Qualifying a novel clinical trial endpoint (iBOX) predictive of long-term kidney transplant outcomes

New immunosuppressive therapies that improve long-term graft survival are needed in kidney transplant. Critical Path Institute's Transplant Therapeutics Consortium received a qualification opinion for the iBOX Scoring System as a novel secondary efficacy endpoint for kidney transplant clinical trials through European Medicines Agency's qualification of novel methodologies for drug development. This is the first qualified endpoint for any transplant indication and is now available for use in kidney transplant clinical trials. Although the current efficacy failure endpoint has typically shown the noninferiority of therapeutic regimens, the iBOX Scoring System can be used to demonstrate the superiority of a new immunosuppressive therapy compared to the standard of care from 6 months to 24 months posttransplant in pivotal or exploratory drug therapeutic studies.

Qualifying a Novel Clinical Trial Endpoint (iBOX) Predictive of Long-Term Kidney Transplant Outcomes

New immunosuppressive therapies that improve long-term graft survival are needed in kidney transplant. Critical Path Institute's Transplant Therapeutics Consortium received a qualification opinion for the iBOX Scoring System as a novel secondary efficacy endpoint for kidney transplant clinical trials through European Medicines Agency's qualification of novel methodologies for drug development. This is the first qualified endpoint for any transplant indication and is now available for use in kidney transplant clinical trials. Although the current efficacy failure endpoint has typically shown the noninferiority of therapeutic regimens, the iBOX Scoring System can be used to demonstrate the superiority of a new immunosuppressive therapy compared to the standard of care from 6 months to 24 months posttransplant in pivotal or exploratory drug therapeutic studies.

Exposure-response modeling for extrapolation from adult to pediatric patients who differ with respect to prognostic factors: Application to everolimus

Pediatric extrapolation is essential for bringing treatments to the pediatric population, especially for indications where the recruitment of pediatric patients into clinical trials is difficult and where fully powered trials are impossible. Often a similar exposure-response relationship between adult and pediatric patients can be assumed, but just matching exposures can be misleading when some prognostic factors for efficacy differ between those two patient populations. We present an example in liver transplantation where different study designs led to different (time-dependent) hazards between populations. Only after accounting for this difference an apparent mismatch between the extrapolation from adults and the pediatric study could be resolved. This article also exemplifies a clear scientific, methodological approach of pediatric extrapolation, including model building in adults, extrapolation to pediatrics, qualification of the extrapolation, and derivation of the actual pediatric efficacy.

Inverse probability of censoring weighting for visual predictive checks of time-to-event models with time-varying covariates

When constructing models to summarize clinical data to be used for simulations, it is good practice to evaluate the models for their capacity to reproduce the data. This can be done by means of Visual Predictive Checks (VPC), which consist of several reproductions of the original study by simulation from the model under evaluation, calculating estimates of interest for each simulated study and comparing the distribution of those estimates with the estimate from the original study. This procedure is a generic method that is straightforward to apply, in general. Here we consider the application of the method to time-to-event data and consider the special case when a time-varying covariate is not known or cannot be approximated after event time. In this case, simulations cannot be conducted beyond the end of the follow-up time (event or censoring time) in the original study. Thus, the simulations must be censored at the end of the follow-up time. Since this censoring is not random, the standard KM estimates from the simulated studies and the resulting VPC will be biased. We propose to use inverse probability of censoring weighting (IPoC) method to correct the KM estimator for the simulated studies and obtain unbiased VPCs. For analyzing the Cantos study, the IPoC weighting as described here proved valuable and enabled the generation of VPCs to qualify PKPD models for simulations. Here, we use a generated data set, which allows illustration of the different situations and evaluation against the known truth.

Advanced Methods for Dose and Regimen Finding During Drug Development: Summary of the EMA/EFPIA Workshop on Dose Finding (London 4-5 December 2014)

