Multidisciplinary considerations for implementing Bayesian borrowing in basket trials.

Drug development has historically relied on phase I-III clinical trials including participants sharing the same disease. However, drug development has evolved as the discovery of mechanistic drivers of disease demonstrated that the same therapeutic target may provide benefits across different diseases. A basket trial condenses evaluation of one therapy among multiple related diseases into a single trial and presents an opportunity to borrow information across them rather than viewing each in isolation. Borrowing is a statistical tool but requires a foundation of clinical and therapeutic mechanistic justification. We review the Bayesian borrowing approach, including its assumptions, and provide a framework for how this approach can be evaluated for successful use in a basket trial for drug development.

Influence of Cooling duration on Efficacy in Cardiac Arrest Patients (ICECAP): study protocol for a multicenter, randomized, adaptive allocation clinical trial to identify the optimal duration of induced hypothermia for neuroprotection in comatose, adult survivors of after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

Background: Cardiac arrest is a common and devastating emergency of both the heart and brain. More than 380,000 patients suffer out-of-hospital cardiac arrest annually in the United States. Induced cooling of comatose patients markedly improved neurological and functional outcomes in pivotal randomized clinical trials, but the optimal duration of therapeutic hypothermia has not yet been established. Methods: This study is a multi-center randomized, response-adaptive, duration (dose) finding, comparative effectiveness clinical trial with blinded outcome assessment. We investigate two populations of adult comatose survivors of cardiac arrest to ascertain the shortest duration of cooling that provides the maximum treatment effect. The design is based on a statistical model of response as defined by the primary endpoint, a weighted 90-day mRS (modified Rankin Scale, a measure of neurologic disability), across the treatment arms. Subjects will initially be equally randomized between 12, 24, and 48 hours of therapeutic cooling. After the first 200 subjects have been randomized, additional treatment arms between 12 and 48 hours will be opened and patients will be allocated, within each initial cardiac rhythm type (shockable or non-shockable), by response adaptive randomization. As the trial continues, shorter and longer duration arms may be opened. A maximum sample size of 1800 subjects is proposed. Secondary objectives are to characterize: the overall safety and adverse events associated with duration of cooling, the effect on neuropsychological outcomes, and the effect on patient reported quality of life measures. Discussion: In-vitro and in-vivo studies have shown the neuroprotective effects of therapeutic hypothermia for cardiac arrest. We hypothesize that longer durations of cooling may improve either the proportion of patients that attain a good neurological recovery or may result in better recovery among the proportion already categorized as having a good outcome. If the treatment effect of cooling is increasing across duration, for at least some set of durations, then this provides evidence of the efficacy of cooling itself versus normothermia, even in the absence of a normothermia control arm, confirming previous RCTs for OHCA survivors of shockable rhythms and provides the first prospective controlled evidence of efficacy in those without initial shockable rhythms. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04217551, 2019-12-30).

Influence of Cooling duration on Efficacy in Cardiac Arrest Patients (ICECAP): study protocol for a multicenter, randomized, adaptive allocation clinical trial to identify the optimal duration of induced hypothermia for neuroprotection in comatose, adult survivors of after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac arrest is a common and devastating emergency of both the heart and brain. More than 380,000 patients suffer out-of-hospital cardiac arrest annually in the USA. Induced cooling of comatose patients markedly improved neurological and functional outcomes in pivotal randomized clinical trials, but the optimal duration of therapeutic hypothermia has not yet been established. METHODS: This study is a multi-center randomized, response-adaptive, duration (dose) finding, comparative effectiveness clinical trial with blinded outcome assessment. We investigate two populations of adult comatose survivors of cardiac arrest to ascertain the shortest duration of cooling that provides the maximum treatment effect. The design is based on a statistical model of response as defined by the primary endpoint, a weighted 90-day mRS (modified Rankin Scale, a measure of neurologic disability), across the treatment arms. Subjects will initially be equally randomized between 12, 24, and 48 h of therapeutic cooling. After the first 200 subjects have been randomized, additional treatment arms between 12 and 48 h will be opened and patients will be allocated, within each initial cardiac rhythm type (shockable or non-shockable), by response adaptive randomization. As the trial continues, shorter and longer duration arms may be opened. A maximum sample size of 1800 subjects is proposed. Secondary objectives are to characterize: the overall safety and adverse events associated with duration of cooling, the effect on neuropsychological outcomes, and the effect on patient-reported quality of life measures. DISCUSSION: In vitro and in vivo studies have shown the neuroprotective effects of therapeutic hypothermia for cardiac arrest. We hypothesize that longer durations of cooling may improve either the proportion of patients that attain a good neurological recovery or may result in better recovery among the proportion already categorized as having a good outcome. If the treatment effect of cooling is increasing across duration, for at least some set of durations, then this provides evidence of the efficacy of cooling itself versus normothermia, even in the absence of a normothermia control arm, confirming previous RCTs for OHCA survivors of shockable rhythms and provides the first prospective controlled evidence of efficacy in those without initial shockable rhythms. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04217551. Registered on 30 December 2019.

Use of Seamless Study Designs in Oncology Clinical Development- A Survey Conducted by IDSWG Oncology Sub-team.

Seamless study designs have the potential to accelerate clinical development. The use of innovative seamless designs has been increasing in the oncology area; however, while the concept of seamless designs becomes more popular and accepted, many challenges remain in both the design and conduct of these trials. This may be especially true when seamless designs are used in late phase development supporting regulatory decision-making. The Innovative Design Scientific Working Group (IDSWG) Oncology team conducted a survey to understand the current use of seamless study designs for registration purposes in oncology clinical development. The survey was designed to provide insights into the benefits and to identify the roadblocks. A total of 16 questions were included in the survey that was distributed using the ASA Biopharmaceutical Section and IDSWG email listings from August to September 2022. A total of 51 responses were received, with 39 (76%) respondents indicating that their organizations had seamless oncology studies in planning or implementation for registration purposes. Detailed survey results are presented in the manuscript. Overall, while seamless designs offer advantages in terms of timeline reduction and cost saving, they also present challenges related to additional complexity and the need for efficient surrogate clinical endpoints in oncology drug development.

