Predictive Probability Of Success Research Articles

Futility Interim Analysis Based on Probability of Success Using a Surrogate Endpoint.

In clinical trials with time-to-event data, the evaluation of treatment efficacy can be a long and complex process, especially when considering long-term primary endpoints. Using surrogate endpoints to correlate the primary endpoint has become a common practice to accelerate decision-making. Moreover, the ethical need to minimize sample size and the practical need to optimize available resources have encouraged the scientific community to develop methodologies that leverage historical data. Relying on the general theory of group sequential design and using a Bayesian framework, the methodology described in this paper exploits a documented historical relationship between a clinical "final" endpoint and a surrogate endpoint to build an informative prior for the primary endpoint, using surrogate data from an early interim analysis of the clinical trial. The predictive probability of success of the trial is then used to define a futility-stopping rule. The methodology demonstrates substantial enhancements in trial operating characteristics when there is a good agreement between current and historical data. Furthermore, incorporating a robust approach that combines the surrogate prior with a vague component mitigates the impact of the minor prior-data conflicts while maintaining acceptable performance even in the presence of significant prior-data conflicts. The proposed methodology was applied to design a Phase III clinical trial in metastatic colorectal cancer, with overall survival as the primary endpoint and progression-free survival as the surrogate endpoint.

Abstract PD11-01: PD11-01 Evaluation of the PD-1 Inhibitor Cemiplimab in early-stage, high-risk HER2-negative breast cancer: Results from the neoadjuvant I-SPY 2 TRIAL

Abstract Background: I-SPY2 is a multicenter, phase 2 trial using response-adaptive randomization within biomarker subtypes defined by hormone-receptor (HR), HER2, and MammaPrint (MP) status to evaluate novel agents as neoadjuvant therapy for high-risk breast cancer. The primary endpoint is pathologic complete response (pCR). Cemiplimab (Cemi) is a PD-1 inhibitor approved for the treatment of NSCLC, cutaneous basal, and squamous cell cancer. Here, we report current efficacy rates of Cemi in combination with paclitaxel followed by AC. Methods: Women with tumors ≥ 2.5cm were eligible for screening. Only HER2 negative (HER2-) patients were eligible for this treatment; HR positive (HR+) patients had to be MP high risk. Treatment included paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 IV weekly x 12 and Cemi 350 mg IV given q3weeks x 4, followed by doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (AC) every 2 weeks x 4. The control arm was weekly paclitaxel x 12 followed by AC every 2-3 weeks x 4. All patients undergo serial MRI imaging; and imaging response (at 3 weeks, 12 weeks and prior to surgery) were used along with accumulating pCR data to continuously update and estimate pCR rates for trial arms. Analysis was modified intent to treat. Patients who switched to non-protocol therapy count as non-pCR. The goal is to identify (graduate) regimens with ≥85% Bayesian predictive probability of success (i.e. demonstrating superiority to control) in a future 300-patient phase 3 neoadjuvant trial with a pCR endpoint within responsive signatures. Cemi was eligible to graduate in 3 pre-defined signatures: HER2-, HR-HER2-, and HR+HER2-. To adapt to changing standard of care, we constructed “dynamic controls” comprising ‘best’ alternative therapies using I-SPY 2 and external data and estimated the probability of Cemi being superior to the dynamic control. Results: 60 HER2- patients (28 HR+ and 32 HR-) received Cemi arm treatment. The control group included 357 patients with HER2- tumors (201 HR+ and 156 HR-) enrolled since March 2010. Cemi graduated in HR-/HER2- signature. Estimated pCR rates (as of June 2022) are summarized in the table. Immune-related endocrine disorders include: hypothyroid (14.5%), adrenal insufficiency (10%), hyperthyroid (4.8%),) and thyroiditis (3.2%). Only one grade 3 adrenal insufficiency was observed. All immune related AE’s were manageable. Additional biomarker analyses are ongoing and will be presented at the meeting. Response predictive subtypes (Immune+ vs Immune-) and additional predictive biomarkers were assessed. Associations with pCR will be presented at SABCS. Conclusion: The I-SPY 2 study aims to assess the probability that investigational regimens will be successful in a phase 3 neoadjuvant trial. Anti-PD-1 therapy with Cemi resulted in a higher predicted pCR rate in HR-/HER2- 55 rate% disease compared to control at 29%. Immune-mediated AE’s were observed. This data is consistent with previously published data using check point inhibitors in early-stage HR-/HER2- breast cancer. Estimated pCR rates Citation Format: Erica Stringer-Reasor, Rebecca A. Shatsky, Jo Chien, Anne Wallace, Judy C. Boughey, Kathy S. Albain, Hyo S. Han, Rita Nanda, Claudine Isaacs, Kevin Kalinsky, Zahi Mitri, Amy S. Clark, Christos Vaklavas, Alexandra Thomas, Meghna S. Trivedi, Janice Lu, Smita Asare, Ruixiao Lu, Maria Pitsouni, Amy Wilson, Jane Perlmutter, Hope Rugo, Richard Schwab, W. Fraser Symmans, Nola M. Hylton, Laura Van ’t Veer, Douglas Yee, Angela DeMichele, Donald Berry, Laura J. Esserman, I-SPY Investigators. PD11-01 Evaluation of the PD-1 Inhibitor Cemiplimab in early-stage, high-risk HER2-negative breast cancer: Results from the neoadjuvant I-SPY 2 TRIAL [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr PD11-01.