Inadequate dose selection for confirmatory trials is currently still one of the most challenging issues in drug development, as illustrated by high rates of late‐stage attritions in clinical development and postmarketing commitments required by regulatory institutions. In an effort to shift the current paradigm in dose and regimen selection and highlight the availability and usefulness of well‐established and regulatory‐acceptable methods, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in collaboration with the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries Association (EFPIA) hosted a multistakeholder workshop on dose finding (London 4–5 December 2014). Some methodologies that could constitute a toolkit for drug developers and regulators were presented. These methods are described in the present report: they include five advanced methods for data analysis (empirical regression models, pharmacometrics models, quantitative systems pharmacology models, MCP‐Mod, and model averaging) and three methods for study design optimization (Fisher information matrix (FIM)‐based methods, clinical trial simulations, and adaptive studies). Pairwise comparisons were also discussed during the workshop; however, mostly for historical reasons. This paper discusses the added value and limitations of these methods as well as challenges for their implementation. Some applications in different therapeutic areas are also summarized, in line with the discussions at the workshop. There was agreement at the workshop on the fact that selection of dose for phase III is an estimation problem and should not be addressed via hypothesis testing. Dose selection for phase III trials should be informed by well‐designed dose‐finding studies; however, the specific choice of method(s) will depend on several aspects and it is not possible to recommend a generalized decision tree. There are many valuable methods available, the methods are not mutually exclusive, and they should be used in conjunction to ensure a scientifically rigorous understanding of the dosing rationale.

Estimating the contribution of everolimus to immunosuppressive efficacy when combined with tacrolimus in liver transplantation: a model-based approach

Determining the efficacy contribution of an investigational drug as part of a novel combination regimen that also includes a previously untested dose of a standard treatment is challenging, particularly when "placebo control" data (combination regimen minus the investigational drug) is not available for comparison. This situation was encountered in a phase III trial that tested the combination of the investigational drug everolimus with a dose of tacrolimus lower than used in standard liver transplantation therapy. The challenge was addressed by predicting the efficacy of the placebo control from the study data using a pharmacometric-based exposure-response analysis, selected to account for features specific to the transplant setting: systematic change in drug exposure over time and sparse pharmacokinetic sampling. The efficacy contribution of everolimus was then demonstrated by comparing this prediction to the efficacy of the combination regimen. This pharmacometrics-based approach may contribute to characterization of therapeutic agents in real-world settings.

mTOR inhibition in liver transplantation: how to dose for effective/safe CNI reduction?

Everolimus (EVR) is a semi-synthetic mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor currently under development for liver transplantation (LTx) in combination with reduced exposure tacrolimus (rTAC). The relative potency of EVR was assessed in order to generate evidence for concomitant EVR+rTAC exposure in LTx recipients (LTxR). Twelve month data from study H2304 (NCT00622869), a 24-month, randomized, multicenter study in 719 de novo LTxR comparing EVR+rTAC to standard TAC demonstrated superior renal function and comparable efficacy, including fewer and less severe biopsy proven acute rejections with EVR+rTAC. Relative potency (p) of EVR was defined as factor by which the effect of 1 ng/mL of EVR must be multiplied to get comparable immunosuppression as with TAC: p = (TACcon - TACred)/EVRred. Relative efficacy of EVR in 4 different subpopulatlons was consistently 0.64, 0.60, 0.69, and 0.62, respectively. This assessment determined the relative potency of EVR as 0.64 compared to TAC in LTx indicating that EVR and TAC are not equipotent per ng/mL exposure. Knowledge about relative potency will help to rationalize co-exposure of EVR and TAC.

Safety, tolerability, and antibody response of active Aβ immunotherapy with CAD106 in patients with Alzheimer's disease: randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, first-in-human study

BACKGROUND

Immunotherapy targeting the amyloid β (Aβ) peptide is a potential strategy to slow the progression of Alzheimer's disease. We aimed to assess the safety and tolerability of CAD106, a novel active Aβ immunotherapy for patients with Alzheimer's disease, designed to induce N-terminal Aβ-specific antibodies without an Aβ-specific T-cell response.

METHODS

We did a phase 1, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 52-week study in two centres in Sweden. Participants, aged 50-80 years, with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease were entered into one of two cohorts according to time of study entry and then randomly allocated (by use of a computer-generated randomisation sequence) to receive either CAD106 or placebo (4:1; cohort one received CAD106 50 μg or placebo, cohort two received CAD106 150 μg or placebo). Each patient received three subcutaneous injections. All patients, caregivers, and investigators were masked to treatment allocation throughout the study. Primary objectives were to assess the safety and tolerability of CAD106 and to identify the Aβ-specific antibody response. Safety assessment was done by recording of all adverse events, assessment of MRI scans, physical and neurological examinations, vital signs, electrocardiography, electroencephalography, and laboratory analysis of blood and CSF. Patients with Aβ-IgG serum titres higher than 16 units at least once during the study were classified as responders. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00411580.

