When is a seamless study desirable? Case studies from different pharmaceutical sponsors

BACKGROUND Inferentially seamless studies are one of the best-known adaptive trial designs. Statistical inference for these studies is a well-studied problem. Regulatory guidance suggests that statistical issues associated with study conduct are not as well understood. Some of these issues are caused by the need for early pre-specification of the phase III design and the absence of sponsor access to unblinded data. Before statisticians decide to choose a seamless IIb/III design for their programme, they should consider whether these pitfalls will be an issue for their programme. METHODS We consider four case studies. Each design met with varying degrees of success. We explore the reasons for this variation to identify characteristics of drug development programmes that lend themselves well to inferentially seamless trials and other characteristics that warn of difficulties. RESULTS Seamless studies require increased upfront investment and planning to enable the phase III design to be specified at the outset of phase II. Pivotal, inferentially seamless studies are unlikely to allow meaningful sponsor access to unblinded data before study completion. This limits a sponsor's ability to reflect new information in the phase III portion. CONCLUSIONS When few clinical data have been gathered about a drug, phase II data will answer many unresolved questions. Committing to phase III plans and study designs before phase II begins introduces extra risk to drug development. However, seamless pivotal studies may be an attractive option when the clinical setting and development programme allow, for example, when revisiting dose selection.

[1]  J. Lötvall,et al.  Once-daily bronchodilators for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: indacaterol versus tiotropium. , 2010, American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine.

[2]  R. Salazar,et al.  Cediranib with mFOLFOX6 versus bevacizumab with mFOLFOX6 as first-line treatment for patients with advanced colorectal cancer: a double-blind, randomized phase III study (HORIZON III). , 2012, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[3]  Clare Brennan,et al.  Once-daily dolutegravir versus raltegravir in antiretroviral-naive adults with HIV-1 infection: 48 week results from the randomised, double-blind, non-inferiority SPRING-2 study , 2013, The Lancet.

[4]  G. Wassmer,et al.  Comments on the Draft Guidance on “Adaptive Design Clinical Trials for Drugs and Biologics” of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration , 2010, Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics.

[5]  S. Pocock,et al.  Integrating indacaterol dose selection in a clinical study in COPD using an adaptive seamless design. , 2009, Pulmonary pharmacology & therapeutics.

[6]  S. Barry,et al.  AZD2171: a highly potent, orally bioavailable, vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2 tyrosine kinase inhibitor for the treatment of cancer. , 2005, Cancer research.

[7]  Ying Cheng,et al.  Cediranib plus FOLFOX/CAPOX versus placebo plus FOLFOX/CAPOX in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer: a randomized, double-blind, phase III study (HORIZON II). , 2012, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[8]  Sue-Jane Wang,et al.  Perspective on adaptive designs: 4 years European Medicines Agency reflection paper, 1 year draft US FDA guidance - where are we now? , 2012 .

[9]  J. Bussel,et al.  Eltrombopag for the treatment of chronic idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura. , 2007, The New England journal of medicine.

[10]  S. Piscitelli,et al.  Antiviral activity, safety, and pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics of dolutegravir as 10-day monotherapy in HIV-1-infected adults , 2011, AIDS.

[11]  A. Chuchalin,et al.  A dose-ranging study of indacaterol in obstructive airways disease, with a tiotropium comparison. , 2008, Respiratory medicine.

[12]  Benjamin Young,et al.  Once daily dolutegravir (S/GSK1349572) in combination therapy in antiretroviral-naive adults with HIV: planned interim 48 week results from SPRING-1, a dose-ranging, randomised, phase 2b trial. , 2012, The Lancet. Infectious diseases.

[13]  Nigel Stallard,et al.  Sequential designs for phase III clinical trials incorporating treatment selection , 2003, Statistics in medicine.

[14]  Marc Vandemeulebroecke,et al.  Group Sequential and Adaptive Designs – A Review of Basic Concepts and Points of Discussion , 2008, Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift.

[15]  E. Van Cutsem,et al.  Cediranib with mFOLFOX6 vs bevacizumab with mFOLFOX6 in previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer , 2013, British Journal of Cancer.

[16]  C. Jennison,et al.  An adaptive seamless phase II/III design for oncology trials with subpopulation selection using correlated survival endpoints † , 2011, Pharmaceutical statistics.

[17]  J. Drevs,et al.  Phase I clinical study of AZD2171, an oral vascular endothelial growth factor signaling inhibitor, in patients with advanced solid tumors. , 2007, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[18]  A. Tonkin,et al.  Why do phase III trials of promising heart failure drugs often fail? The contribution of "regression to the truth". , 2003, Journal of cardiac failure.

[19]  M. Krams,et al.  Adaptive Designs in Clinical Drug Development—An Executive Summary of the PhRMA Working Group , 2006, Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics.

[20]  J. Drazen,et al.  Don't mess with the DSMB. , 2010, The New England journal of medicine.

[21]  G. Pond,et al.  Comparison of outcomes of phase II studies and subsequent randomized control studies using identical chemotherapeutic regimens. , 2005, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[22]  Paul Gallo,et al.  Operational challenges in adaptive design implementation , 2006, Pharmaceutical statistics.

[23]  T. Fleming,et al.  Adaptive Methods: Telling “The Rest of the Story” , 2010, Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics.

[24]  L. Fabbri,et al.  Indacaterol provides sustained 24 h bronchodilation on once‐daily dosing in asthma: a 7‐day dose‐ranging study , 2007, Allergy.

[25]  J. Bussel,et al.  Effect of eltrombopag on platelet counts and bleeding during treatment of chronic idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial , 2009, The Lancet.

[26]  J. Berlin,et al.  Bevacizumab plus irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin for metastatic colorectal cancer. , 2004, The New England journal of medicine.

[27]  Jeff Maca,et al.  Adaptive Seamless Phase II/III Designs—Background, Operational Aspects, and Examples , 2006 .

[28]  Frank Bretz,et al.  Perspectives on the Use of Adaptive Designs in Clinical Trials. Part II. Panel Discussion , 2010, Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics.