one of 3 dose formulations of an 8-valent HPV6/11/16/18/31/45/52/58 vaccine or qHPV vaccine (control). In Study 2, subjects received one of 3 dose formulations (termed low-, mid-, and high-dose formulations, respectively) of a 9-valent HPV6/11/16/18/31/33/45/52/58 vaccine (9vHPV vaccine) or qHPV vaccine (control). In Study 3, subjects concomitantly received qHPV vaccine plus 5-valent HPV31/33/45/52/58 or qHPV vaccine plus placebo (control). All vaccines were administered at day 1/month 2/month 6. In studies 1 and 3, anti-HPV6/11/16/18 GMTs at month 7 were non-inferior in the experimental arms compared with the control arm; however, there was a trend for lower antibody responses for all 4 HPV types. In Study 2, this immune interference was overcome with the mid- and high-dose formulations of the 9vHPV vaccine by increasing antigen and adjuvant doses. In all 3 studies, all vaccine candidates were strongly immunogenic with respect to HPV31/33/45/52/58 and were well tolerated. Based on the totality of the results, the middle dose formulation of the 9vHPV vaccine was selected for Phase III evaluation. Each 0.5mL dose contains 30μg/40μg/60μg/40μg/20μg/20μg/20μg/20μg/20μg of HPV6/11/16/18/31/33/45/52/58 virus-like particles, and 500μg of amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate adjuvant.ClinicalTrials.gov numbers NCT00260039, NCT00543543, and NCT00551187.

Deconstructing the measure of vaccine efficacy against disease irrespective of HPV in HPV vaccine clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines were licensed by demonstrating prevention of anogenital disease caused by specific HPV types in clinical studies. Measuring the impact of HPV vaccination on the overall burden of anogenital disease (irrespective of HPV) is an important public health question which is ideally addressed in post-licensure epidemiological studies. Attempts were made to use clinical trial data for that purpose. However, the interpretation of vaccine efficacy on the endpoint of disease irrespective of HPV is not widely understood.

METHODS

We used the 9-valent HPV vaccine clinical program as a case study to determine the value of measuring vaccine efficacy in such endpoint. This assessment was rigorously performed by heuristic reasoning and through probability calculations.

RESULTS

The measure of vaccine efficacy in the irrespective of HPV endpoint is driven simultaneously in opposite directions by the high estimate of prophylactic efficacy and a numerically negative estimate of risk reduction that is also a reflection of high prophylactic efficacy and no cross-protection.

CONCLUSIONS

The vaccine efficacy estimate in the irrespective of HPV endpoint is ambiguous and difficult to interpret. Comparing this estimate across different HPV vaccine studies requires an understanding of the contributions of vaccine HPV type efficacy and the incidence of disease not related to vaccine HPV types for each study. Without such understanding, comparing studies and drawing conclusions from such comparison are highly misleading. Approaches are proposed to divide this endpoint in components that are easier to interpret.

Missing steps in a staircase: a qualitative study of the perspectives of key stakeholders on the use of adaptive designs in confirmatory trials

Background

Despite the promising benefits of adaptive designs (ADs), their routine use, especially in confirmatory trials, is lagging behind the prominence given to them in the statistical literature. Much of the previous research to understand barriers and potential facilitators to the use of ADs has been driven from a pharmaceutical drug development perspective, with little focus on trials in the public sector. In this paper, we explore key stakeholders’ experiences, perceptions and views on barriers and facilitators to the use of ADs in publicly funded confirmatory trials.

Methods

Semi-structured, in-depth interviews of key stakeholders in clinical trials research (CTU directors, funding board and panel members, statisticians, regulators, chief investigators, data monitoring committee members and health economists) were conducted through telephone or face-to-face sessions, predominantly in the UK. We purposively selected participants sequentially to optimise maximum variation in views and experiences. We employed the framework approach to analyse the qualitative data.

Results

We interviewed 27 participants. We found some of the perceived barriers to be: lack of knowledge and experience coupled with paucity of case studies, lack of applied training, degree of reluctance to use ADs, lack of bridge funding and time to support design work, lack of statistical expertise, some anxiety about the impact of early trial stopping on researchers’ employment contracts, lack of understanding of acceptable scope of ADs and when ADs are appropriate, and statistical and practical complexities. Reluctance to use ADs seemed to be influenced by: therapeutic area, unfamiliarity, concerns about their robustness in decision-making and acceptability of findings to change practice, perceived complexities and proposed type of AD, among others.

Conclusions

There are still considerable multifaceted, individual and organisational obstacles to be addressed to improve uptake, and successful implementation of ADs when appropriate. Nevertheless, inferred positive change in attitudes and receptiveness towards the appropriate use of ADs by public funders are supportive and are a stepping stone for the future utilisation of ADs by researchers.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-015-0958-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

9-Valent HPV vaccine for cancers, pre-cancers and genital warts related to HPV

Human papillomavirus (HPV) is the causative agent of nearly all cervical cancer cases as well as a substantial proportion of anal, vulvar, vaginal, penile and oropharyngeal cancers, making it responsible for approximately 5% of the global cancer burden. The first-generation HPV vaccines that is, quadrivalent HPV type 6/11/16/18 vaccine and bivalent HPV type 16/18 vaccine were licensed in 2006 and 2007, respectively. A second-generation 9-valent HPV type 6/11/16/18/31/33/45/52/58 vaccine with broader cancer coverage was initiated even before the first vaccines were approved. By preventing HPV infection and disease due to HPV31/33/45/52/58, the 9vHPV vaccine has the potential to increase prevention of cervical cancer from 70 to 90%. In addition, the 9vHPV vaccine has the potential to prevent 85-95% of HPV-related vulvar, vaginal and anal cancers. Overall, the 9vHPV vaccine addresses a significant unmet medical need, although further health economics and implementation research is needed.

Design of a large outcome trial for a multivalent human papillomavirus L1 virus-like particle vaccine

BACKGROUND

The 9-valent human papillomavirus (HPV) (9vHPV) vaccine targets the four HPV types (6/11/16/18) covered by the licensed quadrivalent HPV (qHPV) vaccine and five additional types (31/33/45/52/58). A large outcome trial of 9vHPV vaccine was conducted.

METHODS

An active control (qHPV vaccine) was used because a placebo is not ethically acceptable. Since qHPV vaccine is (and 9vHPV vaccine was anticipated to be) highly efficacious against HPV 6/11/16/18, low incidence of HPV 6/11/16/18-associated disease was expected. Consequently, an efficacy comparison of 9vHPV versus qHPV vaccine for HPV 6/11/16/18 would have been prohibitively large in size. Moreover, no minimum antibody level predicting protection against infection or disease is defined for HPV vaccination. As an alternative approach, the two vaccines were compared using immunogenicity bridging for HPV 6/11/16/18 and clinical efficacy for HPV 31/33/45/52/58.

RESULTS

The two co-primary objectives were to demonstrate: (1) non-inferior anti-HPV 6/11/16/18 antibody response; and (2) superior efficacy in HPV 31/33/45/52/58-related clinical outcome, for 9vHPV vaccine versus qHPV vaccine. For HPV 6/11/16/18, supportive analyses included a non-inferiority assessment of the percent risk reduction (compared to historical placebo) for 9vHPV versus qHPV vaccine.

CONCLUSIONS

A Phase III study of 9vHPV vaccine was successfully implemented. Experience from this study design may be applicable when developing a multivalent vaccine covering the same serotypes as an existing vaccine plus additional serotypes and there is no immune correlate of protection. Also, this study established that efficacy of a new HPV vaccine may be demonstrated using immunogenicity endpoints, which may open new options in HPV vaccine development.