A Bayesian latent-subgroup platform design for dose optimization.

The US Food and Drug Administration launched Project Optimus to reform the dose optimization and dose selection paradigm in oncology drug development, calling for the paradigm shift from finding the maximum tolerated dose to the identification of optimal biological dose (OBD). Motivated by a real-world drug development program, we propose a master-protocol-based platform trial design to simultaneously identify OBDs of a new drug, combined with standards of care or other novel agents, in multiple indications. We propose a Bayesian latent subgroup model to accommodate the treatment heterogeneity across indications, and employ Bayesian hierarchical models to borrow information within subgroups. At each interim analysis, we update the subgroup membership and dose-toxicity and -efficacy estimates, as well as the estimate of the utility for risk-benefit tradeoff, based on the observed data across treatment arms to inform the arm-specific decision of dose escalation and de-escalation and identify the OBD for each arm of a combination partner and an indication. The simulation study shows that the proposed design has desirable operating characteristics, providing a highly flexible and efficient way for dose optimization. The design has great potential to shorten the drug development timeline, save costs by reducing overlapping infrastructure, and speed up regulatory approval.

A Bayesian platform trial design with hybrid control based on multisource exchangeability modelling.

Enrolling patients to the standard of care (SOC) arm in randomized clinical trials, especially for rare diseases, can be very challenging due to the lack of resources, restricted patient population availability, and ethical considerations. As the therapeutic effect for the SOC is often well documented in historical trials, we propose a Bayesian platform trial design with hybrid control based on the multisource exchangeability modelling (MEM) framework to harness historical control data. The MEM approach provides a computationally efficient method to formally evaluate the exchangeability of study outcomes between different data sources and allows us to make better informed data borrowing decisions based on the exchangeability between historical and concurrent data. We conduct extensive simulation studies to evaluate the proposed hybrid design. We demonstrate the proposed design leads to significant sample size reduction for the internal control arm and borrows more information compared to competing Bayesian approaches when historical and internal data are compatible.

The impact of heterogeneity on the analysis of platform trials with normally distributed outcomes.

BACKGROUND: A platform trial approach allows adding arms to on-going trials to speed up intervention discovery programs. A control arm remains open for recruitment in a platform trial while intervention arms may be added after the onset of the study and could be terminated early for efficacy and/or futility when early stopping is allowed. The topic of utilising non-concurrent control data in the analysis of platform trials has been explored and discussed extensively. A less familiar issue is the presence of heterogeneity, which may exist for example due to modification of enrolment criteria and recruitment strategy. METHOD: We conduct a simulation study to explore the impact of heterogeneity on the analysis of a two-stage platform trial design. We consider heterogeneity in treatment effects and heteroscedasticity in outcome data across stages for a normally distributed endpoint. We examine the performance of some hypothesis testing procedures and modelling strategies. The use of non-concurrent control data is also considered accordingly. Alongside standard regression analysis, we examine the performance of a novel method that was known as the pairwise trials analysis. It is similar to a network meta-analysis approach but adjusts for treatment comparisons instead of individual studies using fixed effects. RESULTS: Several testing strategies with concurrent control data seem to control the type I error rate at the required level when there is heteroscedasticity in outcome data across stages and/or a random cohort effect. The main parameter of treatment effects in some analysis models correspond to overall treatment effects weighted by stage wise sample sizes; while others correspond to the effect observed within a single stage. The characteristics of the estimates are not affected significantly by the presence of a random cohort effect and/ or heteroscedasticity. CONCLUSION: In view of heterogeneity in treatment effect across stages, the specification of null hypotheses in platform trials may need to be more subtle. We suggest employing testing procedure of adaptive design as opposed to testing the statistics from regression models; comparing the estimates from the pairwise trials analysis method and the regression model with interaction terms may indicate if heterogeneity is negligible.

Innovative approaches for vaccine trials as a key component of pandemic preparedness - a white paper.

