Rapid cGMP manufacturing of COVID-19 monoclonal antibody using stable CHO cell pools.

Therapeutic proteins, including monoclonal antibodies, are typically manufactured using clonally derived, stable host cell lines, since consistent and predictable cell culture performance is highly desirable. However, selecting and preparing banks of stable clones takes considerable time, which inevitably extends overall development timelines for new therapeutics by delaying the start of subsequent activities, such as the scale-up of manufacturing processes. In the context of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, with its intense pressure for accelerated development strategies, we used a novel transposon-based Leap-In Transposase® system to rapidly generate high-titer stable pools and then used them directly for large scale-manufacturing of an anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 monoclonal antibody under cGMP. We performed the safety testing of our non-clonal cell bank, then used it to produce material at a 200L-scale for preclinical safety studies and formulation development work, and thereafter at 2000L scale for supply of material for a Phase 1 clinical trial. Testing demonstrated the comparability of critical product qualities between the two scales and, more importantly, that our final clinical trial product met all pre-set product quality specifications. The above expediated approach provided clinical trial material within 4.5 months, in comparison to 12-14 months for production of clinical trial material via the conventional approach.

Healthy volunteers in US phase I clinical trials: Sociodemographic characteristics and participation over time.

BACKGROUND: Increasing the diversity of research participants is an important focus of clinical trials. However, little is known regarding who enrolls as healthy volunteers in Phase I clinical trials, which test the safety and tolerability of investigational new drugs. Despite the risk, healthy volunteers can derive no medical benefit from their participation, and they are financially compensated for enrolling. OBJECTIVE: This study's purpose is to describe sociodemographic characteristics and clinical trial participation histories of healthy people who enroll in US Phase I trials. METHODS: The HealthyVOICES Project (HVP) is a longitudinal study of healthy individuals who have enrolled in Phase I trials. We describe self-reported sociodemographic information and Phase I trial history from HVP recruitment (May-December 2013) through the project's end three years later (December 2016). Trial experiences are presented as medians and quartiles. RESULTS: The HVP included 178 participants. Nearly three-fourths of participants were male, and two-thirds were classified as racial and ethnic minorities. We found that some groups of participants were more likely to have completed a greater number of clinical trials over a longer timeframe than others. Those groups included participants who were male, Black, Hispanic, 30-39-years-old, unemployed, had received vocational training in a trade, or had annual household incomes of less than $25,000. Additionally, the greater the number of clinical trials participants had completed, the more likely they were to continue screening for new trials over the course of three years. Participants who pursued clinical trials as a full-time job participated in the greatest number of trials and were the most likely to continuing screening over time. IMPLICATIONS: Participation as a healthy volunteer in US Phase I trials is driven by social inequalities. Disadvantaged groups tend to participate in a greater number of clinical trials and participate longer than more privileged groups.

Designing Dose-Finding Phase I Clinical Trials: Top 10 Questions That Should Be Discussed With Your Statistician.

In recent years, the landscape in clinical trial development has changed to involve many molecularly targeted agents, immunotherapies, or radiotherapy, as a single agent or in combination. Given their different mechanisms of action and lengths of administration, these agents have different toxicity profiles, which has resulted in numerous challenges when applying traditional designs such as the 3 + 3 design in dose-finding clinical trials. Novel methods have been proposed to address these design challenges such as combinations of therapies or late-onset toxicities. However, their design and implementation require close collaboration between clinicians and statisticians to ensure that the appropriate design is selected to address the aims of the study and that the design assumptions are pertinent to the study drug. The goal of this paper is to provide guidelines for appropriate questions that should be considered early in the design stage to facilitate the interactions between clinical and statistical teams and to improve the design of dose-finding clinical trials for novel anticancer agents.

A Study of Regulatory Challenges of Pediatric Oncology Phase I/II Trial Submissions and Guidance on Protocol Development.