Some uses of predictive probability of success in clinical drug development

Predictive probability of success is a (subjective) Bayesian evaluation of the prob- ability of a future successful event in a given state of information. In the context of pharmaceutical clinical drug development, successful events relate to the accrual of positive evidence on the therapy which is being developed, like demonstration of su- perior efficacy or ascertainment of safety. Positive evidence will usually be obtained via standard frequentist tools, according to the regulations imposed in the world of pharmaceutical development.Within a single trial, predictive probability of success can be identified with expected power, i.e. the evaluation of the success probability of the trial. Success means, for example, obtaining a significant result of a standard superiority test.Across trials, predictive probability of success can be the probability of a successful completion of an entire part of clinical development, for example a successful phase III development in the presence of phase II data.Calculations of predictive probability of success in the presence of normal data with known variance will be illustrated, both for within-trial and across-trial predictions.

Abstract PD8-07: Evaluation of Tucatinib + (Paclitaxel + Pertuzumab + Trastuzumab) followed by AC in high-risk HER2 positive (HER2+) stage II/III breast cancer: Results from the I-SPY 2 TRIAL

Abstract Background: I-SPY 2 is a multicenter, phase 2 trial using response-adaptive randomization within molecular subtypes defined by receptor status and MammaPrint (MP) risk to evaluate novel agents as neoadjuvant therapy for women with high-risk breast cancer. Tucatinib is a potent HER2 (ErbB2) tyrosine kinase inhibitor, selective for HER2 vs. epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and is active vs. brain metastases. Safety and efficacy of tucatinib combined with paclitaxel, pertuzumab, and trastuzumab are unknown and were tested in a planned 10 patient (pt) safety run-in of the I-SPY 2 trial. Methods: Women with tumors ≥ 2.5cm were eligible for screening. Only pts with tumors that were HER2+ by FISH were eligible for this treatment. Treatment included tucatinib (max dose 300 mg) BID for 12 weeks with weekly paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 and trastuzumab (2 mg/kg weekly following loading), and pertuzumab (420 mg every 3 weeks following loading), followed by doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (AC) every 2 weeks x 4. The control arm was weekly paclitaxel and trastuzumab with pertuzumab for 12 weeks followed by AC every 2 weeks x 4. All pts undergo serial MR imaging and response at 3 & 12 weeks is combined with real time pCR data to estimate, and continuously update, the predicted pCR rate for each trial arm. The goal of the trial is to identify/graduate regimens with ≥85.% Bayesian predictive probability of success (i.e. demonstrating superiority to control) in a future 300-patient phase 3 neoadjuvant trial with a pCR endpoint. This run-in arm was conducted to determine safety of combining tucatinib with paclitaxel/trastuzumab/pertuzumab, monitoring special adverse events of interest including LFT elevations and gastrointestinal toxicities.Methods: The I-SPY 2 methods have been previously published. Results: 20 pts were evaluable in tucatinib treatment arm. The control arm included 329 historical controls enrolled since April 2010. The initial tucatinib dose was 300 mg BID. After enrollment of the first 8 pts, there were 3 pts with grade 3 LFT elevations, 2 pts with grade 2/3 diarrhea, 1 pt with grade 2 neutropenia, and 1 pt with grade 3 nausea. After this safety review, the tucatinib dose was lowered to 250 mg BID. Among 5 additional pts enrolled, 3 developed grade 2/3 LFT abnormalities. The protocol was then modified to tucatinib 150 mg BID days 1-28 and then 250 mg BID days 29-84; 7 pts were treated. Safety data were reviewed after 20 pts were enrolled; the arm was then suspended due to similar LFT elevations regardless of tucatinib dose reduction or schedule. 7 of 20 pts (35%) had reversible Grade 3 or higher ALT/AST elevation (Table). No pt met criteria for Hy’s Law. In terms of efficacy, 12 of 14 evaluable pts had > 80% reduction of tumor volume by 12 weeks, measured by MRI assessment of functional tumor volume (FTV). Conclusion: The goal of the run-in arm was to determine the safety of adding tucatinib to the combination of paclitaxel/trastuzumab/pertuzumab. The addition of tucatinib resulted in unacceptable but reversible LFT elevations despite tucatinib dose reduction. Tucatinib containing therapy resulted in >80% decline in tumor volume at 12 weeks in 86% of pts. Tucatinib showed a high level of activity when combined with paclitaxel/trastuzumab/pertuzumab, but the combination is not feasible. Table: Number of pts with grade 2, 3, and 4 LFT elevations by treatment schedule (highest grade per patient per event, ALT or Treatment scheduleGrade 2 LFT elevationGrade 3 LFT elevationGrade 4 LFT elevationTucatinib 300 mg BID030Tucatinib 250 mg BID210Tucatinib 150 mg BID days 1-28 followed by 250 mg BID days 29 to 84112 Citation Format: David A Potter, Erin Roesch, Christina Yau, Ruixiao Lu, Denise Wolf, Susan Samson, Debra Stafford, Kathy S Albain, Claudine Isaacs, Meghana Trivedi, Douglas Yee, Judy Boughey, Alexandra Thomas, A. Jo Chien, Nola Hylton, Wen Li, Angela DeMichele, Jane Perlmutter, W. Fraser Symmans, Dawn L Hershman, Michelle Melisko, Laura J van 't Veer, Amy Wilson, Smita M Asare, Donald A Berry, Richard Schwab, Hope S Rugo, Laura J Esserman. Evaluation of Tucatinib + (Paclitaxel + Pertuzumab + Trastuzumab) followed by AC in high-risk HER2 positive (HER2+) stage II/III breast cancer: Results from the I-SPY 2 TRIAL [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2021 Dec 7-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD8-07.