BACKGROUND: WHO postulates the application of adaptive design features in the global clinical trial ecosystem. However, the adaptive platform trial (APT) methodology has not been widely adopted in clinical research on vaccines. METHODS: The VACCELERATE Consortium organized a two-day workshop to discuss the applicability of APT methodology in vaccine trials under non-pandemic as well as pandemic conditions. Core aspects of the discussions are summarized in this article. RESULTS: An "ever-warm" APT appears ideally suited to improve efficiency and speed of vaccine research. Continuous learning based on accumulating APT trial data allows for pre-planned adaptations during its course. Given the relative design complexity, alignment of all stakeholders at all stages of an APT is central. Vaccine trial modelling is crucial, both before and in a pandemic emergency. Various inferential paradigms are possible (frequentist, likelihood, or Bayesian). The focus in the interpandemic interval may be on research gaps left by industry trials. For activation in emergency, template Disease X protocols of syndromal design for pathogens yet unknown need to be stockpiled and updated regularly. Governance of a vaccine APT should be fully integrated into supranational pandemic response mechanisms. DISCUSSION: A broad range of adaptive features can be applied in platform trials on vaccines. Faster knowledge generation comes with increased complexity of trial design. Design complexity should not preclude simple execution at trial sites. Continuously generated evidence represents a return on investment that will garner societal support for sustainable funding. Adaptive design features will naturally find their way into platform trials on vaccines.

Towards a multi-arm multi-stage platform trial of disease modifying approaches in Parkinson's disease.

An increase in the efficiency of clinical trial conduct has been successfully demonstrated in the oncology field, by the use of multi-arm, multi-stage trials allowing the evaluation of multiple therapeutic candidates simultaneously, and seamless recruitment to phase 3 for those candidates passing an interim signal of efficacy. Replicating this complex innovative trial design in diseases such as Parkinson's disease is appealing, but in addition to the challenges associated with any trial assessing a single potentially disease modifying intervention in Parkinson's disease, a multi-arm platform trial must also specifically consider the heterogeneous nature of the disease, alongside the desire to potentially test multiple treatments with different mechanisms of action. In a multi-arm trial, there is a need to appropriately stratify treatment arms to ensure each are comparable with a shared placebo/standard of care arm; however, in Parkinson's disease there may be a preference to enrich an arm with a subgroup of patients that may be most likely to respond to a specific treatment approach. The solution to this conundrum lies in having clearly defined criteria for inclusion in each treatment arm as well as an analysis plan that takes account of predefined subgroups of interest, alongside evaluating the impact of each treatment on the broader population of Parkinson's disease patients. Beyond this, there must be robust processes of treatment selection, and consensus derived measures to confirm target engagement and interim assessments of efficacy, as well as consideration of the infrastructure needed to support recruitment, and the long-term funding and sustainability of the platform. This has to incorporate the diverse priorities of clinicians, triallists, regulatory authorities and above all the views of people with Parkinson's disease.

Advancing randomized controlled trial methodologies: The place of innovative trial design in eating disorders research.

Randomized controlled trials can be used to generate evidence on the efficacy and safety of new treatments in eating disorders research. Many of the trials previously conducted in this area have been deemed to be of low quality, in part due to a number of practical constraints. This article provides an overview of established and more innovative clinical trial designs, accompanied by pertinent examples, to highlight how design choices can enhance flexibility and improve efficiency of both resource allocation and participant involvement. Trial designs include individually randomized, cluster randomized, and designs with randomizations at multiple time points and/or addressing several research questions (master protocol studies). Design features include the use of adaptations and considerations for pragmatic or registry-based trials. The appropriate choice of trial design, together with rigorous trial conduct, reporting and analysis, can establish high-quality evidence to advance knowledge in the field. It is anticipated that this article will provide a broad and contemporary introduction to trial designs and will help researchers make informed trial design choices for improved testing of new interventions in eating disorders. PUBLIC SIGNIFICANCE: There is a paucity of high quality randomized controlled trials that have been conducted in eating disorders, highlighting the need to identify where efficiency gains in trial design may be possible to advance the eating disorder research field. We provide an overview of some key trial designs and features which may offer solutions to practical constraints and increase trial efficiency.

