Clinical Trial Protocol for BEACH: A Phase 2a Study of MW189 in Patients with Acute Nontraumatic Intracerebral Hemorrhage.

Patients with acute spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) develop secondary neuroinflammation and cerebral edema that can further damage the brain and lead to increased risk of neurologic complications. Preclinical studies in animal models of acute brain injury have shown that a novel small-molecule drug candidate, MW01-6-189WH (MW189), decreases neuroinflammation and cerebral edema and improves functional outcomes. MW189 was also safe and well tolerated in phase 1 studies in healthy adults. The proof-of-concept phase 2a Biomarker and Edema Attenuation in IntraCerebral Hemorrhage (BEACH) clinical trial is a first-in-patient, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. It is designed to determine the safety and tolerability of MW189 in patients with acute ICH, identify trends in potential mitigation of neuroinflammation and cerebral edema, and assess effects on functional outcomes. A total of 120 participants with nontraumatic ICH will be randomly assigned 1:1 to receive intravenous MW189 (0.25 mg/kg) or placebo (saline) within 24 h of symptom onset and every 12 h for up to 5 days or until hospital discharge. The 120-participant sample size (60 per group) will allow testing of the null hypothesis of noninferiority with a tolerance limit of 12% and assuming a "worst-case" safety assumption of 10% rate of death in each arm with 10% significance and 80% power. The primary outcome is all-cause mortality at 7 days post randomization between treatment arms. Secondary end points include all-cause mortality at 30 days, perihematomal edema volume after symptom onset, adverse events, vital signs, pharmacokinetics of MW189, and inflammatory cytokine concentrations in plasma (and cerebrospinal fluid if available). Other exploratory end points are functional outcomes collected on days 30, 90, and 180. BEACH will provide important information about the utility of targeting neuroinflammation in ICH and will inform the design of future larger trials of acute central nervous system injury.

Selecting trial centers using a standardized, automated site assessment survey instrument (SASI).

BACKGROUND: To improve the site selection process for clinical trials, we expanded a site survey to include standardized assessments of site commitment time, team experience, feasibility of tight timelines, and local medical community equipoise as factors that might better predict performance. We also collected contact information about institutional research services ahead of site onboarding. AIM: As a first step, we wanted to confirm that an expanded survey could be feasible and generalizable-that asking site teams for more details upfront was acceptable and that the survey could be completed in a reasonable amount of time, despite the assessment length. METHODS: A standardized, two-part Site Assessment Survey Instrument (SASI), examining qualitative components and with multiple contact list sections, was developed using a publicly accessible dashboard and later transferred to a REDCap platform. After multiple rounds of internal testing, the SASI was deployed 11 times for multicenter trials. Follow-up questionnaires were sent to site teams to confirm that an expanded survey instrument is acceptable to the research community and could be completed during a brief work shift. RESULTS: Respondents thought the SASI collected useful and relevant information about their sites (100%). Sites were "comfortable" (90%) supplying detailed information early in the site selection process and 57% completed the SASI in one to two hours. CONCLUSIONS: Coordinating centers and sites found the SASI tool to be acceptable and helpful when collecting data in consideration of multicenter trial site selection.

Approaches for enhancing the informativeness and quality of clinical trials: Innovations and principles for implementing multicenter trials from the Trial Innovation Network.

One challenge for multisite clinical trials is ensuring that the conditions of an informative trial are incorporated into all aspects of trial planning and execution. The multicenter model can provide the potential for a more informative environment, but it can also place a trial at risk of becoming uninformative due to lack of rigor, quality control, or effective recruitment, resulting in premature discontinuation and/or non-publication. Key factors that support informativeness are having the right team and resources during study planning and implementation and adequate funding to support performance activities. This communication draws on the experience of the National Center for Advancing Translational Science (NCATS) Trial Innovation Network (TIN) to develop approaches for enhancing the informativeness of clinical trials. We distilled this information into three principles: (1) assemble a diverse team, (2) leverage existing processes and systems, and (3) carefully consider budgets and contracts. The TIN, comprised of NCATS, three Trial Innovation Centers, a Recruitment Innovation Center, and 60+ CTSA Program hubs, provides resources to investigators who are proposing multicenter collaborations. In addition to sharing principles that support the informativeness of clinical trials, we highlight TIN-developed resources relevant for multicenter trial initiation and conduct.

Development, implementation, and dissemination of operational innovations across the trial innovation network.

Improving the quality and conduct of multi-center clinical trials is essential to the generation of generalizable knowledge about the safety and efficacy of healthcare treatments. Despite significant effort and expense, many clinical trials are unsuccessful. The National Center for Advancing Translational Science launched the Trial Innovation Network to address critical roadblocks in multi-center trials by leveraging existing infrastructure and developing operational innovations. We provide an overview of the roadblocks that led to opportunities for operational innovation, our work to develop, define, and map innovations across the network, and how we implemented and disseminated mature innovations.

Benefits and effectiveness of administering pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine with seasonal influenza vaccine: an approach for policymakers.

For the influenza pandemic of 2009-2010, countries responded to the direct threat of influenza but may have missed opportunities and strategies to limit secondary pneumococcal infections. Delivering both vaccines together can potentially increase pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPV23) immunization rates and prevent additional hospitalizations and mortality in the elderly and other high-risk groups. We used PubMed to review the literature on the concomitant use of PPV23 with seasonal influenza vaccines. Eight of 9 clinical studies found that a concomitant program conferred clinical benefits. The 2 studies that compared the cost-effectiveness of different strategies found concomitant immunization to be more cost-effective than either vaccine given alone. Policymakers should consider a stepwise strategy to reduce the burden of secondary pneumococcal infections during seasonal and pandemic influenza outbreaks.

A policy framework for accelerating adoption of new vaccines.

Rapid uptake of new vaccines can improve health and wealth and contribute to meeting Millennium Development Goals. In the past, however, the introduction and use of new vaccines has been characterized by delayed uptake in the countries where the need is greatest. Based on experience with accelerating the adoption of Hib, pneumococcal and rotavirus vaccines, we propose here a framework for new vaccine adoption that may be useful for future efforts. The framework organizes the major steps in the process into a continuum from evidence to policy, implementation and finally access. It highlights the important roles of different actors at various times in the process and may allow new vaccine initiatives to save time and improve their efficiency by anticipating key steps and actions.

Strengthening global vaccine access for adolescents and adults.

Global immunization efforts to date have heavily focused on infants and children, with noted success on public health. Healthy adolescents and adults contribute to the economic growth and development of countries but efforts to ensure vaccine coverage for these groups receive inadequate global attention and resources. Emerging epidemics for a number of infectious diseases including Ebola, Zika, dengue, malaria and the continuing epidemics of tuberculosis and several sexually transmitted infections, including HIV, HPV and Hepatitis B, have high incidence and prevalence in adolescents and adults. New vaccines under development for these diseases and under-used vaccines such as for human papilloma virus will have the greatest health and economic impact in these populations. Global consensus, political will, policies, global and country infrastructure, and financing mechanisms are needed to accelerate access for the billions of adolescents and adults living under the threat of devastating infectious disease outbreaks and epidemics, especially in lower income countries. The global health community and countries cannot afford to delay planning for implementation of adolescent and adult vaccine programs that will potentially save millions of lives and strengthen global and national economies. The article examines this next challenge and suggests a research agenda and a framework for action to galvanize global and national policy decision-makers to begin preparations for future immunization challenges.

Evidence-to-policy gap on hepatitis A vaccine adoption in 6 countries: Literature vs. policymakers' beliefs.

BACKGROUND: National vaccine adoption decisions may be better understood by linking multiple data sources. When examining countries' decisions to adopt the hepatitis A vaccine, applying multiple research methods can facilitate assessments of gaps between evidence and policy. We conducted a literature review on hepatitis A and stakeholder interviews about decisions to adopt the vaccine in six countries (Chile, India, South Korea, Mexico, Russia, and Taiwan). METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted across five literature databases. The review identified and abstracted 340 articles, supplemented by internet search. In addition, we interviewed 62 experts and opinion leaders on hepatitis A and/or vaccines. Data from the two sources were analyzed to identify gaps around epidemiologic data, economic data, and barriers/facilitators of hepatitis A vaccine adoption. RESULTS: Epidemiologic data gaps were found in Chile and Russia, where stakeholders believed data to be more solid than the literature documented. Economic data on hepatitis A was found to be weak across all countries despite stakeholders' agreement on its importance. Barriers and facilitators of vaccine adoption such as political will, prioritization among vaccines, and global or local recommendations were discussed more by stakeholders than the literature. Stakeholders in India and Mexico were not concerned with the lack of data, despite growing recognition in the literature of the epidemiological transition and threat of outbreaks. CONCLUSIONS: Triangulation of results from two methods captured a richer story behind vaccine adoption decisions for hepatitis A. The discrepancy between policymakers' beliefs and existing data suggest a decline in priority of hepatitis A or weak investment in data collection. Filling the confirmed data gaps in seroprevalence or economic data is important to help guide policy decisions. Greater communication of the risk of hepatitis A and the benefits of the vaccine may help countries undergoing the epidemiologic transition.

Lessons learned in shaping vaccine markets in low-income countries: a review of the vaccine market segment supported by the GAVI Alliance.

OBJECTIVES: The Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI) anticipated that growing demand for new vaccines could sufficiently impact the vaccines market to allow low-income countries (LICs) to self-finance new vaccines. But the time required to lower vaccine prices was underestimated and the amount that prices would decline overestimated. To better understand how prices in the LIC vaccine market can be impacted, the vaccine market was retrospectively examined. DESIGN: GAVI archives and the published literature on the vaccine markets in LICs were reviewed for the purpose of identifying GAVI's early assumptions for the evolution of vaccine prices, and contrasting these retrospectively with actual outcomes. RESULTS: The prices in Phases I and II of GAVI-supported vaccines failed to decline to a desirable level within a projected 5-year timeframe. GAVI-eligible countries were unable to sustain newly introduced vaccines without prolonged donor support. Two key lessons can be applied to future vaccine market-shaping strategies: (1) accurate demand forecasting together with committed donor funding can increase supply to the LIC vaccines market, but even greater strides can be made to increase the certainty of purchase; and (2) the expected time to lower prices took much longer than 5 years; market competition is inherently linked to the development time for new vaccines--a minimum of 5-10 or more years. Other factors that can lower vaccine prices include: large-scale production or alternate financing mechanisms that can hasten vaccine price maturation. CONCLUSIONS: The impacts of competition on vaccine prices in the LIC new-vaccines market occurred after almost 10 years. The time for research and development, acquisition of technological know-how and to scale production must be accounted for to more accurately predict significant declines on vaccine prices. Alternate financing mechanisms and the use of purchase agreements should also be considered for lowering prices when planning new vaccine introductions.