How informative were early SARS-CoV-2 treatment and prevention trials? a longitudinal cohort analysis of trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov.

BACKGROUND: Early in the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, commentators warned that some COVID trials were inadequately conceived, designed and reported. Here, we retrospectively assess the prevalence of informative COVID trials launched in the first 6 months of the pandemic. METHODS: Based on prespecified eligibility criteria, we created a cohort of Phase 1/2, Phase 2, Phase 2/3 and Phase 3 SARS-CoV-2 treatment and prevention efficacy trials that were initiated from 2020-01-01 to 2020-06-30 using ClinicalTrials.gov registration records. We excluded trials evaluating behavioural interventions and natural products, which are not regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). We evaluated trials on 3 criteria of informativeness: potential redundancy (comparing trial phase, type, patient-participant characteristics, treatment regimen, comparator arms and primary outcome), trials design (according to the recommendations set-out in the May 2020 FDA guidance document on SARS-CoV-2 treatment and prevention trials) and feasibility of patient-participant recruitment (based on timeliness and success of recruitment). RESULTS: We included all 500 eligible trials in our cohort, 58% of which were Phase 2 and 84.8% were directed towards the treatment of SARS-CoV-2. Close to one third of trials met all three criteria and were deemed informative (29.9% (95% Confidence Interval 23.7-36.9)). The proportion of potentially redundant trials in our cohort was 4.1%. Over half of the trials in our cohort (56.2%) did not meet our criteria for high quality trial design. The proportion of trials with infeasible patient-participant recruitment was 22.6%. CONCLUSIONS: Less than one third of COVID-19 trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov during the first six months met all three criteria for informativeness. Shortcomings in trial design, recruitment feasibility and redundancy reflect longstanding weaknesses in the clinical research enterprise that were likely amplified by the exceptional circumstances of a pandemic.

Empowering phase II clinical trials to reduce phase III failures.

The large number of failures in phase III clinical trials, which occur at a rate of approximately 45%, is studied herein relative to possible countermeasures. First, the phenomenon of failures is numerically described. Second, the main reasons for failures are reported, together with some generic improvements suggested in the related literature. This study shows how statistics explain, but do not justify, the high failure rate observed. The rate of failures due to a lack of efficacy that are not expected, is considered to be at least 10%. Expanding phase II is the simplest and most intuitive way to reduce phase III failures since it can reduce phase III false negative findings and launches of phase III trials when the treatment is positive but suboptimal. Moreover, phase II enlargement is discussed using an economic profile. As resources for research are often limited, enlarging phase II should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Alternative strategies, such as biomarker-based enrichments and adaptive designs, may aid in reducing failures. However, these strategies also have very low application rates with little likelihood of rapid growth.

Enrolling study personnel in Ebola vaccine trials: from guidelines to practice in a non-epidemic context.

BACKGROUND: Enrolling participants in clinical trials can be challenging, especially with respect to prophylactic vaccine trials. The vaccination of study personnel in Ebola vaccine trials during the 2014-2016 epidemic played a crucial role in inspiring trust and facilitating volunteer enrollment. We evaluated the ethical and methodological considerations as they applied to an ongoing phase 2 randomized prophylactic Ebola vaccine trial that enrolled healthy volunteers in Guinea, Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Mali in a non-epidemic context. METHODS: On the assumption that the personnel on site involved in executing the protocol, as well as community mobilizers (not involved in the on-site procedures), might also volunteer to enter the trial, we considered both ethical and methodological considerations to set clear rules that can be shared a priori with these persons. We reviewed the scientific and gray literature to identify relevant references and then conducted an analysis of the ethical and methodological considerations. RESULTS: There are currently no regulations preventing a clinical investigator or site staff from participating in a trial. However, the enrollment of personnel raises the risk of undue influence and challenges the basic ethical principle of voluntary participation. The confidentiality of personal medical information, such as HIV test results, may also be difficult to ensure among personnel. There is a risk of disruption of trial operations due to the potential absence of the personnel for their commitment as trial participants, and there is also a potential for introducing differential behavior of on-site staff as they obtain access to accumulating information during the trial (e.g., the incidence of adverse events). Blinding could be jeopardized, given knowledge of product-specific adverse event profiles and the proximity to unblinded site staff. These aspects were considered more relevant for on-site staff than for community mobilizers, who have limited contact with site staff. CONCLUSION: In a non-epidemic context, ethical and methodological considerations limit the collective benefit of enrolling site staff in a vaccine trial. These considerations do not apply to community mobilizers, whose potential enrollment should be considered as long as they meet the inclusion criteria and they are not exposed to any form of coercion.