Analysis of Nonconcurrent Controls in Adaptive Platform Trials: Separating Randomized and Nonrandomized Information.

Adaptive platform trials allow treatments to be added or dropped during the study, meaning that the control arm may be active for longer than the experimental arms. This leads to nonconcurrent controls, which provide nonrandomized information that may increase efficiency but may introduce bias from temporal confounding and other factors. Various methods have been proposed to control confounding from nonconcurrent controls, based on adjusting for time period. We demonstrate that time adjustment is insufficient to prevent bias in some circumstances where nonconcurrent controls are present in adaptive platform trials, and we propose a more general analytical framework that accounts for nonconcurrent controls in such circumstances. We begin by defining nonconcurrent controls using the concept of a concurrently randomized cohort, which is a subgroup of participants all subject to the same randomized design. We then use cohort adjustment rather than time adjustment. Due to flexibilities in platform trials, more than one randomized design may be in force at any time, meaning that cohort-adjusted and time-adjusted analyses may be quite different. Using simulation studies, we demonstrate that time-adjusted analyses may be biased while cohort-adjusted analyses remove this bias. We also demonstrate that the cohort-adjusted analysis may be interpreted as a synthesis of randomized and indirect comparisons analogous to mixed treatment comparisons in network meta-analysis. This allows the use of network meta-analysis methodology to separate the randomized and nonrandomized components and to assess their consistency. Whenever nonconcurrent controls are used in platform trials, the separate randomized and indirect contributions to the treatment effect should be presented.

Using the 'Leapfrog' Design as a Simple Form of Adaptive Platform Trial to Develop, Test, and Implement Treatment Personalization Methods in Routine Practice.

The route for the development, evaluation and dissemination of personalized psychological therapies is complex and challenging. In particular, the large sample sizes needed to provide adequately powered trials of newly-developed personalization approaches means that the traditional treatment development route is extremely inefficient. This paper outlines the promise of adaptive platform trials (APT) embedded within routine practice as a method to streamline development and testing of personalized psychological therapies, and close the gap to implementation in real-world settings. It focuses in particular on a recently-developed simplified APT design, the 'leapfrog' trial, illustrating via simulation how such a trial may proceed and the advantages it can bring, for example in terms of reduced sample sizes. Finally it discusses models of how such trials could be implemented in routine practice, including potential challenges and caveats, alongside a longer-term perspective on the development of personalized psychological treatments.

A Bayesian model with application for adaptive platform trials having temporal changes.

Temporal changes exist in clinical trials. Over time, shifts in patients' characteristics, trial conduct, and other features of a clinical trial may occur. In typical randomized clinical trials, temporal effects, that is, the impact of temporal changes on clinical outcomes and study analysis, are largely mitigated by randomization and usually need not be explicitly addressed. However, temporal effects can be a serious obstacle for conducting clinical trials with complex designs, including the adaptive platform trials that are gaining popularity in recent medical product development. In this paper, we introduce a Bayesian robust prior for mitigating temporal effects based on a hidden Markov model, and propose a particle filtering algorithm for computation. We conduct simulation studies to evaluate the performance of the proposed method and provide illustration examples based on trials of Ebola virus disease therapeutics and hemostat in vascular surgery.

Online error rate control for platform trials.

Platform trials evaluate multiple experimental treatments under a single master protocol, where new treatment arms are added to the trial over time. Given the multiple treatment comparisons, there is the potential for inflation of the overall type I error rate, which is complicated by the fact that the hypotheses are tested at different times and are not necessarily pre-specified. Online error rate control methodology provides a possible solution to the problem of multiplicity for platform trials where a relatively large number of hypotheses are expected to be tested over time. In the online multiple hypothesis testing framework, hypotheses are tested one-by-one over time, where at each time-step an analyst decides whether to reject the current null hypothesis without knowledge of future tests but based solely on past decisions. Methodology has recently been developed for online control of the false discovery rate as well as the familywise error rate (FWER). In this article, we describe how to apply online error rate control to the platform trial setting, present extensive simulation results, and give some recommendations for the use of this new methodology in practice. We show that the algorithms for online error rate control can have a substantially lower FWER than uncorrected testing, while still achieving noticeable gains in power when compared with the use of a Bonferroni correction. We also illustrate how online error rate control would have impacted a currently ongoing platform trial.

