A theoretical framework for early human studies: uncertainty, intervention ensembles, and boundaries

Clinical development of novel therapeutics begins with a coordinated sequence of early phase clinical trials. Such early human studies confront a series of methodological and ethical challenges. In what follows, I propose a theoretical framework for early human studies aimed at informing the negotiation of these challenges. At the outset of clinical development, researchers confront a virtually undifferentiated landscape of uncertainty with respect to three variables: outcomes, their probability of occurrence, and operation dimensions needed to effectuate favorable outcomes. Early human trials transform this uncertain landscape into one where there are grounds for belief about risk and benefit for various combined operation dimensions. To accomplish this, studies set out with two aims. First, they identify a set of operation dimensions that, when combined as a package (intervention ensemble), elicits a reasonable probability of a target outcome. Second, they define the boundaries of dimension values within an intervention ensemble. This latter aim entails exposing at least some volunteers in early studies to treatments that are inactive or excessive. I provide examples that illustrate the way early human studies discover and delimit intervention ensembles, and close by offering some implications of this framework for ethics, methodology, and efficiency in clinical development of new interventions.

[1]  A. Björklund,et al.  Neural grafting in Parkinson's disease unraveling the mechanisms underlying graft-induced dyskinesia. , 2010, Progress in brain research.

[2]  James A. Anderson,et al.  Extending Clinical Equipoise to Phase 1 Trials Involving Patients: Unresolved Problems , 2010, Kennedy Institute of Ethics journal.

[3]  Elkan F Halpern,et al.  Trends in the risks and benefits to patients with cancer participating in phase 1 clinical trials. , 2004, JAMA.

[4]  R. Bakay,et al.  Safety and tolerability of intraputaminal delivery of CERE-120 (adeno-associated virus serotype 2–neurturin) to patients with idiopathic Parkinson's disease: an open-label, phase I trial , 2008, The Lancet Neurology.

[5]  Mourad Tighiouart,et al.  Translation of innovative designs into phase I trials. , 2007, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[6]  W. Rosenberger,et al.  Commentary on ‘Designs for dose–escalation trials with quantitative responses’ , 2009, Statistics in medicine.

[7]  M. Miller Phase I cancer trials. A collusion of misunderstanding. , 2000, The Hastings Center report.

[8]  B. Ravina,et al.  Risk of surgical delivery to deep nuclei: A meta‐analysis , 2011, Movement disorders : official journal of the Movement Disorder Society.

[9]  L. Zoloth,et al.  The tragedy of translation: the case of "first use" in human embryonic stem cell research. , 2011, Cell stem cell.

[10]  Frédéric Bretzner,et al.  Target populations for first-in-human embryonic stem cell research in spinal cord injury. , 2011, Cell stem cell.

[11]  Lisa S. Smith,et al.  Telaprevir: An NS3/4A Protease Inhibitor for the Treatment of Chronic Hepatitis C , 2011, The Annals of pharmacotherapy.

[12]  P. Brundin,et al.  Important Aspects of Surgical Methodology for Transplantation in Parkinson's Disease , 2006 .

[13]  J. McHutchison,et al.  Antiviral effects and safety of telaprevir, peginterferon alfa-2a, and ribavirin for 28 days in hepatitis C patients. , 2008, Journal of hepatology.

[14]  B. Djulbegovic,et al.  Evidence-based medicine for rare diseases: implications for data interpretation and clinical trial design. , 2007, Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center.

[15]  D. Hilbert,et al.  The discovery and development of belimumab: the anti-BLyS–lupus connection , 2012, Nature Biotechnology.

[16]  G. Giaccone,et al.  Design and conduct of phase II studies of targeted anticancer therapy: recommendations from the task force on methodology for the development of innovative cancer therapies (MDICT). , 2008, European journal of cancer.

[17]  C. Holden Neuroscience. Fetal cells again? , 2009, Science.

[18]  S. Piantadosi Clinical Trials : A Methodologic Perspective , 2005 .

[19]  L. Schwartz,et al.  Cetuximab shows activity in colorectal cancer patients with tumors that do not express the epidermal growth factor receptor by immunohistochemistry. , 2005, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[20]  R. A. Bailey Author's Rejoinder to Commentaries on ‘Designs for dose‐escalation trials with quantitative responses’ , 2009 .

[21]  M. Krams,et al.  Phase I Trials: From Traditional to Newer Approaches Part II , 2011, Journal of psychiatric practice.

[22]  Mariano Ruiz Espejo Book Review: Clinical trials. A methodologic perspective, 2nd edition , 2006 .

[23]  M. Markman "Therapeutic intent" in phase 1 oncology trials: a justifiable objective. , 2006, Archives of internal medicine.

[24]  Patrik Brundin,et al.  Restorative Therapies in Parkinson's Disease , 2006 .

[25]  Benjamin Djulbegovic,et al.  Articulating and responding to uncertainties in clinical research. , 2007, The Journal of medicine and philosophy.

[26]  E K Rowinsky,et al.  Phase I and pharmacologic study of OSI-774, an epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, in patients with advanced solid malignancies. , 2001, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[27]  Matthew J. Miller Phase I Cancer Trials , 2000 .