Master Protocols Research Articles

Advantages and Challenges of Platform Trials for Disease Modifying Therapies in Parkinson's Disease.

Traditional drug development in Parkinson's disease (PD) faces significant challenges because of its protracted timeline and high costs. In response, innovative master protocols are emerging and designed to address multiple research questions within a single overarching protocol. These trials may offer advantages such as increased efficiency, agility in adding new treatment arms, and potential cost savings. However, they also present organizational, methodological, funding, regulatory, and sponsorship challenges. We review the potential of master protocols, focusing on platform trials, for disease modifying therapies in PD. These trials share a common control group and allow for the termination or addition of treatment arms during a trial with non-predetermined end. Specific issues exist for a platform trial in the PD field considering the heterogeneity of patients in terms of phenotype, genotype and staging, the confounding effects of symptomatic treatments, and the choice of outcome measures with no consensus on a non-clinical biomarker to serve as a surrogate and the slowness of PD progression. We illustrate these aspects using the examples of the main PD platform trials currently in development with each one targeting distinct goals, populations, and outcomes. Overall, platform trials hold promise in expediting the evaluation of potential therapies for PD. However, it remains to be proven whether these theoretical benefits will translate into increased production of high-quality trial data. Success also depends on the willingness of pharmaceutical companies to engage in such trials and whether this approach will ultimately hasten the identification and licensing of effective disease-modifying drugs. © 2024 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.

A Master Protocol Template for Pediatric ARDS Studies.

Pediatric ARDS is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. High-quality data from clinical trials in children are limited due to numerous barriers to their design and execution. Here we describe the collaborative development of a master protocol as a tool to address some of these barriers and support the conduct of pediatric ARDS studies. Using PubMed, we performed a literature search of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in pediatric ARDS to characterize the current state and evaluate potential benefit of harmonized master protocols. We used a multi-stakeholder, collaborative, and team science-oriented process to develop a master protocol template with links to common data elements (CDEs) for pediatric ARDS trials. We identified 11 RCTs that enrolled between 14-200 total subjects per trial. Interventions included mechanical ventilation, prone positioning, corticosteroids, and surfactant. Studies displayed significant heterogeneity in ARDS definition, design, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and reported outcomes. Mortality was reported in 91% of trials and ventilator-free days in 73%. The trial heterogeneity made pooled analysis unfeasible. These findings underscore the need for a method to facilitate combined analysis of future trials through standardization of trial elements. As a potential solution, we developed a master protocol, iteratively revised with input from a multidisciplinary panel of experts and organized into 3 categories: instructions and general information, templated language, and a series of text options of common pediatric ARDS trial scenarios. Finally, we linked master protocol sections to relevant CDEs previously defined for pediatric ARDS and captured in a series of electronic case report forms. The majority of pediatric ARDS trials identified were small and heterogeneous in study design and outcome reporting. Using a master protocol template for pediatric ARDS trials with CDEs would support combining and comparing pediatric ARDS trial findings and increase the knowledge base.

The use of master protocols for efficient trial design to evaluate radiotherapy interventions: a systematic review.

The aim of this review was to highlight why the use of master protocols trial design is particularly useful for radiotherapy intervention trials where complex setup pathways (including quality assurance, user training, and integrating multiple modalities of treatment) may hinder clinical advances. We carried out a systematic review according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, reviewing the findings using a landscape analysis. Results were summarized descriptively, reporting on trial characteristics highlighting the benefits, limitations, and challenges of developing and implementing radiotherapy master protocols, with three case studies selected to explore these issues in more detail. Twelve studies were suitable for inclusion (4 platform trials, 3 umbrella trials, and 5 basket trials), evaluating a mix of solid tumor sites in both curative and palliative settings. The interventions were categorized into 1) novel agent and radiotherapy combinations; 2) radiotherapy dose personalization; and 3) device evaluation, with a case study provided for each intervention. Benefits of master protocol trials for radiotherapy intervention include protocol efficiency for implementation of novel radiotherapy techniques; accelerating the evaluation of novel agent drug and radiotherapy combinations; and more efficient translational research opportunities, leading to cost savings and research efficiency to improve patient outcomes. Master protocols offer an innovative platform under which multiple clinical questions can be addressed within a single trial. Due to the complexity of radiotherapy trial setup, cost and research efficiency savings may be more apparent than in systemic treatment trials. Use of this research approach may be the change needed to push forward oncological innovation within radiation oncology.

