Sequential research-related biopsies in phase I trials: acceptance, feasibility and safety

BACKGROUND

Sequential tumour biopsies are of potential interest for the rational development of molecular targeted therapies.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From June 2004 to July 2009, 186 patients participated in 14 phase I clinical trials in which sequential tumour biopsies (13 trials) and/or sequential normal skin biopsies (6 trials) were optional. All patients had to sign an independent informed consent for the biopsies.

RESULTS

Tumour biopsies were proposed to 155 patients and 130 (84%) signed the consent while normal skin biopsies were proposed to 70 patients and 57 (81%) signed the consent. Tumour biopsies could not be carried out in 41 (31%) of the 130 consenting patients. Tumour biopsies were collected at baseline in 33 patients, at baseline and under treatment in 56 patients. Tumour biopsies were obtained using an 18-gauge needle, under ultrasound or computed tomography guidance. Only nine minor complications were recorded. Most tumour biopsy samples collected were intended for ancillary molecular studies including protein or gene expression analysis, comparative genomic hybridization array or DNA sequencing. According to the results available, 70% of the biopsy samples met the quality criteria of each study and were suitable for ancillary studies.

CONCLUSIONS

In our experience, the majority of the patients accepted skin biopsies as well as tumour biopsies. Sequential tumour and skin biopsies are feasible and safe during early-phase clinical trials, even when patients are exposed to anti-angiogenic agents. The real scientific value of such biopsies for dose selection in phase I trials has yet to be established.

A safety grading scale to support dose escalation and define stopping rules for healthy subject first-entry-into-man studies: some points to consider from the French Club Phase I working group

AIM

To propose a relevant grading scale for clinical adverse events or laboratory results, electrocardiogram (ECG) and vital sign findings supporting both dose escalation and stopping decisions in first-entry-into-man (FIM) studies conducted in young healthy subjects.

METHODS

A three-level scale was used for the proposed grading system. The grading is directly derived from the observed severity of discontinuous variables, as are most of clinical adverse events. A 'combined method' based on normal ranges and spontaneous variation is suggested for grading the findings which are continuous variables mainly numerical in nature. One grade, at the subject level, and one algorithm, at the cohort level, support the proposed decision rules. This work was managed by a Club Phase I working group.

RESULTS

Examples of grade 1, 2 and 3 limits are given for the most frequent clinical adverse events and laboratory tests, ECG and vital sign findings. When available, the proposed NIH and FDA limits are also provided. The safety recommendation is to use the grade 2 at least as an alert for caution and the grade 3 as a maximum for stopping, applying the algorithm at the cohort level.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper proposes a safety grading system based on relevant criteria which might be used by investigators and sponsors to support and rationalize dose escalation decisions in healthy young subject FIM studies. These proposals are designed not to be a guideline but some 'points to consider' helping the dose escalation process. This paper supports the recent reinforcement of the safety requirements for FIM studies by European authorities.

Microdosing: the new pharmacokinetic paradigm?

Numerous market factors have converged to create a need for change in the drug development process. Public scrutiny, high failure rates for investigational agents, and concern about the use of animals in research, are just a few. In response, some changes in this process are being made. Microdosing--administering very small, radiolabeled doses of investigational agents to humans--is one change that has the potential to save time and money. It is used to elucidate the pharmacokinetic profile of agents. Not all experts agree that it will live up to its promise, but the potential is great.

Monitoring participant safety in phase I and II interventional trials: options and controversies

BACKGROUND

The need for phase I and II clinical trials to have a data and safety monitoring plan (DSMP) is widely accepted; however, whether and/or when these trials should also have oversight by a data and safety monitoring board (DSMB) is controversial. Monitoring requirements also depend on whether the study is funded by the National Institutes of Health, funded and/or monitored by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), or funded by industry. However, there is little guidance about when and how to constitute a DSMB for phase I and II clinical trials.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this article are to suggest guidelines for when and how to constitute a DSMB for phase I and II studies and to highlight the similarities and differences between DSMBs monitoring phase I and II versus phase III clinical studies. We highlight the utility of these guidelines in the safety monitoring of a mechanism of disease-based study of inhaled nitric oxide for acute vaso-occlusive crisis in pediatric patients with sickle cell disease that was funded and regulated by the FDA.