Adaptive platform trials: the impact of common controls on type one error and power.

Platform trials offer a framework to study multiple interventions in one trial with the opportunity of opening and closing arms. The use of common controls can increase efficiency as compared to individual controls. The need for multiplicity adjustment because of common controls is currently a debate among researchers, pharmaceutical companies, and regulators. The impact of common controls on the type one error in a fixed platform trial, i.e. when all treatments start and end recruitment at the same time, has been discussed in the literature before. We complement these findings by investigating the impact of a common control on the type one error and power in a flexible platform trial, i.e. when one arm joins the platform later. We derived the correlation of test statistics to assess the impact of the overlap and compared the results to a trial with individual controls. Furthermore, we evaluate the power, and the impact of multiplicity adjustment on the power in fixed and flexible platform trials. These methodological considerations are complemented by a regulatory guideline review. With multiple arms, the FWER is inflated when no multiplicity adjustment is applied. However, the FWER inflation is smaller with common controls than with individual controls. Even after multiplicity adjustment, a trial with common controls is often beneficial in terms of sample size and power. However, in some cases, the trial with common controls loses the efficiency gain and it might be advisable to run a separate trial rather than joining a platform trial.

Antibody Response in Immunocompromised Patients After the Administration of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Vaccine BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: BNT162b2 by Pfizer-BioNTech and mRNA-1273 by Moderna are the most commonly used vaccines to prevent severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections. Head-to-head comparison of the efficacy of these vaccines in immunocompromised patients is lacking. METHODS: Parallel, 2-arm (allocation 1:1), open-label, noninferiority randomized clinical trial nested into the Swiss HIV Cohort Study and the Swiss Transplant Cohort Study. People living with human immunodeficiency virus (PLWH) or solid organ transplant recipients (SOTR; ie, lung and kidney) from these cohorts were randomized to mRNA-1273 or BNT162b2. The primary endpoint was antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 spike (S1) protein receptor binding domain (Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay, Roche; cutoff ≥0.8 units/mL) 12 weeks after first vaccination (ie, 8 weeks after second vaccination). In addition, antibody response was measured with the Antibody Coronavirus Assay 2 (ABCORA 2). RESULTS: A total of 430 patients were randomized and 412 were included in the intention-to-treat analysis (341 PLWH and 71 SOTR). The percentage of patients showing an immune response was 92.1% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 88.4-95.8; 186/202) for mRNA-1273 and 94.3% (95% CI: 91.2-97.4; 198/210) for BNT162b2 (difference: -2.2%; 95% CI: -7.1 to 2.7), fulfilling noninferiority of mRNA-1273. With the ABCORA 2 test, 89.1% had an immune response to mRNA-1273 (95% CI: 84.8-93.4; 180/202) and 89.5% to BNT162b2 (95% CI: 85.4-93.7; 188/210). Based on the Elecsys test, all PLWH had an antibody response (100.0%; 341/341), whereas for SOTR, only 60.6% (95% CI: 49.2-71.9; 43/71) had titers above the cutoff level. CONCLUSIONS: In immunocompromised patients, the antibody response of mRNA-1273 was noninferior to BNT162b2. PLWH had in general an antibody response, whereas a high proportion of SOTR had no antibody response.