The purpose of this study was to identify key deficiencies in pediatric oncology early phase clinical trial protocols in Germany and to provide guidance for efficient trial protocol development. A systematic review of the response letters of German competent authorities (CAs) and Ethics Committees to phase I/II pediatric oncology trial submissions in the period from 2014 to 2019 was performed. Documents were requested from all five Society for Paediatric Oncology and Haematology in Germany (GPOH) phase I/II trial networks plus all nine German Innovative Therapies for Children with Consortium Cancer (ITCC) centers. A blinded dataset containing aggregated data from 33 studies was analyzed for validation. All deficiencies were reviewed, listed, and weighted using a structured matrix according to frequency, category, significance, and feasibility. In total, documents of 17 trials from 6 different sites were collected. Two hundred fifty deficiencies identified by the CAs were identified and categorized into eight categories. "Toxicity and safety" was the most prominent category (27.6%), followed by "Manufacturing and Import" (18%). The majority of deficiencies were categorized as minor and potential measures as easy to address, but an important group of major and difficult to implement deficiencies was also identified. The blinded validation dataset confirmed these findings. The majority of the EC deficiencies could be resolved by changing the wording in the patient-facing documents. In conclusion, this study was able to detect a pattern of key deficiencies. Most of the shortcomings can be anticipated by minor changes in the protocol and increased awareness can prevent time-consuming revisions, withdrawals, or even rejections. A corresponding guideline describing key regulatory aspects is provided.

Systematic review of phase-I/II trials enrolling refractory and recurrent Ewing sarcoma: Actual knowledge and future directions to optimize the research.

BACKGROUND: Optimal Phase-II design to evaluate new therapies in refractory/relapsed Ewing sarcomas (ES) remains imperfectly defined. OBJECTIVES: Recurrent/refractory ES phase-I/II trials analysis to improve trials design. METHODS: Comprehensive review of therapeutic trials registered on five databases (who.int/trialsearch, clinicaltrials.gov, clinicaltrialsregister.eu, e-cancer.fr, and umin.ac.jp) and/or published in PubMed/ASCO/ESMO websites, between 2005 and 2018, using the criterion: (Ewing sarcoma OR bone sarcoma OR sarcoma) AND (Phase-I or Phase-II). RESULTS: The 146 trials identified (77 phase-I/II, 67 phase-II, and 2 phase-II/III) tested targeted (34%), chemo- (23%), immune therapies (19%), or combined therapies (24%). Twenty-three trials were ES specific and 48 had a specific ES stratum. Usually multicentric (88%), few trials were international (30%). Inclusion criteria cover the recurrent ES age range for only 12% of trials and allowed only accrual of measurable diseases (RECIST criteria). Single-arm design was the most frequent (88%) testing mainly single drugs (61%), only 5% were randomized. Primary efficacy outcome was response rate (RR=CR+PR; Complete+Partial response) (n = 116/146; 79%), rarely progression-free or overall survival (16% PFS and 3% OS). H0 and H1 hypotheses were variable (3%-25% and 20%-50%, respectively). The 62 published trials enrolled 827 ES patients. RR was poor (10%; 15 CR=1.7%, 68 PR=8.3%). Stable disease was the best response for 186 patients (25%). Median PFS/OS was of 1.9 (range 1.3-14.7) and 7.6 months (5-30), respectively. Eleven (18%) published trials were considered positive, with median RR/PFS/OS of 15% (7%-30%), 4.5 (1.3-10), and 16.6 months (6.9-30), respectively. CONCLUSION: This review supports the need to develop the international randomized phase-II trials across all age ranges with PFS as primary endpoint.

Systematic review of gender bias in vortioxetine clinical trials.

This paper evaluates gender bias in the published clinical trials of Vortioxetine. We conducted a systematic review of controlled clinical trials of Vortioxetine for the treatment of depression. The literature search was performed using MEDLINE and following the corresponding international recommendations. We identified 42 articles, of which 23 were included. The proportion of women ranged from 47%-75% and the percentage of women included in the 10,404 total patients sample was 65%. The separate analysis of the main variable between the subpopulations of men and women was only carried out in 3/23 publications included. In contrast, 6/23 trials analyzed secondary variables separated by sex. No trials discussed the results separately by sex. The proportion of women included was slightly higher than that in clinical trials of other antidepressants. However, the analysis of the main result or secondary variables by sex, as well as discussing the results separately by sex, are scarce. This gives rise to gender bias in these works.