Regulatory Issues of Platform Trials: Learnings from EU-PEARL.

Although platform trials have many benefits, the complexity of these designs may result not only in increased methodological but also regulatory and ethical challenges. These aspects were addressed as part of the IMI project EU Patient-Centric Clinical Trial Platforms (EU-PEARL). We reviewed the available guidelines on platform trials in the European Union and the United States. This is supported and complemented by feedback received from regulatory interactions with the European Medicines Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration. Throughout the project we collected the needs of all relevant stakeholders including ethics committees, regulators, and health technology assessment bodies through active dialog and dedicated stakeholder workshops. Furthermore, we focused on methodological aspects and where applicable identified the corresponding guidance. Learnings from the guideline review, regulatory interactions, and workshops are provided. Based on these, a master protocol template was developed. Issues that still need harmonization or clarification in guidelines or where further methodological research is needed are also presented. These include questions around clinical trial submissions in Europe, the need for multiplicity control across the whole master protocol, the use of non-concurrent controls, and the impact of different randomization schemes. Master protocols are an efficient and patient-centered clinical trial design that can expedite drug development. However, they can also introduce additional operational and regulatory complexities. It is important to understand the different requirements of stakeholders upfront and address them in the trial. While relevant guidance is increasing, early dialog with relevant stakeholders can help to further support such designs.

Master protocols and other innovative trial designs in inflammation and immunology to expedite clinical drug development

Master protocol designs, such as umbrella and basket studies, allow multiple compounds or multiple target populations to be evaluated simultaneously within a single protocol, and have been widely adopted in oncology clinical trials. These novel designs can also be applied in other therapeutic areas, where they could have several benefits over conducting traditional randomized controlled trials. Here, we detail Pfizer’s recent implementations of master protocol designs in inflammation and immunology clinical studies, focusing on the opportunities for cost and resource savings and how these designs can expedite the time required to bring new treatments to patients in need.

Considerations for master protocols using external controls

ABSTRACT There has been an increasing use of master protocols in oncology clinical trials because of its efficiency to accelerate cancer drug development and flexibility to accommodate multiple substudies. Depending on the study objective and design, a master protocol trial can be a basket trial, an umbrella trial, a platform trial, or any other form of trials in which multiple investigational products and/or subpopulations are studied under a single protocol. Master protocols can use external data and evidence (e.g. external controls) for treatment effect estimation, which can further improve efficiency of master protocol trials. This paper provides an overview of different types of external controls and their unique features when used in master protocols. Some key considerations in master protocols with external controls are discussed including construction of estimands, assessment of fit-for-use real-world data, and considerations for different types of master protocols. Similarities and differences between regular randomized controlled trials and master protocols when using external controls are discussed. A targeted learning-based causal roadmap is presented which constitutes three key steps: (1) define a target statistical estimand that aligns with the causal estimand for the study objective, (2) use an efficient estimator to estimate the target statistical estimand and its uncertainty, and (3) evaluate the impact of causal assumptions on the study conclusion by performing sensitivity analyses. Two illustrative examples for master protocols using external controls are discussed for their merits and possible improvement in causal effect estimation.

The statistical design and analysis of pandemic platform trials: Implications for the future.

The Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV) Cross-Trial Statistics Group gathered lessons learned from statisticians responsible for the design and analysis of the 11 ACTIV therapeutic master protocols to inform contemporary trial design as well as preparation for a future pandemic. The ACTIV master protocols were designed to rapidly assess what treatments might save lives, keep people out of the hospital, and help them feel better faster. Study teams initially worked without knowledge of the natural history of disease and thus without key information for design decisions. Moreover, the science of platform trial design was in its infancy. Here, we discuss the statistical design choices made and the adaptations forced by the changing pandemic context. Lessons around critical aspects of trial design are summarized, and recommendations are made for the organization of master protocols in the future.