PIONEER-Panc: a platform trial for phase II randomized investigations of new and emerging therapies for localized pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: Personalized and effective treatments for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) continue to remain elusive. Novel clinical trial designs that enable continual and rapid evaluation of novel therapeutics are needed. Here, we describe a platform clinical trial to address this unmet need. METHODS: This is a phase II study using a Bayesian platform design to evaluate multiple experimental arms against a control arm in patients with PDAC. We first separate patients into three clinical stage groups of localized PDAC (resectable, borderline resectable, and locally advanced disease), and further divide each stage group based on treatment history (treatment naïve or previously treated). The clinical stage and treatment history therefore define 6 different cohorts, and each cohort has one control arm but may have one or more experimental arms running simultaneously. Within each cohort, adaptive randomization rules are applied and patients will be randomized to either an experimental arm or the control arm accordingly. The experimental arm(s) of each cohort are only compared to the applicable cohort specific control arm. Experimental arms may be added independently to one or more cohorts during the study. Multiple correlative studies for tissue, blood, and imaging are also incorporated. DISCUSSION: To date, PDAC has been treated as a single disease, despite knowledge that there is substantial heterogeneity in disease presentation and biology. It is recognized that the current approach of single arm phase II trials and traditional phase III randomized studies are not well-suited for more personalized treatment strategies in PDAC. The PIONEER Panc platform clinical trial is designed to overcome these challenges and help advance our treatment strategies for this deadly disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of MD Anderson Cancer Center, IRB-approved protocol 2020-0075. The PIONEER trial is registered at the US National Institutes of Health (ClinicalTrials.gov) NCT04481204 .

A Bayesian phase I/II platform design for co-developing drug combination therapies for multiple indications.

There is a growing trend to combine a new targeted or immunotherapy agent with the cancer-specific standard of care to treat different types of cancers. We propose a master-protocol-based, Bayesian phase I/II platform design to co-develop combination (BPCC) therapies in multiple indications. Under the BPCC design, only a single master protocol is needed, and the combined drug is evaluated in different indications in a concurrent or staggered fashion. For each indication, we jointly model dose-toxicity and -efficacy relationships and employ Bayesian hierarchical models to borrow information across them for more efficient indication-specific decision-making. To account for the characteristic of targeted or immunotherapy agents that their efficacy may not monotonically increase with the dose, and often plateau at high doses, we use the utility to quantify the risk-benefit tradeoff of the treatment. At each interim, we update the toxicity and efficacy model, as well as the estimate of the utility, based on the observed data across indications to inform the indication-specific decision of dose escalation and de-escalation and identify the optimal biological dose for each indication. Simulation study shows that the BPCC design has desirable operating characteristics, and that it provides an efficient approach to accelerate the development of combination therapies.

Should RECOVERY have used response adaptive randomisation? Evidence from a simulation study.

BACKGROUND: The Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy (RECOVERY) trial is aimed at addressing the urgent need to find effective treatments for patients hospitalised with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. The trial has had many successes, including discovering that dexamethasone is effective at reducing COVID-19 mortality, the first treatment to reach this milestone in a randomised controlled trial. Despite this, it continues to use standard or 'fixed' randomisation to allocate patients to treatments. We assessed the impact of implementing response adaptive randomisation within RECOVERY using an array of performance measures, to learn if it could be beneficial going forward. This design feature has recently been implemented within the REMAP-CAP platform trial. METHODS: Trial data was simulated to closely match the data for patients allocated to standard care, dexamethasone, hydroxychloroquine, or lopinavir-ritonavir in the RECOVERY trial from March-June 2020, representing four out of five arms tested throughout this period. Trials were simulated in both a two-arm trial setting using standard care and dexamethasone, and a four-arm trial setting utilising all above treatments. Two forms of fixed randomisation and two forms of response-adaptive randomisation were tested. In the two-arm setting, response-adaptive randomisation was implemented across both trial arms, whereas in the four-arm setting it was implemented in the three non-standard care arms only. In the two-arm trial, randomisation strategies were performed at the whole trial level as well as within three pre-specified patient subgroups defined by patients' respiratory support level. RESULTS: All response-adaptive randomisation strategies led to more patients being given dexamethasone and a lower mortality rate in the trial. Subgroup specific response-adaptive randomisation reduced mortality rates even further. In the two-arm trial, response-adaptive randomisation reduced statistical power compared to FR, with subgroup level adaptive randomisation exhibiting the largest power reduction. In the four-arm trial, response-adaptive randomisation increased statistical power in the dexamethasone arm but reduced statistical power in the lopinavir arm. Response-adaptive randomisation did not induce any meaningful bias in treatment effect estimates nor did it cause any inflation in the type 1 error rate. CONCLUSIONS: Using response-adaptive randomisation within RECOVERY could have increased the number of patients receiving the optimal COVID-19 treatment during the trial, while reducing the number of patients needed to attain the same study power as the original study. This would likely have reduced patient deaths during the trial and lead to dexamethasone being declared effective sooner. Deciding how to balance the needs of patients within a trial and future patients who have yet to fall ill is an important ethical question for the trials community to address. Response-adaptive randomisation deserves to be considered as a design feature in future trials of COVID-19 and other diseases.