Challenges and Lessons From Conducting A Paediatric Clinical Trial in Sub-Saharan Africa: The Case of the Praziquantel Oral Dispersible Tablets Phase II Study in Côte d'Ivoire.

The importance of implementing paediatric clinical trials for neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) in compliance with the Good Clinical Practices of the International Conference of Harmonisation (ICH-GCP) and other applicable regulatory and ethics guidelines is increasingly being recognised as an essential pathway to provide safe and effective medicines for millions of untreated children living in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). This paper describes the learnings and challenges faced by the Pediatric Praziquantel Consortium team during the implementation of an industry-sponsored Phase II clinical study in pre-school-aged children infected with schistosomiasis, conducted in remote rural settings in Côte d'Ivoire. The importance of close interactions with the ethics committee, the regulatory and administrative authorities and the rural communities are highlighted. The difficulties faced included obtaining a valid informed consent from the child's parent or guardian, the collection of blood samples from children during the study while respecting cultural beliefs as well as the weak medical research infrastructure. The paper illustrates how a public-private collaborative partnership can promote capacity-building and high-quality NTD paediatric clinical research in SSA.

Innovation in oncology clinical trial design.

Progress in and better understanding of cancer biology causes a shift in cancer drug development: away from the evaluation of drugs in large tumour histology defined patient populations towards targeted agents in increasingly heterogeneous molecularly defined subpopulations. This requires novel approaches in clinical trial design by academia and industry, and development of new assessment tools by regulatory authorities. Pharmaceutical industry is developing new targeted agents generating many clinical studies, including target combinations. This requires improved operational efficiency by development of innovative trial designs, strategies for early-stage decision making and early selection of candidate drugs with a high likelihood of success. In addition, patient awareness and ethical considerations necessitate that agents will be rapidly available to patients. Regulatory Authorities such as the European Medicine Agency and national agencies recognise that these changes require a different attitude towards benefit-risk analysis for drug approval. The gold standard of randomised confirmatory Phase III trials is not always ethical or feasible when developing drugs for treatment of small cancer populations. Alternative strategies comprise accelerated approval via conditional marketing approval, which can be granted in the EU based on small non-randomised Phase II trials. The paper describes innovative trial designs with their pros and cons and efforts of pharmaceutical industry and regulatory authorities to deal with the paradigm shift. Furthermore, all stakeholders should continue to share their experiences and discuss problems in order to understand the position and concerns of the other stakeholders to learn from each other and to progress the field of novel oncology clinical trial design.

Assessing risk/benefit for trials using preclinical evidence: a proposal.

Moral evaluation of risk/benefit in early phase studies requires assessing the clinical promise of a candidate intervention using preclinical evidence. Yet, there is little to guide ethics committees, investigators, sponsors or other stakeholders morally charged with making these assessments ('evaluators'). In what follows, we draw on published guidelines for preclinical study design to develop a structured process for assessing the clinical promise of new interventions. In the first step, evaluators gather all relevant preclinical studies, assess the magnitude of treatment effects and determine clinical promise in light of various threats to valid clinical inference. In the second step, evaluators adjust the assessments of clinical promise from preclinical studies by examining how other agents in the same reference class-and supported by similar evidence-have fared in clinical development. Assessments of clinical promise can then be fed into the moral evaluation of risk and benefit in early phase trials. Though our approach has limitations, it offers a systematic and transparent method for assessing risk/benefit in early phase trials of novel interventions.

Testing the waters: Ethical considerations for including PrEP in a phase IIb HIV vaccine efficacy trial.