Landscape of phase 1 clinical trials for minors with cancer in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: Understanding trends in characteristics of early phase trials that allow minors with cancer to participate may inform additional efforts to improve cancer drug development for young people. METHODS: We accessed data for oncology phase 1 or phase 1/2 trials in the United States from ClinicalTrials.gov with lower age bound for eligibility <18 years. Descriptive statistics were calculated and trends over time evaluated using logistic and multinomial logistic regression. RESULTS: Six hundred twelve trials met inclusion criteria. Sixty-five percent of trials were for older adults that also allowed minors, while 9% were exclusively for patients ≤18 years of age. Eighty-three percent of trials included at least one novel agent, while 17% studied only conventional therapies. Fifty-eight percent of trials studied treatments not yet Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved (48% if exclusively for patients ≤18 years). Fifteen percent of trials for which dose-escalation method could be determined, utilized a model-based design. Eighteen percent of all trials were industry sponsored (48% if exclusively for patients ≤18 years). Forty-nine percent of all trials were multicenter (69% if exclusively for patients ≤18 years). There was an increase in trials exclusively focused on patients with central nervous system (CNS) tumors over the study period (P ≤ .02). No other temporal trends were seen. The median times from first-in-adult to first-in-pediatric for monotherapy and combination trials were 5.7 and 3.3 years, respectively. CONCLUSION: The paucity of clear temporal trends highlights the need for innovation in early drug development for young people. Our analysis serves as a benchmark against which to evaluate initiatives to improve pediatric cancer drug development.

Pre-clinical animal models are poor predictors of human toxicities in phase 1 oncology clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Our objective was to determine the correlation between preclinical toxicity found in animal models (mouse, rat, dog and monkey) and clinical toxicity reported in patients participating in Phase 1 oncology clinical trials. METHODS: We obtained from two major early-Phase clinical trial centres, preclinical toxicities from investigational brochures and clinical toxicities from published Phase 1 trials for 108 drugs, including small molecules, biologics and conjugates. Toxicities were categorised according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0. Human toxicities were also categorised based on their reported clinical grade (severity). Positive predictive values (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV) were calculated to determine the probability that clinical studies would/would not show a particular toxicity category given that it was seen in preclinical toxicology analysis. Statistical analyses also included kappa statistics, and Matthews (MCC) and Spearman correlation coefficients. RESULTS: Overall, animal toxicity did not show strong correlation with human toxicity, with a median PPV of 0.65 and NPV of 0.50. Similar results were obtained based on kappa statistics and MCC. CONCLUSIONS: There is an urgent need to assess more novel approaches to the type and conduct of preclinical toxicity studies in an effort to provide better predictive value for human investigation.

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak and phase 1 trials: should we consider a specific patient management?

The outbreak of the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has deeply challenged healthcare systems and care of patients with cancer. Phase 1 studies are among the most complicated clinical trials and require thorough patient selection, as well as intensive patient monitoring. In this perspective, we discuss the key factors that should be considered for the conduct of phase 1 trials and management of COVID-19-positive patients with cancer enrolled in such trials. We notably present the risks and challenges raised by COVID-19-infected phase 1 patients, in terms of safety, toxicity causality assessment, drug efficacy evaluation and clinical research priorities. We finally propose some guidelines for the conduct of phase 1 trials and management of COVID-19-infected patients in a pandemic time.

Quality Management Model for Phase I Clinical Drug Trials: A Structural Equation Model.

This study aimed to construct a quality management model for phase I clinical drug trials. A cross-sectional survey was conducted and data were collected from 604 respondents at 69 institutions in China engaged in phase I clinical drug trials. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were used to develop the survey tool. Structural equation modeling was used to construct a quality management model for phase I clinical drug trials. The results showed that the final survey tool had good reliability and validity (Cronbach's α=0.938, root mean square error of approximation=0.074, comparative fit index=0.962, and Tucker-Lewis index=0.955). The model included five dimensions: government regulation, industry management, medical institution management, research team management, and contract research organization (CRO) management. In total, 22 measurement items were obtained. The structural equation model indicated government regulation, industry management, medical institution management, and CRO management significantly affected the quality of phase I clinical drug trials (ß=0.195, ß=0.331, ß=0.279, and ß=-0.267, respectively; P<0.05). Research team management had no effect on the quality of trials (ß=0.041, P=0.610). In conclusion, the model is valuable for identifying factors influencing phase I clinical drug trials and guiding quality management practices.