Analysis of adaptive platform trials using a network approach.

BACKGROUND: Adaptive platform trials allow randomized controlled comparisons of multiple treatments using a common infrastructure and the flexibility to adapt key design features during the study. Nonetheless, they have been criticized due to the potential for time trends in the underlying risk level of the population. Such time trends lead to confounding between design features and risk level, which may introduce bias favoring one or more treatments. This is particularly true when experimental treatments are not all randomized during the same time period as the control, leading to the potential for bias from non-concurrent controls. METHODS: Two analysis methods addressing this bias are stratification and adjustment. Stratification uses only comparisons between treatment cohorts randomized during identical time periods and does not use non-concurrent randomizations. Adjustment uses a modeled analysis including time period adjustment, allowing all data to be used, even from periods without concurrent randomization. We show that these competing approaches may be embedded in a common framework using network meta-analysis principles. We interpret the stages between adaptations in a platform trial as separate fixed design trials. This allows platform trials to be viewed as networks of direct randomized comparisons and indirect non-randomized comparisons. Network meta-analysis methodology can be re-purposed to aggregate the total information from a platform trial and to transparently decompose this total information into direct randomized evidence and indirect non-randomized evidence. This allows sensitivity to indirect information to be assessed and the two analysis methods to be clearly compared. RESULTS: Simulations of platform trials were analyzed using a network approach implemented in the netmeta package in R. The results demonstrated bias of unadjusted methods in the presence of time trends in risk level. Adjustment and stratification were both unbiased when direct evidence and indirect evidence were consistent. Network tests of inconsistency may be used to diagnose inconsistency when it exists. In an illustrative network analysis of one of the treatment comparisons from the STAMPEDE platform trial in metastatic prostate cancer, indirect comparisons using non-concurrent controls were inconsistent with the information from direct randomized comparisons. This supports the primary analysis approach of STAMPEDE, which used only direct randomized comparisons. CONCLUSION: Network meta-analysis provides a natural methodology for analyzing the network of direct and indirect treatment comparisons from a platform trial. Such analyses provide transparent separation of direct and indirect evidence, allowing assessment of the impact of non-concurrent controls. We recommend time-stratified analysis of concurrently controlled comparisons for primary analyses, with time-adjusted analyses incorporating non-concurrent controls reserved for secondary analyses. However, regardless of which methodology is used, a network analysis provides a useful supplement to the primary analysis.

The Bayesian Time Machine: Accounting for temporal drift in multi-arm platform trials.

BACKGROUND: Multi-arm platform trials investigate multiple agents simultaneously, typically with staggered entry and exit of experimental treatment arms versus a shared control arm. In such settings, there is considerable debate whether to limit analyses for a treatment arm to concurrent randomized control subjects or to allow comparisons to both concurrent and non-concurrent (pooled) control subjects. The potential bias from temporal drift over time is at the core of this debate. METHODS: We propose time-adjusted analyses, including a "Bayesian Time Machine," to model potential temporal drift in the entire study population, such that primary analyses can incorporate all randomized control subjects from the platform trial. We conduct a simulation study to assess performance relative to utilizing concurrent or pooled controls. RESULTS: In multi-arm platform trials with staggered entry, analyses adjusting for temporal drift (either Bayesian or frequentist) have superior estimation of treatment effects and favorable testing properties compared to analyses using either concurrent or pooled controls. The Bayesian Time Machine generally provides estimates with greater precision and smaller mean square error than alternative approaches, at the risk of small bias and small Type I error inflation. CONCLUSIONS: The Bayesian Time Machine provides a compromise between bias and precision by smoothing estimates across time and leveraging all available data for the estimation of treatment effects. Prior distributions controlling the behavior of dynamic smoothing across time must be pre-specified and carefully calibrated to the unique context of each trial, appropriately accounting for the population, disease, and endpoints.