ACTIV trials: cross-trial lessons learned for master protocol implementation.

The United States Government (USG) public-private partnership "Accelerating COVID-19 Treatment Interventions and Vaccines" (ACTIV) was launched to identify safe, effective therapeutics to treat patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) and prevent hospitalization, progression of disease, and death. Eleven original master protocols were developed by ACTIV, and thirty-seven therapeutic agents entered evaluation for treatment benefit. Challenges encountered during trial implementation led to innovations enabling initiation and enrollment of over 26,000 participants in the trials. While only two ACTIV trials continue to enroll, the recommendations here reflect information from all the trials as of May 2023. We review clinical trial implementation challenges and corresponding lessons learned to inform future therapeutic clinical trials implemented in response to a public health emergency and the conduct of complex clinical trials during "peacetime," as well.

Overview of ACTIV trial-specific lessons learned.

Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV) was an extraordinary example of a public-private partnership (PPP) that brought together over thirty organizations and hundreds of individuals to address one of the most pressing global health needs in recent decades. In particular, ACTIV provided a key avenue for testing numerous therapeutics for their potential benefit in treating the SARS-CoV-2 virus or the resulting symptoms of acute COVID-19 infection. Given the speed and scale at which ACTIV designed and implemented master protocols across global networks that it was simultaneously working to create, the PPP can provide valuable lessons for best practices and avoiding pitfalls the next time the world is faced with a global pandemic of a novel pathogen. This report provides a general overview of the ACTIV partnership to set the stage and context for the subsequent articles in this issue that will relay these lessons learned.

ACTIV trials: Lessons learned in trial design in the setting of an emergent pandemic.

Accelerating COVID-19 Treatment Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV) was initiated by the US government to rapidly develop and test vaccines and therapeutics against COVID-19 in 2020. The ACTIV Therapeutics-Clinical Working Group selected ACTIV trial teams and clinical networks to expeditiously develop and launch master protocols based on therapeutic targets and patient populations. The suite of clinical trials was designed to collectively inform therapeutic care for COVID-19 outpatient, inpatient, and intensive care populations globally. In this report, we highlight challenges, strategies, and solutions around clinical protocol development and regulatory approval to document our experience and propose plans for future similar healthcare emergencies.

Latest trends in cancer clinical trials using genomics

Background: Recent advances in molecular biology and genomics have revolutionized the understanding of the intricate molecular underpinnings of cancer. Next-generation sequencing analysis now allows identification of specific actionable genetic alterations. This breakthrough has paved the way for precision medicine in oncology, redefining the conventional clinical trial landscape and enabling personalized approaches to cancer treatment.Current Concepts: The shift toward precision medicine involves a fundamental departure from the traditional Phases 1–4 clinical trial protocols. Instead of using uniform treatment pathways, personalized therapies are designed based on the genetic profiles of individual patients. Tumor-agnostic clinical trials are becoming as a prominent concept, encompassing innovative adaptive designs that adapt treatments to specific genetic variations. Master protocols such as umbrella studies, basket trials, platform studies, and master observational trials exemplify this transformation.Discussion and Conclusion: International precision medicine research is characterized by exemplar studies such as the NCI-MATCH study in the United States, the Drug Rediscovery Protocol study in the Netherlands, and the Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry study in the United States. Korean oncology research also contributed to the international effort in precision medicine through initiatives like K-MASTER and the Korean Precision Medicine Networking Group, which is making commendable contributions to the global precision medicine movements.

Covariate-Adaptive Biased Coin Randomization for Master Protocols with Multiple Interventions and Biomarker-Stratified Allocation

In a multi-arm trial with predefined subgroups for each intervention to target, it is often desirable to enrich assignment to an intervention by enrolling more biomarker-positive participants to the intervention. We describe how to implement a biased coin design to achieve desired allocation ratios among interventions and between the number of biomarker-positive and biomarker-negative participants assigned to each intervention. We illustrate the proposed method with the randomization algorithm implemented in the Precision Interventions for Severe and/or Exacerbation-prone Asthma (PrecISE) trial.