FINDINGS

Between August, 2005, and March, 2007, we randomly allocated 31 patients into cohort one (24 patients to CAD106 treatment and seven to placebo) and 27 patients into cohort two (22 patients to CAD106 treatment and five to placebo). 56 of 58 patients reported adverse events. In cohort one, nasopharyngitis was the most commonly reported adverse event (10 of 24 CAD106-treated patients). In cohort two, injection site erythema was the most commonly reported adverse event (14 of 22 CAD106-treated patients). Overall, nine patients reported serious adverse events--none was thought to be related to the study drug. We recorded no clinical or subclinical cases of meningoencephalitis. 16 of 24 (67%) CAD106-treated patients in cohort one and 18 of 22 (82%) in cohort two developed Aβ antibody response meeting pre-specified responder threshold. One of 12 placebo-treated patients (8%) had Aβ-IgG concentrations that qualified them as a responder.

INTERPRETATION

Our findings suggest that CAD106 has a favourable safety profile and acceptable antibody response in patients with Alzheimer's disease. Larger trials with additional dose investigations are needed to confirm the safety and establish the efficacy of CAD106.

FUNDING

Novartis Pharma AG.

The PKC inhibitor AEB071 may be a therapeutic option for psoriasis

PKC isoforms tau, alpha, and beta play fundamental roles in the activation of T cells and other immune cell functions. Here we show that the PKC inhibitor AEB071 both abolishes the production of several cytokines by activated human T cells, keratinocytes, and macrophages in vitro and inhibits an acute allergic contact dermatitis response in rats. To translate these findings into humans, single and multiple ascending oral doses of AEB071 were administered to healthy volunteers and patients with psoriasis, respectively. AEB071 was well tolerated with no clinically relevant laboratory abnormalities. Ex vivo stimulation of lymphocytes from subjects exposed to single doses of AEB071 resulted in a dose-dependent inhibition of both lymphocyte proliferation and IL2 mRNA expression. Clinical severity of psoriasis was reduced up to 69% compared with baseline after 2 weeks of treatment, as measured by the Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI) score. The improvement in psoriasis patients was accompanied by histological improvement of skin lesions and may be partially explained by a substantial reduction of p40+ dermal cells, which are known to mediate psoriasis. These data suggest that AEB071 could be an effective novel treatment regimen for psoriasis and other autoimmune diseases, and that AEB071 warrants long-term studies to establish safety and efficacy.

Two-year effects of alendronate on bone mineral density and vertebral fracture in patients receiving glucocorticoids: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled extension trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the continued efficacy and safety of alendronate (ALN) for up to 2 years in patients receiving glucocorticoids.

METHODS

This is a 12-month extension of a previously completed 1-year trial of daily ALN, performed to evaluate the effects of ALN over a total of 2 years in 66 men and 142 women continuing to receive at least 7.5 mg of prednisone or equivalent daily. All patients received supplemental calcium and vitamin D. The primary end point was the mean percentage change in lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) from baseline to 24 months. Other outcomes included changes in hip and total body BMD, biochemical markers of bone turnover, radiographic joint damage of the hands, and vertebral fracture incidence.

RESULTS

The mean (+/-SEM) lumbar spine BMD increased by 2.8 +/- 0.6%, 3.9 +/- 0.7%, and 3.7 +/- 0.6%, respectively, in the groups that received 5 mg, 10 mg, and 2.5/10 mg of ALN daily (P < or = 0.001) and decreased by -0.8 +/- 0.6% in the placebo group (P not significant) over 24 months. In patients receiving any dose of ALN, BMD was increased at the trochanter (P < or = 0.05) and maintained at the femoral neck. Total body BMD was increased in patients receiving 5 or 10 mg ALN (P < or = 0.01). These 2 dose levels of ALN were more effective than placebo at all sites (P < or = 0.05). Bone turnover markers (N-telopeptides of type I collagen and bone-specific alkaline phosphatase) decreased 60% and 25%, respectively, during treatment with ALN (P < or = 0.05). There were fewer patients with new vertebral fractures in the ALN group versus the placebo group (0.7% versus 6.8%; P = 0.026). The safety profile was similar between treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

Alendronate is an effective, well-tolerated therapy for the prevention and treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis, with sustained treatment advantages for up to 2 years.