Hypothermia for Patients Requiring Evacuation of Subdural Hematoma: A Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial

BackgroundHypothermia is neuroprotective in some ischemia–reperfusion injuries. Ischemia–reperfusion injury may occur with traumatic subdural hematoma (SDH). This study aimed to determine whether early induction and maintenance of hypothermia in patients with acute SDH would lead to decreased ischemia–reperfusion injury and improve global neurologic outcome.MethodsThis international, multicenter randomized controlled trial enrolled adult patients with SDH requiring evacuation of hematoma within 6 h of injury. The intervention was controlled temperature management of hypothermia to 35 °C prior to dura opening followed by 33 °C for 48 h compared with normothermia (37 °C). Investigators randomly assigned patients at a 1:1 ratio between hypothermia and normothermia. Blinded evaluators assessed outcome using a 6-month Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended score. Investigators measured circulating glial fibrillary acidic protein and ubiquitin C-terminal hydrolase L1 levels.ResultsIndependent statisticians performed an interim analysis of 31 patients to assess the predictive probability of success and the Data and Safety Monitoring Board recommended the early termination of the study because of futility. Thirty-two patients, 16 per arm, were analyzed. Favorable 6-month Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended outcomes were not statistically significantly different between hypothermia vs. normothermia groups (6 of 16, 38% vs. 4 of 16, 25%; odds ratio 1.8 [95% confidence interval 0.39 to ∞], p = .35). Plasma levels of glial fibrillary acidic protein (p = .036), but not ubiquitin C-terminal hydrolase L1 (p = .26), were lower in the patients with favorable outcome compared with those with unfavorable outcome, but differences were not identified by temperature group. Adverse events were similar between groups.ConclusionsThis trial of hypothermia after acute SDH evacuation was terminated because of a low predictive probability of meeting the study objectives. There was no statistically significant difference in functional outcome identified between temperature groups.

Repeated Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Improving Cognition in Alzheimer Disease: Protocol for an Interim Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BackgroundMany clinical trials investigating treatment efficacy require an interim analysis. Recently we have been running a large, multisite, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial investigating the effect of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) treatment for improving or stabilizing the cognition of patients diagnosed with Alzheimer disease.ObjectiveThe objectives of this paper are to report on recruitment, adherence, and adverse events (AEs) to date, and to describe in detail the protocol for interim analysis of the clinical trial data. The protocol will investigate whether the trial is likely to reach its objectives if continued to the planned maximum sample size.MethodsThe specific requirements of the analytic protocol are to (1) ensure the double-blind nature of the data while doing the analysis, (2) estimate the predictive probabilities of success (PPoSs), (3) estimate the numbers needed to treat, (4) re-estimate the initial required sample size. The initial estimate of sample size was 208. The interim analysis will be based on 150 patients who will be enrolled in the study and finish at least 8 weeks of the study. Our protocol for interim analysis, at the very first stage, is to determine the response rate for each participant to the treatment (either sham or active), while ensuring the double-blind nature of the data. The blinded data will be analyzed by a statistician to investigate the treatment efficacy. We will use Bayesian PPoS to predict the success rate and determine whether the study should continue.ResultsThe enrollment has been slowed significantly due to the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown. Nevertheless, so far 133 participants have been enrolled, while 22 of these have been withdrawn or dropped out for various reasons. In general, rTMS has been found tolerable with no serious AE. Only 2 patients dropped out of the study due to their intolerability to rTMS pulses.ConclusionsOverall, the study with the same protocol is going as expected with no serious AE or any major protocol deviation.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02908815; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02908815International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)DERR1-10.2196/31183