The Future Ain't What It Used to Be…Out With the Old…In With the Better: Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group Innovations.

Clinical research networks conduct important studies that would not otherwise be performed by other entities. In the case of the Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group (ARLG), such studies include diagnostic studies using master protocols, controlled phage intervention trials, and studies that evaluate treatment strategies or dynamic interventions, such as sequences of empiric and definitive therapies. However, the value of a clinical research network lies not only in the results from these important studies but in the creation of new approaches derived from collaborative thinking, carefully examining and defining the most important research questions for clinical practice, recognizing and addressing common but suboptimal approaches, and anticipating that the standard approaches of today may be insufficient for tomorrow. This results in the development and implementation of new methodologies and tools for the design, conduct, analyses, and reporting of research studies. These new methodologies directly impact the studies conducted within the network and have a broad and long-lasting impact on the field, enhancing the scientific value and efficiency of generations of research studies. This article describes innovations from the ARLG in diagnostic studies, observational studies, and clinical trials evaluating interventions for the prevention and treatment of antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections.

Representativeness of Patients Enrolled in the Lung Cancer Master Protocol (Lung-MAP).

Lung Cancer Master Protocol (Lung-MAP), a public-private partnership, established infrastructure for conducting a biomarker-driven master protocol in molecularly targeted therapies. We compared characteristics of patients enrolled in Lung-MAP with those of patients in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) trials to examine if master protocols improve trial access. We examined patients enrolled in Lung-MAP (2014-2020) according to sociodemographic characteristics. Proportions for characteristics were compared with those for a set of advanced NSCLC trials (2001-2020) and the US advanced NSCLC population using SEER registry data (2014-2018). Characteristics of patients enrolled in Lung-MAP treatment substudies were examined in subgroup analysis. Two-sided tests of proportions at an alpha of .01 were used for all comparisons. A total of 3,556 patients enrolled in Lung-MAP were compared with 2,215 patients enrolled in other NSCLC studies. Patients enrolled in Lung-MAP were more likely to be 65 years and older (57.2% v 46.3%; P < .0001), from rural areas (17.3% v 14.4%; P = .004), and from socioeconomically deprived neighborhoods (42.2% v 36.7%, P < .0001), but less likely to be female (38.6% v 47.2%; P < .0001), Asian (2.8% v 5.1%; P < .0001), or Hispanic (2.4% v 3.8%; P = .003). Among patients younger than 65 years, Lung-MAP enrolled more patients using Medicaid/no insurance (27.6% v 17.8%; P < .0001). Compared with the US advanced NSCLC population, Lung-MAP under represented patients 65 years and older (57.2% v 69.8%; P < .0001), females (38.6% v 46.0%; P < .0001), and racial or ethnic minorities (14.8% v 21.5%; P < .0001). Master protocols may improve access to trials using novel therapeutics for older patients and socioeconomically vulnerable patients compared with conventional trials, but specific patient exclusion criteria influenced demographic composition. Further research examining participation barriers for under represented racial or ethnic minorities in precision medicine clinical trials is warranted.

Aiding the Adoption of Master Protocols by Optimizing Patient Engagement.