First-in-human dose: current status review for better future perspectives.

AIM: The aim of this article is to understand the pros and cons of various methods involved in first-in-human (FIH) dose calculation and act decisively in dose escalations when calculating the maximum tolerated dose. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We reviewed early phase clinical trials for methods of FIH dose and dose-escalation steps and discuss them in line with existing guidelines. We also reviewed the clinical trial registry to recognize trends in trial registration in recent years and after a massive failure in a few trials. RESULTS: Phase 1 trials of TGN 1412 and BIA10-2474 would always be remembered as catastrophes for pharmaceutical development plans. Quite often than not, healthy human volunteers are the guinea pigs in this stage of drug development. And, the most important aspect of designing an early phase study is deciding upon the dose to be started with, apart from the selection of cohort and escalation steps. The common principles used for FIH dose calculation include no observed adverse effect level, minimum anticipated biological effect level, pharmacologically active dose, pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic approach, and similar drug comparison approach. CONCLUSION: Early phase clinical trials are basically foundation stones on which lies the entire onus of the later stages of development. Deciding FIH dose is a crucial step that necessitates the incorporation of detailed data from the preclinical stages and application of the most conservative approach for the safety/benefit of the volunteers in these studies.

Untenable dosing: A common pitfall of modern DLT-targeting Phase I designs in oncology.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing use of Phase I statistical designs to find a dose that causes rapidly emerging and particularly concerning severe or life-threatening toxicities (dose-limiting toxicities, DLTs) in a specified percent of patients most commonly 25%. While a convenient statistical framework, the foundation for selecting any specified target DLT rate, and its relevance to the recommended Phase II dose is generally lacking. METHOD: We surveyed 78 medical oncologists, most (69%) with experience as a principal investigator on a Phase I study, to ascertain their opinions related to this approach to Phase I studies and the targets often chosen. RESULTS: Eighty-seven percent of respondents preferred severe toxicities in only 5%-10% of patients, consistent with 58% of respondents noting that 10% or fewer patients experience severe toxicities in the first cycle with standard outpatient treatments. The survey also documented in an example that the majority (62%) of physicians modify their patient selection during the conduct of the study based on observed toxicity and 78% note that higher toxicity is acceptable in patients where a cure is more likely. CONCLUSION: DLT-target rate designs search for a single target that is rarely well-supported in a patient population that is not stable. The most common target used is inconsistent with the toxicity of most clinically used drugs and investigator preference and can lead to the pursuit of unacceptable doses. Use of Phase I trial designs with a target DLT rate should be limited to settings with a well-justified target and should specify how the target relates to the recommended Phase II dose.

Quality of phase I clinical drug trials: Influence of organizational management factors.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: Focusing on the tolerance and pharmacokinetics of new drugs, phase I clinical drug trials are characterized by high risk, poor compliance and management difficulties. High-quality clinical drug trials ensure subjects' safety while extending new drug research and development. Many studies have examined micro-level concerns of trial design and implementation rather than macro-level factors. Accordingly, we evaluated the quality of phase I clinical drug trials (trial quality) and analysed the influence of organizational management factors from a macro-level perspective. METHODS: We surveyed staff at clinical trial institutions engaged in phase I clinical drug trials in China using convenience sampling. We employed a five-point Likert-scale questionnaire, comprising five items on phase I clinical drug trial quality and items on organizational management factors. Data from 604 questionnaires were analysed. We utilized a logistic regression model to estimate the influence of organizational management factors on trial quality, using individual demographic factors as controlling variables. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The trial quality score was 3.81, which indicates that substantial improvement is required. Government regulation, industry management and medical institution management had a positive effect on trial quality: ß = 0.842, 0.691 and 0.579, respectively; P < .01. Contract research organization management had a negative effect on trial quality: ß = -0.476; P = .013. Research team management had no effect on trial quality: ß = 0.325; P = .141. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: This study is the first to model the influence of organizational management factors on the quality of phase I drug trials involving different organizations from a macro-perspective. Efforts are needed to help research teams take responsibility for trial quality and to correct the negative impact of contract research organizations on trial quality.