Abstract PD1-10: Evaluation of SGN-LIV1a followed by AC in high-risk HER2 negative stage II/III breast cancer: Results from the I-SPY 2 TRIAL

Abstract Background: I-SPY 2 is a multicenter, phase 2 trial using response-adaptive randomization within molecular subtypes defined by receptor status and MammaPrint (MP) risk to evaluate novel agents as neoadjuvant therapy for women with high-risk stage II/III breast cancer. The primary endpoint is pathologic complete response (pCR, ypT0/Tis ypN0). SGN-LIV1A is an investigational antibody drug conjugate consisting of an antibody to LIV1A, a zinc transporter highly prevalent in breast cancer, and a highly potent microtubule inhibitor, monomethyl auristatin E. Retrospective IHC analysis of LIV1A expression levels amongst tumor samples from 100 previous ISPY-2 patients showed 88% of breast tumor samples with moderate to high expression of LIV1A (Yau, C. et al SABCS 2018).Methods: Women with tumors ≥ 2.5cm were eligible for screening. Only HER2 negative (HER2-) patients were eligible for this treatment, hormone-receptor positive (HR+) patients had to have MP high molecular profile. Treatment included SGN-LIV1A 2.5 mg/kg (max dose 250 mg) every 3 weeks x 4, followed by doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (AC) every 2-3 weeks x 4. The control arm was weekly paclitaxel x 12 followed by AC every 2-3 weeks x 4. All patients undergo serial MR imaging where response at 3 & 12 weeks combined with accumulating pCR data are used to estimate, and continuously update, predicted pCR rate for the trial arm. Analysis set was modified intention to treat with patients who switched to non-protocol therapy counted as non-pCR and not as their pCR status at time of surgery. The goal is to identify/graduate regimens with ≥85% Bayesian predictive probability of success (i.e. demonstrating superiority to control) in a future 300-patient phase 3 neoadjuvant trial with a pCR endpoint within signatures defined by HR & HER2 status & MP result. This investigational arm was eligible for graduation in 3 of 10 pre-defined signatures: HER2-, HR+HER2- and HR-HER2-. Regimens may also leave the trial for futility (< 10% probability of success), maximum sample size accrual (10% < probability of success <85%), maximum time in trial (2 years) or for safety as recommended by the independent DSMB. Results: Sixty patients were randomized and evaluable to SGN-LIV1A. The study arm was stopped due to reaching the predetermined time limit for patient accrual of 2 yrs. Final estimated pCR rates are below. The estimated pCR rates were similar between the SGN-LIV1A and control arms for any tumor subtype. Preliminary safety events for SGN-LIV1A include increased rates of transaminitis and hyperglycemia and reduced rates of peripheral neuropathy compared to control. One patient was removed from the analysis as she was determined to have angiosarcoma of the breast. Notably, this patient had a dramatic early response and subsequent pCR to SGN-LIV1A treatment. Conclusion: The value of I-SPY 2 is to give insight about the performance of an investigational agent’s likelihood of achieving pCR. SGN-LIV1A delivered every 3 weeks was comparable to paclitaxel for the primary endpoint of pCR in I-SPY2 and may have a similar side effect profile, however, with less peripheral neuropathy. Clinical trials evaluating weekly dosing of SGN-LIV1A are ongoing. A trial of SGN-LIV1A in the treatment of angiosarcoma is under consideration at this time. Final Estimated pCR Rates and Predictive ProbabilitiesEstimated pCR rate(95% prob interval)SignatureSGN-LIV1AControlProbability SGNLIV1A Superior to ControlPredictive Probability of Success in Phase 3HER2-0.16 (0.08-0.24) N= 600.20 (0.16-0.25) N= 3270.180.02HR-/HER2-0.25 (0.12-0.37) N=360.28 (0.21-0.35) N=1460.310.06HR+/HER2-0.09 (0-0.18) N=240.14 (0.09-0.19) N=1810.150.03 Citation Format: Heather Beckwith, Richard Schwab, Christina Yau, Erica Stringer-Reasor, Shi Wei, A. Jo Chien, Kathy S Albain, Kevin Kalinsky, Anne Wallace, Anthony Elias, Douglas Yee, Amy S Clark, Judy C Boughey, Heather Han, Rita Nanda, Claudine Isaacs, Zahi Mitri, Julie E Lang, Alexandra Thomas, Tara Sanft, Angela DeMichele, Jane Perlmutter, Hope S Rugo, Nola M Hylton, W. Fraser Symmans, Michelle E Melisko, Laura J van't Veer, I-SPY 2 Consortium, Amy Wilson, Smita M Asare, Ashish Sanil, Donald A Berry, Laura J Esserman. Evaluation of SGN-LIV1a followed by AC in high-risk HER2 negative stage II/III breast cancer: Results from the I-SPY 2 TRIAL [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD1-10.

