Trial of Beremagene Geperpavec (B-VEC) for Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa.

BACKGROUND: Dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa is a rare genetic blistering skin disease caused by mutations in COL7A1, which encodes type VII collagen (C7). Beremagene geperpavec (B-VEC) is a topical investigational herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1)-based gene therapy designed to restore C7 protein by delivering COL7A1. METHODS: We conducted a phase 3, double-blind, intrapatient randomized, placebo-controlled trial involving patients 6 months of age or older with genetically confirmed dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa. For each patient, a primary wound pair was selected, with the wounds matched according to size, region, and appearance. The wounds within each pair were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive weekly application of either B-VEC or placebo for 26 weeks. The primary end point was complete wound healing of treated as compared with untreated wounds at 6 months. Secondary end points included complete wound healing at 3 months and the change from baseline to weeks 22, 24, and 26 in pain severity during changes in wound dressing, assessed with the use of a visual analogue scale (scores range from 0 to 10, with higher scores indicating greater pain). RESULTS: Primary wound pairs were exposed to B-VEC and placebo in 31 patients. At 6 months, complete wound healing occurred in 67% of the wounds exposed to B-VEC as compared with 22% of those exposed to placebo (difference, 46 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 24 to 68; P = 0.002). Complete wound healing at 3 months occurred in 71% of the wounds exposed to B-VEC as compared with 20% of those exposed to placebo (difference, 51 percentage points; 95% CI, 29 to 73; P<0.001). The mean change from baseline to week 22 in pain severity during wound-dressing changes was -0.88 with B-VEC and -0.71 with placebo (adjusted least-squares mean difference, -0.61; 95% CI, -1.10 to -0.13); similar mean changes were observed at weeks 24 and 26. Adverse events with B-VEC and placebo included pruritus and chills. CONCLUSIONS: Complete wound healing at 3 and 6 months in patients with dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa was more likely with topical administration of B-VEC than with placebo. Pruritus and mild systemic side effects were observed in patients treated with B-VEC. Longer and larger trials are warranted to determine the durability and side effects of B-VEC for this disease. (Funded by Krystal Biotech; GEM-3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04491604.).

DIA's Adaptive Design Scientific Working Group (ADSWG): Best Practices Case Studies for "Less Well-understood" Adaptive Designs.

Adaptive design (AD) clinical trials use accumulating subject data to modify the parameters of the design of an ongoing study, without compromising the validity and integrity of the study. The 2010 US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Draft Guidance on Adaptive Design Clinical Trials described a subset of 7 primary design types as "less well-understood." FDA defined these designs as those with limited regulatory experience. To better understand the properties of these less well-understood ADs and to promote their use when applicable, the Best Practices Subteam for DIA's Adaptive Design Scientific Working Group conducted an extensive nonsystematic search and reviewed trials from multiple sponsors who had employed these designs. Here, we review 10 specific case studies for which less well-understood ADs were employed and share feedback about their challenges and successes, as well as details about the regulatory interactions from these trials. We learned that these designs and associated statistical methodologies can make difficult research situations more amenable for study and, therefore, are needed in our toolbox. While they can be used to study many diseases, they are particularly valuable for rare diseases, small populations, studies involving terminal illnesses, and vaccine trials, in which it is important to find efficient ways to bring effective treatments to market more rapidly. It is imperative, however, that these methodologies be utilized appropriately, which requires careful planning and precise operational execution.

Statistical challenges in drug approval trials that use patient-reported outcomes.

This article describes challenging aspects of the use of patient-reported outcome instruments in clinical trials for drug approval, in our perspective as statistical reviewers at the US Food and Drug Administration. We discuss aspects of planning and interpreting results in clinical trials (1) adapting an existing patient-reported outcome instrument for use in clinical trials, (2) using multi-item patient-reported outcomes and (3) missing patient-reported outcome values from many subjects over time. These challenges are illustrated with multiple examples from different clinical trials for different indications. We finally discuss important considerations in labeling.