Pivotal Considerations for Optimal Deployment of Healthy Volunteers in Oncology Drug Development.

Oncology drug development is among the most challenging of any therapeutic area, with first-in-human trials expected to deliver information on both safety and activity. Until recently, therapeutic approaches in oncology focused on cytotoxic chemotherapy agents, ruling out even the possibility of enrolling normal healthy volunteers (NHVs) in clinical trials due to safety considerations. The emergence of noncytotoxic modalities, including molecularly targeted agents with more favorable safety profiles, however, has led to increasing numbers of clinical pharmacology studies of these agents being conducted in NHVs. Beyond rapid enrollment and cost savings, there are other advantages of conducting specific types of studies in NHVs with the goal of more appropriate dosing decisions in certain subsets of the intended patient populations, allowing for enrollment of such patients in therapeutic trials from which they might otherwise have been excluded. Nevertheless, the decision must be carefully weighed against potential disadvantages, and although the considerations surrounding conduct of clinical trials using NHVs are generally well-defined in most other therapeutic areas, they are less well-defined in oncology.

Picking and Choosing Among Phase I Trials : A Qualitative Examination of How Healthy Volunteers Understand Study Risks.

This article empirically examines how healthy volunteers evaluate and make sense of the risks of phase I clinical drug trials. This is an ethically important topic because healthy volunteers are exposed to risk but can gain no medical benefit from their trial participation. Based on in-depth qualitative interviews with 178 healthy volunteers enrolled in various clinical trials, we found that participants focus on myriad characteristics of clinical trials when assessing risk and making enrolment decisions. These factors include the short-term and long-term effects; required medical procedures; the type of trial, including its design, therapeutic area of investigation, and dosage of the drug; the amount of compensation; and trust in the research clinic. In making determinations about the study risks, participants rely on information provided during the consent process, their own and others' experiences in clinical trials, and comparisons among studies. Our findings indicate that the informed consent process succeeds in communicating well about certain types of risk information while simultaneously creating lacunae that are problematically filled by participants through their collective experiences and assumptions about risk. We discuss the ethical implications of these findings and make recommendations for improving the consent process in healthy volunteer trials.

Immune checkpoint inhibitor-based combinations: is dose escalation mandatory for phase I trials?

BACKGROUND: Numerous phase I trials testing immune checkpoint inhibitors (CPI)-based combinations are currently being conducted to improve response rates observed with single agents. However, methodology varies across studies, especially regarding the use of dose escalation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature search was conducted in Pubmed and major oncology meetings libraries for phase I trials reported between 2011 and 2018, containing at least one CPI [CLTA-4 blocking antibody or a PD(L)1 blocking antibody] plus at least one second agent (e.g. tyrosine kinase inhibitor, chemotherapy). Dose escalation schemes, target doses and recommended phase II doses (RP2D) were captured in our database for each study. Combination RP2D (combo-RP2D) was compared with target dose. RESULTS: We identified 113 different studies comprising a total of 120 individual cohorts. The backbone was an anti- cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4) in 40 cohorts and an anti-PD(L)1 in 80 cohorts. Dose escalation was used for the CPI in 29 (24%) cohorts [11% for anti-PD(L)1 and 50% for anti-CTLA-4] and for the second agent in 55 cohorts (46%). For 31 s agents (26%), the combo-RP2D was significantly lower than the expected target dose. Failure to reach the target dose was explained by the type of second agent form (e.g. small molecules versus monoclonal antibodies) (P < 0.001) and the choice of trial design for the second agent by investigators. CONCLUSION: Design of studies investigating new CPI-based combinations must consider the type of second agent. Dose escalation is required for combinations with small molecules but is unnecessary with vaccine/virus/dendritic therapies and monoclonal antibodies.

Cumulative Toxicity in Targeted Therapies: What to Expect at the Recommended Phase II Dose.

BACKGROUND: In the era of molecularly targeted agents (MTAs), it is recommended to account for toxicity over several cycles to identify the recommended phase II dose (RP2D). We investigated the relationship between the risk of toxicity at cycle 1 and the cumulative incidence of toxicity over subsequent cycles in trials of single MTAs. METHODS: On individual patient data from 26 phase I clinical trials of single MTAs provided by the National Cancer Institute, we estimated the probability of first-severe toxicity per treatment cycle as well as the cumulative incidence at, below, and above the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). Toxicity was further subclassified into nonhematologic and hematologic. A prediction table was developed to estimate the cumulative incidence up to six cycles based on the toxicity rate observed in the first cycle. RESULTS: Overall, 942 patients were included. For patients treated at the MTD, the probability of first-severe toxicity decreased from 24.8% (95% prediction interval [PI] = 20.3% to 32.9%) to 2.2% (95% PI = 0.1% to 7.7%) from cycle 1 to 6, whereas the cumulative incidence of toxicity reached 51.7% (95% PI = 40.5% to 66.3%) after six cycles. Toxicity rates ranging from 20.0% to 30.0% in the first cycle were associated with 46.8% (95% PI = 39.5% to 54.2%) and 65.8% (95% PI = 57.7% to 73.1%) cumulative incidence after six cycles. CONCLUSION: This study examined the risk of severe toxicity over time of single MTAs. The cumulative incidence of toxicity at the MTD was higher than the usually accepted toxicity targets, challenging the definition of the RP2D of MTAs. The prediction table may help calibrate the target rate at the RP2D.

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.

Expectations for Phase-Appropriate Drug Substance and Drug Product Specifications for Early-Stage Protein Therapeutics.

Early-phase specifications are established to ensure that materials used in clinical studies have appropriate product quality, reducing the risk of harm to patients. Currently, guidance is available for specification setting practices at commercial phase. With very limited data and manufacturing experience available, it is not possible to fully align to these expectations at the start of clinical trials. A survey was performed among 19 biopharmaceutical companies to gather information about the current practices for setting specifications in early-phase development. The results indicate that most companies develop platform approaches to support setting specifications at the first-in-human clinical trial stage of development. Based on shared learning across multiple companies, example specification approaches for monoclonal antibodies and antibody-drug conjugates are included. General principles of the example specifications can also be applied to other protein therapeutics and vaccines. Strategies for justification of acceptance criteria are described, along with discussion of considerations for some specific tests. Options for use of non-numerical acceptance criteria are also discussed. While specifications for each molecule must be set considering available molecule-specific information, the presented information leverages shared learning from multiple companies, to provide guidance for early phase specification setting strategies.

Practical risk management in early phase clinical trials.

PURPOSE: Stopping rules are an essential part of risk management in early phase clinical trials. As well as being necessary for ensuring the safety of participants on clinical trials, they are also a requirement under the revision to the European Medicine Agency's first-in-human and early clinical trial guideline. The increasing complexity and size of modern trial designs (e.g. integrated trials) raise potential issues with risk management, which, if also too complex, presents challenges for both regulators and investigators to implement. Therefore, there is a clear need for a standard, template, or algorithm-based approach to risk management, in particular rules concerning adverse reactions. The purpose of this manuscript is to present template stopping (or adverse reaction, AR) rules that fulfil regulatory requirements and that can be adapted, taking into account trial design, nature of the investigational medicinal product, and anticipated effects. METHODS: The template AR rules that use a systematic, objective and consistent process were developed, taking into account severity (using an objective grading system), seriousness, frequency and reversibility of ARs. These rules control decisions relating to individual trial participants, dosing regimens and dose escalation and/or progression to successive trial parts. For ease of use, the template rules consist of a single, one-page table. RESULTS: The template AR rules have been successfully applied to many early phase adaptive integrated trials that received regulatory authorisation and were performed in the UK. This manuscript presents the template rule table and case studies of some trial-specific adaptations. CONCLUSIONS: This work demonstrates how a systematic, objective and consistent approach to risk management of large integrated trials can be simple yet robust, facilitating effective decision making and trial progression whilst safeguarding participant safety.