Breaking the Bayesian Ice with Preclinical Discovery Biologists by Predicting Inadequate Animal Enrolment

An initial proposal was made to start 30 monkeys in the run-in period of a preclinical translational research study, to have 24 or more animals qualify for randomization in the subsequent treatment period. Based upon data from previous studies, Bayesian posterior prediction indicated that successful enrolment was highly unlikely. At least 67 animals were required to achieve an acceptable posterior predictive probability of success. Importantly, we leveraged these feasibility analyses to introduce our preclinical scientist collaborators to a Bayesian strategy for probability-based decision making. We provided them with a generous helping of graphics to effectively and efficiently illustrate Bayesian concepts and methods. We present our 4P strategy for collaboration with preclinical scientists: patience, persistence, positioning, and privilege. We discuss the alignment of the Bayesian and 4P strategies with goals common to pharmaceutical researchers: scientific innovation; stochastic intelligence and statistical literacy of team members; team collaboration and collegial partnerships; ethical acuity; and fiscal stewardship. Our article is as much about successfully reaching out to preclinical scientists, and introducing them to the Bayesian strategy, as it is about that strategy successfully addressing the animal enrolment question. This article is written at a statistical level accessible to both preclinical scientists and statisticians.

Abstract CT011: Evaluation of durvalumab in combination with olaparib and paclitaxel in high-risk HER2 negative stage II/III breast cancer: Results from the I-SPY 2 TRIAL

Abstract Background: I-SPY2 is a multicenter, phase 2 trial using response-adaptive randomization within molecular subtypes defined by receptor status and MammaPrint risk to evaluate novel agents as neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer. The primary endpoint is pathologic complete response (pCR, ypT0/is ypN0)). DNA repair deficiency in cancer cells can lead to immunogenic neoantigens, activation of the STING pathway, and PARP inhibition can also upregulate PD-L1 expression. Based on these rationales we tested the combination of durvalumab (anti-PDL1), olaparib (PARP inhibitor) and paclitaxel in I-SPY2. Methods: Women with tumors ≥ 2.5 cm were eligible for screening. Only HER2 negative (HER2-) patients were eligible for this treatment, hormone receptor positive (HR+) patients had to have MammaPrint high molecular profile. Treatment included durvalumab 1500 mg every 4 weeks x 3, olaparib 100 mg twice daily through weeks 1-11 concurrent with paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 weekly x 12 (DOP) followed by doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (AC) x 4. The control arm was weekly paclitaxel x 12 followed by AC x 4. All patients undergo serial MRI imaging and imaging response at 3 & 12 weeks combined with accumulating pCR data are used to estimate, and continuously update, predicted pCR rate for the trial arm. Regimens “graduation with success” when the Bayesian predictive probability of success in a 300-patient phase 3 neoadjuvant trial in the appropriate biomarker groups reaches > 85%. Results: A total of 73 patients received DOP treatment including 21 HR- tumors (i.e. triple-negative breast cancer, TNBC) and 52 HR+ tumors between May 2018 - June 2019. The control group included 299 patients with HER2- tumors. The DOP arm graduated in June 2019, 13 months after enrollment had started, for all HER2- negative and the HR+/HER2- cohorts with > 0.85% predictive probabilities of success. 72 patient completed surgery and evaluable for pCR, the final predicted probabilities of success in a future phase III trial to demonstrate higher pCR rate with DOP compared to control are 81% for all HER2- cancers (estimated pCR rate 37%), 80% for TNBC (estimated pCR rate 47%) and 74.5% for HR+/HER2- patients (estimated pCR rate 28%). Association between pCR and germline BRCA status and immune gene expression including PDL1 will be presented at the meeting. No unexpected toxicities were seen, but 10 patients (14%) had possibly immune or olaparib related grade 2/3 AEs (3 pneumonitis, 2 adrenal insufficiency, 1 colitis, 1 pancreatitis, 2 elevated LFT, 1 skin toxicity, 2 hypothyroidism, 1 hyperthyroidism, 1 esophagitis). Conclusion: I-SPY2 demonstrated a significant improvement in pCR with durvalumab and olaparib included with paclitaxel compared to chemotherapy alone in women with stage II/III high-risk, HER2-negative breast cancer, improvement was seen in both the HR+ and TNBC subsets. Citation Format: Lajos Pusztai, Hyo S. Han, Christina Yau, Denise Wolf, Anne M. Wallace, Rebecca Shatsky, Teresa Helsten, Judy C. Boughey, Tufia Haddad, Erica Stringer-Reasor, Carla Falkson, A. Jo Chien, Rita Mukhtar, Anthony Elias, Borges Virginia, Rita Nanda, Douglas Yee, Kevin Kalinsky, Kathy S. Albain, Aixa Soyano Muller, Kathleen Kemmer, Amy S. Clark, Claudine Isaacs, Alexandra Thomas, Nola Hylton, W. Fraser Symmans, Jane Perlmutter, Michelle Melisko, Hope S. Rugo, Richard Schwab, Amy Wilson, Amy Wilson, Ruby Singhrao, Smita Asare, Laura J. van't Veer, Angela M. DeMichele, Ashish Sanil, Donald A. Berry, Laura J. Esserman, Trial Consortium I-SPY 2. Evaluation of durvalumab in combination with olaparib and paclitaxel in high-risk HER2 negative stage II/III breast cancer: Results from the I-SPY 2 TRIAL [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research 2020; 2020 Apr 27-28 and Jun 22-24. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(16 Suppl):Abstract nr CT011.