Two-year effects of alendronate on bone mineral density and vertebral fracture in patients receiving glucocorticoids: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled extension trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the continued efficacy and safety of alendronate (ALN) for up to 2 years in patients receiving glucocorticoids.

METHODS

This is a 12-month extension of a previously completed 1-year trial of daily ALN, performed to evaluate the effects of ALN over a total of 2 years in 66 men and 142 women continuing to receive at least 7.5 mg of prednisone or equivalent daily. All patients received supplemental calcium and vitamin D. The primary end point was the mean percentage change in lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) from baseline to 24 months. Other outcomes included changes in hip and total body BMD, biochemical markers of bone turnover, radiographic joint damage of the hands, and vertebral fracture incidence.

RESULTS

The mean (+/-SEM) lumbar spine BMD increased by 2.8 +/- 0.6%, 3.9 +/- 0.7%, and 3.7 +/- 0.6%, respectively, in the groups that received 5 mg, 10 mg, and 2.5/10 mg of ALN daily (P < or = 0.001) and decreased by -0.8 +/- 0.6% in the placebo group (P not significant) over 24 months. In patients receiving any dose of ALN, BMD was increased at the trochanter (P < or = 0.05) and maintained at the femoral neck. Total body BMD was increased in patients receiving 5 or 10 mg ALN (P < or = 0.01). These 2 dose levels of ALN were more effective than placebo at all sites (P < or = 0.05). Bone turnover markers (N-telopeptides of type I collagen and bone-specific alkaline phosphatase) decreased 60% and 25%, respectively, during treatment with ALN (P < or = 0.05). There were fewer patients with new vertebral fractures in the ALN group versus the placebo group (0.7% versus 6.8%; P = 0.026). The safety profile was similar between treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

Alendronate is an effective, well-tolerated therapy for the prevention and treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis, with sustained treatment advantages for up to 2 years.

Effects of losartan and candesartan monotherapy and losartan/hydrochlorothiazide combination therapy in patients with mild to moderate hypertension. Losartan Trial Investigators

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study was to compare the effects of losartan potassium (hereafter referred to as losartan), candesartan cilexitil (hereafter referred to as candesartan), and losartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) in patients with mild to moderate hypertension (sitting diastolic blood pressure [SiDBP] 95-115 mm Hg).

METHODS

A total of 1161 patients were randomized in a 2:2:1 ratio to 12 weeks of treatment with losartan 50 mg QD, possibly titrated to 100 mg QD (n = 461); candesartan 8 mg QD, possibly titrated to 16 mg QD (n = 468); or losartan 50 mg QD, possibly titrated to losartan 50 mg plus HCTZ 12.5 mg QD (n = 232). At 6 weeks, the regimens of patients not reaching a goal SiDBP <90 mm Hg were titrated as described, whereas patients achieving this goal continued with low-dose monotherapy. The single primary end point at 12 weeks tested the equivalence of the 2 monotherapy regimens, predefined as a maximum between-treatment difference in the mean change from baseline trough SiDBP of 2.5 mm Hg.

RESULTS

At 12 weeks, changes in SiDBP/sitting systolic blood pressure (SiSBP) of -12.4/-14.4 mm Hg with losartan 50 mg/100 mg and -13.1/-15.8 mm Hg with candesartan 8 mg/16 mg demonstrated equivalence between the 2 monotherapy regimens (95% CI for difference in SiDBP, -1.6 to 0.2). At 12 weeks, the losartan 50 mg/50 mg plus HCTZ 12.5 mg regimen had reduced SiDBP/SiSBP significantly more (-14.3/-18.0 mm Hg) than either the candesartan 8 mg/16 mg (SiDBP, P = 0.045; SiSBP, P = 0.017) or losartan 50 mg/100 mg regimen (SiDBP and SiSBP, P = 0.001). During the last 6 weeks, patients whose regimen had been titrated to losartan 50 mg plus HCTZ 12.5 mg (n = 114) showed a greater reduction in SiDBP/SiSBP (-14.5/ -18.7 mm Hg) than did those whose regimen had been titrated to either losartan 100 mg (-10.5/-12.3 mm Hg; n = 211) or candesartan 16 mg (-11.5/-13.2 mm Hg; n = 206), representing a clinically meaningful > or = 2.5-mm Hg) difference. All 3 treatments were well tolerated, with few patients experiencing drug-related adverse events (6.9% losartan 50 mg/100 mg, 7.5% candesartan 8 mg/16 mg, 3.0% losartan 50 mg/ 50 mg plus HCTZ 12.5 mg). Candesartan 8 mg/16 mg increased serum uric acid levels (0.13 mg/dL; 95% CI, 0.04 to 0.23), whereas losartan 50 mg/100 mg decreased them (-0.14 mg/dL; 95% CI, -0.24 to -0.04), and losartan 50 mg/50 mg plus HCTZ 12.5 mg left them unchanged (0.06 mg/dL; 95% CI, -0.07 to 0.20).