Master protocols (MPs) are an important addition to the clinical trial repertoire. As defined by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), this term means "a protocol designed with multiple sub-studies, which may have different objectives (goals) and involve coordinated efforts to evaluate one or more investigational drugs in one or more disease subtypes within the overall trial structure." This means we now have a unique, scientifically based MP that describes how a clinical trial will be conducted using one or more potential candidate therapies to treat patients in one or more diseases. Patient engagement (PE) is also a critical factor that has been recognized by FDA through its Patient-Focused Drug Development (PFDD) initiative, and by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), which states on its website that it has been actively interacting with patients since the creation of the Agency in 1995. We propose that utilizing these PE principles in MPs can make them more successful for sponsors, providers, and patients. Potential benefits of MPs for patients awaiting treatment can include treatments that better fit a patient's needs; availability of more treatments; and faster access to treatments. These make it possible to develop innovative therapies (especially for rare diseases and/or unique subpopulations, e.g., pediatrics), to minimize untoward side effects through careful dose escalation practices and, by sharing a control arm, to lower the probability of being assigned to a placebo arm for clinical trial participants. This paper is authored by select members of the American Statistical Association (ASA)/DahShu Master Protocol Working Group (MPWG) People and Patient Engagement (PE) Subteam. DahShu is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, founded to promote research and education in data science. This manuscript does not include direct feedback from US or non-US regulators, though multiple regulatory-related references are cited to confirm our observation that improving patient engagement is supported by regulators. This manuscript represents the authors' independent perspective on the Master Protocol; it does not represent the official policy or viewpoint of FDA or any other regulatory organization or the views of the authors' employers. The objective of this manuscript is to provide drug developers, contract research organizations (CROs), third party capital investors, patient advocacy groups (PAGs), and biopharmaceutical executives with a better understanding of how including the patient voice throughout MP development and conduct creates more efficient clinical trials. The PE Subteam also plans to publish a Plain Language Summary (PLS) of this publication for clinical trial participants, patients, caregivers, and the public as they seek to understand the risks and benefits of MP clinical trial participation.

The New NCI Precision Medicine Trials.

Basket, umbrella, and platform trial designs (master protocols) have emerged over the last decade to study precision medicine approaches in oncology. First-generation trials like NCI-MATCH (Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice) have proven the principle that studying targeted therapies on a large scale is feasible both from the laboratory and clinical perspectives. However, single-agent targeted therapies have shown limited ability to control metastatic disease, despite careful matching of drug to target. As such, newer approaches employing combinations of targeted therapy, or targeted therapy with standard therapies, need to be considered. The NCI has recently embarked on three second-generation precision medicine trials to address this need: ComboMATCH, iMATCH, and myeloMATCH. The design of these trials and necessary infrastructure are discussed in the following perspective.

Combined treatment of muscle tension dysphonia: voice therapy with instrumental postural rehabilitation.

This investigation aimed to propose a new rehabilitation technique that combines voice exercises and instrumental postural rehabilitation for patients with muscle tension dysphonia (MTD). We enrolled nine dysphonic patients (8 women and 1 man, aged 22-55 years). Voice assessment included strobovideolaryngoscopy, Maximum Phonation Time (MPT), perceptual evaluation by GRBAS scale and patient's self-rating by Italian version of the Voice Handicap Index (VHI). Vestibular function was evaluated by the Bed Side Examination and Video Head Impulse test (VHIT). Postural control was evaluated by Dynamic Posturography (DP) using the Sensory Organization Test (SOT) and analysing the Equilibrium Score (ES) and balance subsystems (somatosensorial, visual, vestibular). All cases underwent different types of voice exercises combined with balance training based on NeuroCom Balance Master Protocols, once a week for six 35-minutes sessions. After therapy, an improvement in MPT, VHI, GRBAS scores and endoscopic laryngeal features was obtained. DP results at baseline were normal and after therapy we showed a slight improvement of ES (somatosensorial and visual components). A combined rehabilitation technique for MTD, by improving the attention to postural control, allows for significant improvement in vocal symptoms.

Types and progress of clinical trial design for breast cancer: a narrative review.

In recent years, the field of breast cancer diagnosis and therapy has witnessed rapid technological advances. Concurrently, the emergence of molecular biology and novel detection methodologies has facilitated the transition of breast cancer management into the precision medicine era. The primary objective of this review is to discuss the transformation in the research and development paradigm for breast cancer therapies and strategies. We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases for relevant studies published over the past 20 years using keywords including "breast cancer", "clinical trial", "seamless", "master protocol", "umbrella", "basket", "platform", and "precision medicine". Articles were screened for eligibility and key data extracted. The search was limited to English-language publications. The review identifies three core innovations in breast cancer trial methodology: (I) in terms of research speed, the traditional three-stage drug development models are being substituted by "seamless designs" as exemplified by the immunotherapy combination study NCT0328056. (II) Addressing research breadth, "master protocols" such as basket trials (IMMU-132-01), umbrella trials (FUTURE), and platform trials (I-SPY 2) have been introduced, allowing the simultaneous assessment of multiple treatments or disease subtypes within a singular framework. (III) Pertaining to research precision, newer designs utilize biomarkers such as "enrichment" (seen in EMBRACA and OlympiA trials) and "marker stratification" (as in the SOLAR-1 trial), enabling the identification of appropriate patient subgroups and the provision of tailored therapy strategies, a stark contrast to traditional histopathology-based evaluations. Clinical trial design in breast cancer research has been revolutionized, moving towards more efficient and targeted strategies. Despite the presence of ethical, logistical, and data complexities, it is anticipated that ongoing technological and regulatory enhancements will pave the way for even more refined research approaches, subsequently influencing future research, clinical practices, and policymaking in breast cancer care.

Standardizing the strategy in glioblastoma trials to promote success in cell and gene therapy clinical development.

e13604 Background: Glioblastoma is the most common and aggressive brain tumor, with a high recurrence rate and low survival. We are increasing our understanding of its biology, and more targeted therapeutical agents are available. However, the GBM prognosis has not improved over the last decades. Multiple clinical trials on Cell and Gene Therapies are ongoing but, there is a huge need to define standardized and innovative strategies to promote better patient selection, implement adaptative designs and specific laboratory assays, and tailor the clinical endpoint assessments. Methods: Medical experts panel agreed on the following insights and gave advice to improve the design and conduct of GBM trials. Results: The criteria for selecting patients are not uniform among studies. The 2021 WHO Classification of central nervous system tumors has yet to be universally adopted, and different tumor entities are being treated as GBM according to the prior 2016 classification. Furthermore, the required genetic testing panel is only available in some countries as part of routine testing. A wide range of CGT therapies are being studied with different mechanisms of action and are well suited to be administered as combinatory regimens and multiple-dosing schedules to boost the antitumor effect. The implementation of master protocols offers the possibility to test different schedules to identify the most promising for further investigation during early phase development. There is a lack of biomarkers for the patient- or cancer-specific sensitivity and the efficacy of CGT. This is important not only to target clinical treatments to the appropriate patients and identify responding/non-responding patients early during treatment but also to improve the preclinical models and identify targets for further therapeutic development. Investigators should use standard endpoint criteria when reporting clinical outcomes. It has been common to refrain from introducing any preliminary-effect objective in the early stages. This tendency changes after guidance from experts and regulatory agencies about maximizing early-phase data. Another vital endpoint in the early phases is assessing patient immunogenicity against CG therapy based on humoral and cell virus-specific and tumor-specific immune responses. This is especially important as there are significant concerns in translating preclinical safety results to the clinic due to the species-specificity of different viruses and critical differences between immune systems. Conclusions: Today, the purpose of treatment for GBM is to extend the survival period and to manage the disease while preserving the patient’s quality of life. The goal of CGT is a durable complete response, but to achieve this target, we will need a deep analysis of how we perform clinical trials and move to an expert and tailored research environment.

Unlocking multidimensional cancer therapeutics using geometric data science

Personalised approaches to cancer therapeutics primarily involve identification of patient sub-populations most likely to benefit from targeted drugs. Such a stratification has led to plethora of designs of clinical trials that are often too complex due to the need for incorporating biomarkers and tissue types. Many statistical methods have been developed to address these issues; however, by the time such methodology is available research in cancer has moved on to new challenges and therefore in order to avoid playing catch-up it is necessary to develop new analytic tools alongside. One of the challenges facing cancer therapy is to effectively and appropriately target multiple therapies for sensitive patient population based on a panel of biomarkers across multiple cancer types, and matched future trial designs. We present novel geometric methods (mathematical theory of hypersurfaces) to visualise complex cancer therapeutics data as multidimensional, as well as geometric representation of oncology trial design space in higher dimensions. The hypersurfaces are used to describe master protocols, with application to a specific example of a basket trial design for melanoma, and thus setup a framework for further incorporating multi-omics data as multidimensional therapeutics.