Abstract P3-11-02: Evaluation of patritumab/paclitaxel/trastuzumab over standard paclitaxel/trastuzumab in early stage, high-risk HER2 positive breast cancer: Results from the neoadjuvant I-SPY 2 trial

Abstract Background: I-SPY2 is a multicenter, phase 2 trial using response-adaptive randomization within biomarker subtypes to evaluate novel agents as neoadjuvant therapy for high-risk breast cancer. The primary endpoint is pathologic complete response (pCR) at surgery. The goal is to identify (graduate) regimens with ≥ 85% Bayesian predictive probability of success (i.e., demonstrating superiority to control) in a future 300-patient phase 3 1:1 randomized neoadjuvant trial with pCR endpoint within signatures defined by hormone-receptor (HR), HER2, and MammaPrint (MP) status. Regimens may leave the trial for futility (< 10% probability of success), maximum sample size accrual (with probability of success ≥ 10% and < 85%), or safety concerns as recommended by the independent DSMB. For HER2+ patients, the I-SPY2 control arm was 12 weekly cycles of paclitaxel+trastuzumab (TH, control) followed by doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (AC) q2-3 weeks x4 and surgery. Patritumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that inhibits HER3. In this experimental arm for HER2+ patients, patritumab was given q3w x 4 cycles (18mg/kg loading dose followed by 9mg/kg/dose) concurrent with paclitaxel and trastuzumab q1w x 12 weeks (PTH, treatment), followed by AC q2-3w. Methods: Women with tumors ≥ 2.5cm were eligible for screening. MP low/HR+ tumors were ineligible. MRI scans (baseline, 3 weeks after start of therapy, prior to AC, and prior to surgery) were used in a longitudinal statistical model to predict pCR for individual patients. Analysis was intention to treat. Patients who switched to non-protocol therapy count as non-pCR. Patients on treatment arm therapy at the time of arm closure are non-evaluable. Graduation potential was in 3 of 10 pre-defined signatures: all HER2+, HR-/HER2+, and HR+/HER2+. Results: The PTH regimen was stopped at the recommendation of the Safety Working Group and DSMB based on a safety event (bilateral sensorineural hearing loss, Gr 3) observed in one patient. At the time of arm closure, N=31 patients had received PTH treatment; 4 patients receiving PTH were changed to non-protocol therapy and removed from the analysis. The final estimated pCR report will consider 27 PTH and 31 TH as evaluable patients. Accrual was insufficient to assess graduation, however, there appears to be good signal in the HER2+HR- but not HER2+HR+ signatures. I-SPY 2 TRIAL Est. pCR at time of arm closureSignaturesPTH (Treatment)N= 31TH (Control)N = 31All (HER2+)0.40 (0.22 - 0.59), n=310.23 (0.09 - 0.37), n=31HR-/HER2+0.64 (0.36 - 0.91), n=110.30 (0.12 - 0.47), n=12HR+/HER2+0.28 (0.08 - 0.48), n=200.20 (0.06 - 0.34), n=19 HR+/HER2+0.28 (0.08 - 0.48), n=200.20 (0.06 - 0.34), n=19The patient who developed Gr3 sensorineural hearing loss 6 days after the 2nd patritumab (and 4th paclitaxel/trastuzumab) treatment, did not recover her hearing after patritumab was stopped, and also reported Gr3 vulvovaginal pain, vulvitis, and vaginal inflammation. Other gynecological symptoms in the PTH arm include: 1 pt with Gr1 vaginal hemorrhage, and 1 pt with Gr2 dyspareunia. There was a higher frequency of Gr3 hypokalaemia (12.5% vs. 3.2%). One pt in the PTH arm reported Gr3 small intestinal obstruction which resolved with conservative management. Conclusion: The I-SPY 2 study aims to assess the probability that investigational regimens will be successful in a phase 3 neoadjuvant trial; PTH was stopped due to safety concerns, although there was activity in the HER2+ HR- signature. This is the first report of Gr3 hearing loss associated with patritumab/paclitaxel/trastuzumab, and thus attribution is uncertain. Citation Format: Teresa L Helsten, Shelly S Lo, Christina Yau, Kevin Kalinsky, Anthony D Elias, Anne M Wallace, A. Jo Chien, Janice Lu, Julie E Lang, Kathy S Albain, Erica Stringer-Reasor, Amy S Clark, Judy C Boughey, Erin D Ellis, Douglas Yee, Angela DeMichele, Claudine Isaacs, Jane Perlmutter, Hope S Rugo, Richard Schwab, Nola M. Hylton, W. Fraser Symmans, Michelle E Melisko, Laura J van't Veer, Amy Wilson, Ruby Singhrao, Smita M Asare, Ashish Sanil, Donald A Berry, Laura J Esserman. Evaluation of patritumab/paclitaxel/trastuzumab over standard paclitaxel/trastuzumab in early stage, high-risk HER2 positive breast cancer: Results from the neoadjuvant I-SPY 2 trial [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P3-11-02.

