Adaptive clinical trial designs for European marketing authorization: a survey of scientific advice letters from the European Medicines Agency

Abstract

BackgroundSince the first methodological publications on adaptive study design approaches in the 1990s, the application of these approaches in drug development has raised increasing interest among academia, industry and regulators. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) as well as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have published guidance documents addressing the potentials and limitations of adaptive designs in the regulatory context. Since there is limited experience in the implementation and interpretation of adaptive clinical trials, early interaction with regulators is recommended. The EMA offers such interactions through scientific advice and protocol assistance procedures.MethodsWe performed a text search of scientific advice letters issued between 1 January 2007 and 8 May 2012 that contained relevant key terms. Letters containing questions related to adaptive clinical trials in phases II or III were selected for further analysis. From the selected letters, important characteristics of the proposed design and its context in the drug development program, as well as the responses of the Committee for Human Medicinal Products (CHMP)/Scientific Advice Working Party (SAWP), were extracted and categorized. For 41 more recent procedures (1 January 2009 to 8 May 2012), additional details of the trial design and the CHMP/SAWP responses were assessed. In addition, case studies are presented as examples.ResultsOver a range of 5½ years, 59 scientific advices were identified that address adaptive study designs in phase II and phase III clinical trials. Almost all were proposed as confirmatory phase III or phase II/III studies. The most frequently proposed adaptation was sample size reassessment, followed by dropping of treatment arms and population enrichment. While 12 (20%) of the 59 proposals for an adaptive clinical trial were not accepted, the great majority of proposals were accepted (15, 25%) or conditionally accepted (32, 54%). In the more recent 41 procedures, the most frequent concerns raised by CHMP/SAWP were insufficient justifications of the adaptation strategy, type I error rate control and bias.ConclusionsFor the majority of proposed adaptive clinical trials, an overall positive opinion was given albeit with critical comments. Type I error rate control, bias and the justification of the design are common issues raised by the CHMP/SAWP.

Adaptív klinikai vizsgálati technikák a gyógyszerfejlesztésben

“…Érdemes tudni, hogy egyes, hosszú, nagy elemszámú állatkísérletek adatai -például onkogén rizikó tekintetében -gyakran csak a fázis 3-as vizsgálat indí-tása előtt állnak rendelkezésre. Az adaptív vizsgálati protokoll ezen jellegzetességei nem a már futó vizsgálat alatt meghozott ad hoc változtatások, hanem a vizsgálat elindítása előtt meghozott stratégiai döntések, az eredeti protokoll szerves részei [3,4,5,6 ].…”

Planning Clinical Trials: The Main Step in Developing New Drugs

“…that the overall effect of the two treatments is greater or lesser than that obtained simply by adding up the particular contribution of each treatment). In the absence of interaction between the treatments, this type of experimental scheme allows an evaluation (versus placebo) of the distinctive effects of two treatments using the same number of subjects as would be necessary for the comparison of just one treatment with a placebo [6].…”

Evolving landscapes in multiple sclerosis research: adaptive designs and novel endpoints

“…The utility of adaptive clinical trial methodology should be especially seen in the context of exploratory research and proof of concept trials, although there have been adaptive trials submitted as a component of marketing authorization [24]. In a drug development program, pure exploration is usually the theme in early phase studies, where the dose-exposure-response relationships are speculative, and the clinical phenotype of the intended patient population and the primary efficacy endpoint are under study.…”