A Systematic Review of Adaptive Seamless Clinical Trials for Late-Phase Oncology Development.

INTRODUCTION: Although oncology has seen large scientific and clinical advances over the last decade, it also has one of the lowest success rates for novel agents across therapeutic areas. Adaptive clinical trial design has been a popular option for increasing clinical trial efficiency and the chances of trial success. Seamless clinical trial design are studies in which two or more clinical trial phases are combined into a single study with a pre-specified transition between stages. This integration of phases may enhance efficiency. METHODS: To understand the precedent for the use of seamless designs, this working group was formed to conduct a comprehensive literature search on seamless clinical trials conducted with confirmatory intent in oncology. Trial design features were extracted into a database and analyzed with descriptive statistics. RESULTS: A literature search identified 68 clinical trials meeting inclusion and exclusion criteria. The most common design feature was a gate on treatment efficacy, where the trial would only proceed to the second stage if sufficient efficacy was observed in the first. The next most common feature was a selection of a dose or treatment regimen. Inferentially and operationally seamless designs were approximately equally represented. DISCUSSION: Key statistical considerations for seamless phase II/III designs include optimizing design choices by evaluating and comparing operating characteristics across design alternatives as well as showing control of overall Type I error rates. Executing the transition between phases should be evaluated for issues related to accrual, drug production, and procedures to maintain trial integrity. CONCLUSIONS: While there are unique statistical, regulatory, and operational considerations for seamless designs they are also uniquely suited to many development settings. These include, for example, addressing dose selection under FDA's Project Optimus and addressing the growing use of biomarkers and personalized medicine approaches in cancer treatment.

Unlocking the Potential: A Systematic Review of Master Protocol in Pediatrics.

The use of master protocols allows for innovative approaches to clinical trial designs, potentially enabling new approaches to operations and analytics and creating value for patients and drug developers. Pediatric research has been conducted for many decades, but the use of novel designs such as master protocols in pediatric research is not well understood. This study aims to provide a systematic review on the utilization of master protocols in pediatric drug development. A search was performed in September 2022 using two data sources (PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov) and included studies conducted in the past10 years. General study information was extracted such as study type, study status, therapeutic area, and clinical trial phase. Study characteristics that are specific to pediatric studies (such as age of the participants and pediatric drug dosing) and important study design elements (such as number of test drug arms and whether randomization and/or concurrent control was used) were also collected. Our results suggest that master protocol studies are being used in pediatrics, with platform and basket trials more common than umbrella trials. Most of this experience is in oncology and early phase studies. There is a rise in the use starting in 2020, largely in oncology and COVID-19 trials. However, adoption of master protocols in pediatric clinical research is still on a small scale and could be substantially expanded. Work is required to further understand the barriers in implementing pediatric master protocols, from setting up infrastructure to interpreting study findings.

Therapeutic Hypothermia in Low-Risk Nonpumped Brain-Dead Kidney Donors: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Delayed graft function in kidney-transplant recipients is associated with increased financial cost and patient burden. In donors with high Kidney Donor Profile Index whose kidneys are not pumped, therapeutic hypothermia has been shown to confer a protective benefit against delayed graft function. Objective: To determine whether hypothermia is superior to normothermia in preventing delayed graft function in low-risk nonpumped kidney donors after brain death. Design, Setting, and Participants: In a multicenter randomized clinical trial, brain-dead kidney donors deemed to be low risk and not requiring machine perfusion per Organ Procurement Organization protocol were prospectively randomized to hypothermia (34.0-35 °C) or normothermia (36.5-37.5 °C) between August 10, 2017, and May 21, 2020, across 4 Organ Procurement Organizations in the US (Arizona, Upper Midwest, Pacific Northwest, and Texas). The final analysis report is dated June 15, 2022, based on the data set received from the United Network for Organ Sharing on June 2, 2021. A total of 509 donors (normothermia: n = 245 and hypothermia: n = 236; 1017 kidneys) met inclusion criteria over the study period. Intervention: Donor hypothermia (34.0-35.0 °C) or normothermia (36.5-37.5 °C). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was delayed graft function in the kidney recipients, defined as the need for dialysis within the first week following kidney transplant. The primary analysis follows the intent-to-treat principle. Results: A total of 934 kidneys were transplanted from 481 donors, of which 474 were randomized to the normothermia group and 460 to the hypothermia group. Donor characteristics were similar between the groups, with overall mean (SD) donor age 34.2 (11.1) years, and the mean donor creatinine level at enrollment of 1.03 (0.53) mg/dL. There was a predominance of Standard Criteria Donors (98% in each treatment arm) with similar low mean (SD) Kidney Donor Profile Index (normothermia: 28.99 [20.46] vs hypothermia: 28.32 [21.9]). Cold ischemia time was similar in the normothermia and hypothermia groups (15.99 [7.9] vs 15.45 [7.63] hours). Delayed graft function developed in 87 of the recipients (18%) in the normothermia group vs 79 (17%) in the hypothermia group (adjusted odds ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.64-1.33; P = .66). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest that, in low-risk non-pumped kidneys from brain-dead kidney donors, therapeutic hypothermia compared with normothermia does not appear to prevent delayed graft function in kidney transplant recipients. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02525510.