Abstract P3-09-02: Evaluation of a novel agent plus standard neoadjuvant therapy in early stage, high-risk HER2 negative breast cancer: Results from the I-SPY 2 TRIAL

Abstract Background: I-SPY2 is a multicenter, response-adaptive randomization phase 2 trial to evaluate novel agents when added to standard neoadjuvant therapy for women with high-risk stage II/III breast cancer - weekly paclitaxel + investigational treatment x 12 wks followed by doxorubicin & cyclophosphamide(AC) q3 wks x 4 vs. weekly paclitaxel/AC (control). The primary endpoint is pathologic complete response (pCR). The goal for all investigational arms is to identify/graduate regimens with ≥85% Bayesian predictive probability of success (i.e. demonstrating superiority to control) in a future 300-patient phase 3 1:1 randomized neoadjuvant trial with a pCR endpoint within signatures defined by hormone-receptor (HR) & HER2 status & MammaPrint (MP). Findings from the graduated, previously reported Pembro4 arm (Nanda et al, ASCO 2017) supported investigation of de-escalating therapy, and determining if pembrolizumab (an anti-PD-1 antibody) alone q3 wks x 4 after weekly paclitaxel x 12 wks + pembrolizumab q3 wks x 4 was sufficient to sustain response without AC. Methods: Women with tumors ≥2.5cm were eligible for screening. MP low/HR+ were ineligible. MRI scans (at baseline, 3 wks, 12 wks, and prior to surgery) were used in a longitudinal statistical model to predict pCR for individual patients (pts). Pts who receive non-protocol therapy (e.g., carboplatin or AC for the Pembro8-noAC arm) count as non-pCR. Pembro8-noAC was open to HER2- pts for evaluation in 3 of 10 pre-defined signatures: HER2-, HR+/HER2-, and HR-/HER2-. Regimens exit the trial for futility (<10% probability of success), maximum sample size accrual (10% <probability of success <85%), or safety as recommended by the independent DSMB. Results: Pembro8-noAC was randomized to 73 pts, 3 of whom progressed while receiving pembrolizumab alone on study. Randomization to this arm continued after the first report because the rate of progression during AC over the course of the trial was estimated to be 6.5% based on serial MRI studies. However, notification of the third case prompted the study team to ask the DSMB for the summary response for this arm. Although it did not meet formal stopping rules for either graduation or futility, Pembro8-noAC was not near the target threshold pCR rates of 60% for HR-/HER2- and 30% for HR+/HER2+. As a result of this information, combined with the on-treatment progressions, assignment to Pembro8-noAC was discontinued. Treatment with pembrolizumab alone was no longer allowed due to the potential concern for progression, and investigators were given the option to administer AC with pembrolizumab or proceed with definitive surgery following the 12 weeks of paclitaxel + pembrolizumab. 34 pts had surgery results at the time the study was closed. Of the remaining 39 pts, 34 pts have on-therapy MRI assessments. Estimated pCR rates were based on all pts with information at the time (see table). Immune-related adverse events included grade 3 colitis (n=2), grade 3 pneumonitis (n=1), grade 3 transaminitis (n=1), grade 3 hypothyroidism (n=1), and grade 1-2 adrenal insufficiency (n=5). Conclusion: Although Pembro8-noAC is performing at least as well as standard paclitaxel/AC, the likelihood is very low that the regimen would be successful in a phase 3 trial. Pembrolizumab alone following 12 weeks of paclitaxel + pembrolizumab was not sufficient to sustain a response. This was quickly assessed with a small number of patients. Estimated pCR rateSignature(95% prob interval)Pembro8-noACControlHER2-0.210.2(0.09-0.32)(0.15-0.25)HR-/HER2-0.270.27(0.09-0.45)(0.19-0.35)HR+/HER2-0.150.15(0.01-0.29)(0.09-0.20) Citation Format: Minetta C. Liu, Patricia A Robinson, Christina Yau, Anne M Wallace, A. Jo Chien, Erica Stringer-Reasor, Rita Nanda, Douglas Yee, Kathy S Albain, Judy C Boughey, Heather S Han, Anthony D Elias, Kevin Kalinsky, Amy S Clark, Kathleen Kemmer, Claudine Isaacs, Julie E Lang, Janice Lu, Tara Sanft, Angela DeMichele, Nola M Hylton, Michelle E Melisko, Jane Perlmutter, Hope S Rugo, Richard Schwab, W. Fraser Symmans, Laura J van't Veer, Patricia K Haugen, Amy Wilson, Ruby Singhrao, Smita Asare, Ashish Sanil, Donald A Berry, Laura J Esserman. Evaluation of a novel agent plus standard neoadjuvant therapy in early stage, high-risk HER2 negative breast cancer: Results from the I-SPY 2 TRIAL [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P3-09-02.