Using surrogate information to improve confirmatory platform trial with sample size re-estimation.

Platform design which allows exploring multiple arms with a common control simultaneously is becoming essential for efficient drug development. However, one of the critical challenges for confirmatory platform trials is immature data for interim decisions, particularly for the treatment arm selection and sample size determination with limited data available. We use a modified conditional power (CP) for both treatment arm selection and sample size determination at interim analysis for the proposed platform trial. The modified CP uses the available data from both primary and surrogate endpoints. We also demonstrated the application in a case study of a lung cancer trial.

PrecISE: Precision Medicine in Severe Asthma: An adaptive platform trial with biomarker ascertainment.

Severe asthma accounts for almost half the cost associated with asthma. Severe asthma is driven by heterogeneous molecular mechanisms. Conventional clinical trial design often lacks the power and efficiency to target subgroups with specific pathobiological mechanisms. Furthermore, the validation and approval of new asthma therapies is a lengthy process. A large proportion of that time is taken by clinical trials to validate asthma interventions. The National Institutes of Health Precision Medicine in Severe and/or Exacerbation Prone Asthma (PrecISE) program was established with the goal of designing and executing a trial that uses adaptive design techniques to rapidly evaluate novel interventions in biomarker-defined subgroups of severe asthma, while seeking to refine these biomarker subgroups, and to identify early markers of response to therapy. The novel trial design is an adaptive platform trial conducted under a single master protocol that incorporates precision medicine components. Furthermore, it includes innovative applications of futility analysis, cross-over design with use of shared placebo groups, and early futility analysis to permit more rapid identification of effective interventions. The development and rationale behind the study design are described. The interventions chosen for the initial investigation and the criteria used to identify these interventions are enumerated. The biomarker-based adaptive design and analytic scheme are detailed as well as special considerations involved in the final trial design.

A platform in the use of medicines to treat chronic hepatitis C (PLATINUM C): protocol for a prospective treatment registry of real-world outcomes for hepatitis C.

BACKGROUND: Safe, highly curative, short course, direct acting antiviral (DAA) therapies are now available to treat chronic hepatitis C. DAA therapy is freely available to all adults chronically infected with the hepatitis C virus (HCV) in Australia. If left untreated, hepatitis C may lead to progressive hepatic fibrosis, cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. Australia is committed to eliminating hepatitis as a public health threat by 2030 set by the World Health Organization. However, since the introduction of funded DAA treatment, uptake has been suboptimal. Australia needs improved strategies for testing, treatment uptake and treatment completion to address the persisting hepatitis C public health problem. PLATINUM C is a HCV treatment registry and research platform for assessing the comparative effectiveness of alternative interventions for achieving virological cure. METHODS: PLATINUM C will prospectively enrol people with active HCV infection confirmed by recent detection of HCV ribonucleic acid (RNA) in blood. Those enrolled will agree to allow standardised collection of demographic, lifestyle, treatment, virological outcome and other relevant clinical data to better inform the future management of HCV infection. The primary outcome is virological cure evidenced by sustained virological response (SVR), which is defined as a negative HCV PCR result 6 to 18 months after initial prescription of DAA therapy and no less than 12 weeks after the completion of treatment. Study participants will be invited to opt-in to medication adherence monitoring and quality of life assessments using validated self-reported instruments (EQ-5D-5L). DISCUSSION: PLATINUM C is a treatment registry and platform for nesting pragmatic trials. Data collected will inform the design, development and implementation of pragmatic trials. The digital infrastructure, study procedures and governing systems established by the registry will allow PLATINUM C to support a wider research platform in the management of hepatitis C in primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered with the Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register ( ACTRN12619000023156 ). Date of registration: 10/01/2019.