Assessment of various continual reassessment method models for dose-escalation phase 1 oncology clinical trials: using real clinical data and simulation studies

Mathematical Modelling for Optimal Vaccine Dose Finding: Maximising Efficacy and Minimising Toxicity

Vaccination is a key tool to reduce global disease burden. Vaccine dose can affect vaccine efficacy and toxicity. Given the expense of developing vaccines, optimising vaccine dose is essential. Mathematical modelling has been suggested as an approach for optimising vaccine dose by quantitatively establishing the relationships between dose and efficacy/toxicity. In this work, we performed simulation studies to assess the performance of modelling approaches in determining optimal dose. We found that the ability of modelling approaches to determine optimal dose improved with trial size, particularly for studies with at least 30 trial participants, and that, generally, using a peaking or a weighted model-averaging-based dose–efficacy relationship was most effective in finding optimal dose. Most methods of trial dose selection were similarly effective for the purpose of determining optimal dose; however, including modelling to adapt doses during a trial may lead to more trial participants receiving a more optimal dose. Clinical trial dosing around the predicted optimal dose, rather than only at the predicted optimal dose, may improve final dose selection. This work suggests modelling can be used effectively for vaccine dose finding, prompting potential practical applications of these methods in accelerating effective vaccine development and saving lives.

Moving Beyond 3+3: The Future of Clinical Trial Design

Misgivings have been raised about the operating characteristics of the canonical 3+3 dose-escalation phase I clinical trial design. Yet, the traditional 3+3 design is still the most commonly used. Although it has been implied that adhering to this design is due to a stubborn reluctance to adopt change despite other designs performing better in hypothetical computer-generated simulation models, the continued adherence to 3+3 dose-escalation phase I strategies is more likely because these designs perform the best in the real world, pinpointing the correct dose and important side effects with an acceptable degree of precision. Beyond statistical simulations, there are little data to refute the supposed shortcomings ascribed to the 3+3 method. Even so, to address the unique nuances of gene- and immune-targeted compounds, a variety of inventive phase 1 trial designs have been suggested. Strategies for developing these therapies have launched first-in-human studies devised to acquire a breadth of patient data that far exceed the size of a typical phase I design and blur the distinction between dose selection and efficacy evaluation. Recent phase I trials of promising cancer therapies assessed objective tumor response and durability at various doses and schedules as well as incorporated multiple expansion cohorts spanning a variety of histology or biomarker-defined tumor subtypes, sometimes resulting in U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval after phase I. This article reviews recent innovations in phase I design from the perspective of multiple stakeholders and provides recommendations for future trials.