CONCLUSIONS

Losartan 50 mg/100 mg and candesartan 8 mg/16 mg were comparable treatments in terms of blood pressure reduction. After titration, losartan 50 mg plus HCTZ 12.5 mg was superior to either candesartan 16 mg or losartan 100 mg in reducing hypertension. Losartan, but not candesartan, lowered serum uric acid levels and attenuated the expected increase in uric acid levels with HCTZ 12.5 mg.

Use of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring to compare antihypertensive efficacy and safety of two angiotensin II receptor antagonists, losartan and valsartan. Losartan Trial Investigators

The efficacy and safety of losartan and valsartan were evaluated in a multicenter, double-blind, randomized trial in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension. Blood pressure responses to once-daily treatment with either losartan 50 mg (n = 93) or valsartan 80 mg (n = 94) for 6 weeks were assessed through measurements taken in the clinic and by 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM). Both drugs significantly reduced clinic sitting systolic (SiSBP) and diastolic blood pressure (SiDBP) at 2, 4, and 6 weeks. Maximum reductions from baseline in SiSBP and SiDBP on 24-hour ABPM were also significant with the two treatments. The reduction in blood pressure was more consistent across patients in the losartan group, as indicated by a numerically smaller variability in change from baseline on all ABPM measures, which achieved significance at peak (P = .017) and during the day (P = .002). In addition, the numerically larger smoothness index with losartan suggested a more homogeneous antihypertensive effect throughout the 24-hour dosing interval. The antihypertensive response rate was 54% with losartan and 46% with valsartan. Three days after discontinuation of therapy, SiDBP remained below baseline in 73% of losartan and 63% of valsartan patients. Both agents were generally well tolerated. Losartan, but not valsartan, significantly decreased serum uric acid an average 0.4 mg/dL at week 6. In conclusion, once-daily losartan 50 mg and valsartan 80 mg had similar antihypertensive effects in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension. Losartan produced a more consistent blood pressure-lowering response and significantly lowered uric acid, suggesting potentially meaningful differences between these two A II receptor antagonists.

Increased efficacy and tolerability with losartan plus hydrochlorothiazide in patients with uncontrolled hypertension and therapy-related symptoms receiving two monotherapies

The efficacy and tolerability of losartan 100 mg/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 25 mg and enalapril 10 mg/HCTZ 25 mg were compared in a double-blind, randomized trial in hypertensive patients inadequately controlled and experiencing side effects on prior therapy. Patients with moderate or severe hypertension, currently treated with at least two single-agent drugs (excluding angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors), with a sitting diastolic blood pressure (DBP) above 90 mm Hg, and at least one undesirable drug-related symptom were randomized to once-daily treatment with one of the combinations for 12 weeks. Losartan/HCTZ lowered sitting DBP from the prior therapy baseline by 13.7 mm Hg and sitting systolic blood pressure 19.3 mm Hg; similar reductions occurred with enalapril/HCTZ. Trough sitting DBP was reduced to normal levels (< 90 mm Hg) in 63% of patients switched to the losartan combination and in 58% of those treated with the enalapril combination. Each combination was associated with improved tolerability compared with prior therapy, although fewer patients reported each of 24 undesirable symptoms after 12 weeks of losartan/HCTZ. The improvement from prior therapy in the occurrence of cough was significantly greater with losartan/HCTZ (P = .005). Enalapril/HCTZ, but not losartan/HCTZ, increased serum uric acid levels at week 12. In conclusion, the combination of losartan 100 mg/HCTZ 25 mg offers a beneficial therapeutic option for patients with a history of moderate to severe hypertension whose blood pressure is not adequately controlled or who exhibit side effects while on two or more single-agent antihypertensive drugs. In this population, the switch from prior antihypertensive therapies to once daily losartan 100 mg/HCTZ 25 mg improves blood pressure control and reduces side effects.