CONCLUSION

The goal of DSMPs regardless of the phase of the clinical trial is to protect participant safety and ensure the integrity and validity of the data. A DSMB can ensure that risks and data are evaluated in a timely, efficient, and unbiased manner. We describe "risk-based" guidelines to determine situations in which a DSMB may be an appropriate addition to a DSMP for phase I and II clinical trials. We also address the roles and responsibilities of the DSMB for these studies.

Protection of health research participants in the United States: a review of two cases

Two research-related deaths and controversies in the United States during recent years have raised public concern over the safety of research participants. This paper explores the reasons why, in two studies, there was a failure of ethical oversight. The issues exposed by these failures have international relevance as they could possibly occur anywhere where human health research is carried out. Five factors that contributed to these failures are highlighted: 1. failure to support and resource research ethics committees; 2. failure of the research oversight process to adequately assess the risks and benefits of research, while giving undue emphasis to informed consent; 3. conflicts of interest arising from financial relationships and research ethics committee membership; 4. lack of consistent oversight of privately funded research; and 5. incompetent or intentional failure to adhere by ethical guidelines. There is considerable headway to be made in the United States, as in other countries, in the fostering and maintenance of robust systems of human research oversight.

Laboratory data in healthy volunteers: reference values, reference changes, screening and laboratory adverse event limits in Phase I clinical trials

OBJECTIVE

Laboratory data are key evaluation procedures for Phase I clinical pharmacology for two reasons. Firstly, laboratory data are used within the screening process to exclude subjects with asymptomatic diseases, which could result in increased danger to themselves or confuse interpretation of the study results. Secondly, during study implementation, safety evaluation and in particular maximum tolerated dose determination have to be done by a case-by-case analysis, sometimes using laboratory adverse events (LAEs). Thus, relevant limits are needed to discriminate between a usual common variation and a significant abnormality, which is considered to be a LAE. This report presents laboratory data distribution, reference values and reference changes and, based on previously published new methods, suggests inclusion limits at screening and laboratory adverse event limits for analysis during study implementation.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Nine hundred and twenty-seven young healthy male volunteers were recruited in one centre (Association de Recherche Thérapeutique). A standard screening process was carried out. Protocols were approved by the local ethics committee. Blood sampling was performed in the same conditions. Reference values (at screening and at baseline) were determined by a non-parametric procedure selecting 2.5% and 97.5% of the distribution of data. Reference changes were also defined as the 2.5-97.5% interval of distribution of the variations between the end of treatment and baseline. Inclusion limit and LAE limit methods of determination used had been specified in previous articles.

RESULTS

Detailed results of laboratory data distribution, reference values at screening and at baseline, reference changes, inclusion limits and LAE limits are presented in tables with number of subjects, mean, median, standard deviation, minimal and maximal values and the 2.5-97.5% interval for each laboratory parameter.

CONCLUSION

The key aims of this paper are to provide clinical pharmacologists with data, reference values or changes obtained in the real conditions of Phase I study implementation, and to propose relevant limits, either for screening as inclusion limits, or during studies as LAE limits. Thus, these data, reference values and specific limits improve the capacity to screen healthy volunteers and to analyse LAEs during Phase I studies.

Willingness to participate in HIV-1 vaccine efficacy trials and the effect of media events among gay and bisexual men in New York City: Project ACHIEVE

Efficacy trials of candidate HIV-1 vaccines require study populations at high risk of infection who adhere to study protocols and who are willing to participate. Data from HIV-1 antibody-negative men (n = 698) enrolled in Project ACHIEVE in New York City were analyzed to assess willingness to participate in efficacy trials, factors influencing willingness, and the effect on willingness of the June 1994 media events about the decision not to proceed with phase III trials and about breakthrough infections during phase I and II vaccine trials. Sixty-eight percent indicated they would definitely or probably be willing to participate. Men enrolled during the time of media events were significantly less willing compared with men enrolled during other periods. These men were also more likely to mention safety of the vaccine, fear or mistrust of research or government, and social risks as important factors in their decision compared with men enrolled during other periods. The most frequently cited motivator for participation was altruism (57%); the most frequently cited barriers were vaccine safety (36%) and vaccine-induced seropositivity (19%). A substantial proportion of this cohort was willing to participate in future vaccine efficacy trials. However, because willingness may be affected by issues of vaccine safety, vaccine-induced seropositivity, and media coverage of these issues, significant efforts are needed for participant and community education, and specific concerns must be addressed in the design and implementation of trials.