BACKGROUND: The field of HIV prevention research has recently experienced some mixed results in efficacy trials of pre-exposure prophylaxis, vaginal microbicides, and HIV vaccines. While there have been positive trial results in some studies, in the near term, no single method will be sufficient to quell the epidemic. Improved HIV prevention methods, choices among methods, and coverage for all at-risk populations will be needed. The emergence of partially effective prevention methods that are not uniformly available raises complex ethical and scientific questions regarding the design of ongoing prevention trials. METHODS: We present here an ethical analysis regarding inclusion of pre-exposure prophylaxis in an ongoing phase IIb vaccine efficacy trial, HVTN 505. This is the first large vaccine efficacy trial to address the issue of pre-exposure prophylaxis, and the decisions made by the protocol team were informed by extensive stakeholder consultations. The key ethical concerns are analyzed here, and the process of stakeholder engagement and decision-making described. DISCUSSION: This discussion and analysis will be useful as current and future research teams grapple with ethical and scientific study design questions emerging with the rapidly expanding evidence base for HIV prevention.

Exclusion of older patients from ongoing clinical trials for hematological malignancies: an evaluation of the National Institutes of Health Clinical Trial Registry.

INTRODUCTION: Cancer societies, research cooperatives, and countless publications have urged the development of clinical trials that facilitate the inclusion of older patients and those with comorbidities. We set out to determine the characteristics of currently recruiting clinical trials with hematological patients to assess their inclusion and exclusion of elderly patients. METHODS: The NIH clinical trial registry was searched on July 1, 2013, for currently recruiting phase I, II or III clinical trials with hematological malignancies. Trial characteristics and study objectives were extracted from the registry website. RESULTS: Although 5% of 1,207 included trials focused exclusively on elderly or unfit patients, 69% explicitly or implicitly excluded older patients. Exclusion based on age was seen in 27% of trials, exclusion based on performance status was seen in 16%, and exclusion based on stringent organ function restrictions was noted in 51%. One-third of the studies that excluded older patients based on age allowed inclusion of younger patients with poor performance status; 8% did not place any restrictions on organ function. Over time, there was a shift from exclusion based on age (p value for trend <.001) toward exclusion based on organ function (p = .2). Industry-sponsored studies were least likely to exclude older patients (p < .001). CONCLUSION: Notably, 27% of currently recruiting clinical trials for hematological malignancies use age-based exclusion criteria. Although physiological reserves diminish with age, the heterogeneity of the elderly population does not legitimize exclusion based on chronological age alone. Investigators should critically review whether sufficient justification exists for every exclusion criterion before incorporating it in trial protocols.

The risk-escalation model: a principled design strategy for early-phase trials.

Should first-in-human trials be designed to maximize the prospect of therapeutic benefit for volunteers, prioritize avoidance of unintended harms, or aim for some happy medium between the two? Perennial controversies surrounding initiation and design of early-phase trials hinge on how this question is resolved. In this paper, we build on the premise that the task of early-phase testing is to optimize various components of a potential therapy so that later, confirmatory trials have the maximal probability of informing drug development and clinical care. We then explore three strategies that investigators might use to manage trial risks while optimizing a therapy, using cell therapy for Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) as an example. We argue that an iterative application of maximin strategies over successive cohorts and trials, which we call the "risk-escalation model," establishes a moral principle that should guide decision-making in early-phase trials.

Reporting practices of pharmacodynamic studies involving invasive research procedures in cancer trials.

BACKGROUND: Tumour biopsy for pharmacodynamic (PD) study is increasingly common in early-phase cancer trials. As they are non-diagnostic, the ethical justification for such procedures rests on their knowledge value. On the premise that knowledge value is related to reporting practices and outcome diversity, we assessed in a sample of recent invasive PD studies within cancer trials. METHODS: We assessed reporting practices and outcomes for PD studies in a convenience sample of cancer trials published from 2000 to 2010 that employed invasive, non-diagnostic tissue procurement. Extracted data were used to measure outcome reporting in individual trials. Using a reporting scale we developed for exploratory purposes, we tested whether reporting varied with study characteristics, such as funding source or drug novelty. RESULTS: Reporting varied widely within and across studies. Some practices were sporadically reported, including results of all planned tests (78% trials reporting), use of blinded histopathological assessment (43% trials reporting), biopsy dimensions (38% trials reporting), and description of patient flow through PD analysis (62%). Pharmacodynamic analysis as a primary end point and mandatory biopsy had statistically significant positive relationships with overall quality of reporting. A preponderance of positive results (61% of the studies described positive PD results) suggests possible publication bias. CONCLUSION: Our results highlight the need for PD-reporting guidelines, and suggest several avenues for improving the risk/benefit for studies involving invasive, non-diagnostic tissue procurement.

Feedback of research findings for vaccine trials: experiences from two malaria vaccine trials involving healthy children on the Kenyan Coast.

Internationally, calls for feedback of findings to be made an 'ethical imperative' or mandatory have been met with both strong support and opposition. Challenges include differences in issues by type of study and context, disentangling between aggregate and individual study results, and inadequate empirical evidence on which to draw. In this paper we present data from observations and interviews with key stakeholders involved in feeding back aggregate study findings for two Phase II malaria vaccine trials among children under the age of 5 years old on the Kenyan Coast. In our setting, feeding back of aggregate findings was an appreciated set of activities. The inclusion of individual results was important from the point of view of both participants and researchers, to reassure participants of trial safety, and to ensure that positive results were not over-interpreted and that individual level issues around blinding and control were clarified. Feedback sessions also offered an opportunity to re-evaluate and re-negotiate trial relationships and benefits, with potentially important implications for perceptions of and involvement in follow-up work for the trials and in future research. We found that feedback of findings is a complex but key step in a continuing set of social interactions between community members and research staff (particularly field staff who work at the interface with communities), and among community members themselves; a step which needs careful planning from the outset. We agree with others that individual and aggregate results need to be considered separately, and that for individual results, both the nature and value of the information, and the context, including social relationships, need to be taken into account.

Clinical trial opportunities in hemostasis and thrombosis: NHBLI State-of-the-Science symposium.

Clinical trials in hemostasis and thrombosis (HT) are needed to guide medical practice and future research. Providing public support for trials that could have the greatest impact on clinical care has been a major challenge. The National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) convened a State-of-the-Science meeting in Bethesda on September 14th and 15th, 2009 to identify Phase II and III clinical trials in HT that could have critical impact on healthcare. An oversight committee composed of representatives of the NHLBI and three experienced extramural investigators chose chairs of subcommittees representing six broad areas of investigation in adult and pediatric HT. Chairs were charged with identifying important, feasible proposals. Nineteen trial concepts were presented at this public meeting, followed by open commentary from members of an independent external panel chosen to evaluate the trials and from symposium participants from the wider scientific community. Descriptions of two important clinical trial concepts from each of the six subcommittees are provided in the Supporting Information. Phase II-III clinical trials that could have high impact include studies for treatment of venous thromboembolism (TE) in children and in adults, the potential utility of statins in prophylaxis of TE, prophylaxis of adults with severe hemophilia, management of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) and of primary immune thrombocytopenia (ITP). The external panel also provided recommendations concerning infrastructure and approach that could improve the conduct of studies including: development of core organizations with expertise in design of clinical trials, biostatistics, and contract development; funding based on output and milestones; and enhanced investment in coordinating centers.

Failsafe automation of Phase II clinical trial interim monitoring for stopping rules.

BACKGROUND: In Phase II clinical trials in cancer, preventing the treatment of patients on a study when current data demonstrate that the treatment is insufficiently active or too toxic has obvious benefits, both in protecting patients and in reducing sponsor costs. Considerable efforts have gone into experimental designs for Phase II clinical trials with flexible sample size, usually implemented by early stopping rules. The intended benefits will not ensue, however, if the design is not followed. Despite the best intentions, failures can occur for many reasons. PURPOSE: The main goal is to develop an automated system for interim monitoring, as a backup system supplementing the protocol team, to ensure that patients are protected. A secondary goal is to stimulate timely recording of patient assessments. METHODS: We developed key concepts and performance needs, then designed, implemented, and deployed a software solution embedded in the clinical trials database system. RESULTS: The system has been in place since October 2007. One clinical trial tripped the automated monitor, resulting in e-mails that initiated statistician/investigator review in timely fashion. LIMITATIONS: Several essential contributing activities still require human intervention, institutional policy decisions, and institutional commitment of resources. CONCLUSIONS: We believe that implementing the concepts presented here will provide greater assurance that interim monitoring plans are followed and that patients are protected from inadequate response or excessive toxicity. This approach may also facilitate wider acceptance and quicker implementation of new interim monitoring algorithms.