Effect of Pembrolizumab Plus Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy on Pathologic Complete Response in Women With Early-Stage Breast Cancer

Approximately 25% of patients with early-stage breast cancer who receive (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy experience a recurrence within 5 years. Improvements in therapy are greatly needed. To determine if pembrolizumab plus neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) in early-stage breast cancer is likely to be successful in a 300-patient, confirmatory randomized phase 3 neoadjuvant clinical trial. The I-SPY2 study is an ongoing open-label, multicenter, adaptively randomized phase 2 platform trial for high-risk, stage II/III breast cancer, evaluating multiple investigational arms in parallel. Standard NACT serves as the common control arm; investigational agent(s) are added to this backbone. Patients with ERBB2 (formerly HER2)-negative breast cancer were eligible for randomization to pembrolizumab between November 2015 and November 2016. Participants were randomized to receive taxane- and anthracycline-based NACT with or without pembrolizumab, followed by definitive surgery. The primary end point was pathologic complete response (pCR). Secondary end points were residual cancer burden (RCB) and 3-year event-free and distant recurrence-free survival. Investigational arms graduated when demonstrating an 85% predictive probability of success in a hypothetical confirmatory phase 3 trial. Of the 250 women included in the final analysis, 181 were randomized to the standard NACT control group (median [range] age, 47 [24.77] years). Sixty-nine women (median [range] age, 50 [27-71] years) were randomized to 4 cycles of pembrolizumab in combination with weekly paclitaxel followed by AC; 40 hormone receptor (HR)-positive and 29 triple-negative. Pembrolizumab graduated in all 3 biomarker signatures studied. Final estimated pCR rates, evaluated in March 2017, were 44% vs 17%, 30% vs 13%, and 60% vs 22% for pembrolizumab vs control in the ERBB2-negative, HR-positive/ERBB2-negative, and triple-negative cohorts, respectively. Pembrolizumab shifted the RCB distribution to a lower disease burden for each cohort evaluated. Adverse events included immune-related endocrinopathies, notably thyroid abnormalities (13.0%) and adrenal insufficiency (8.7%). Achieving a pCR appeared predictive of long-term outcome, where patients with pCR following pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy had high event-free survival rates (93% at 3 years with 2.8 years' median follow-up). When added to standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy, pembrolizumab more than doubled the estimated pCR rates for both HR-positive/ERBB2-negative and triple-negative breast cancer, indicating that checkpoint blockade in women with early-stage, high-risk, ERBB2-negative breast cancer is highly likely to succeed in a phase 3 trial. Pembrolizumab was the first of 10 agents to graduate in the HR-positive/ERBB2-negative signature. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01042379.

Criteria for dose-finding in two-stage seamless adaptive design

ABSTRACTIn pharmaceutical/clinical development, two-stage seamless adaptive designs are commonly considered. Such designs include a two-stage phase I/II or phase II/III adaptive trial that combines one phase IIb study for dose-finding or treatment selection and one phase III study for efficacy confirmation into a single study. At the end of stage 1, promising dose(s) will be selected based on pre-specified selection criteria. In practice, since there is little power with limited subjects available at interim, commonly considered selection criteria for critical decision-making include (i) conditional power, (ii) precision analysis, (iii) predictive probability of success, and (iv) probability of being the best dose or treatment. The selected promising dose(s) will then proceed to the next stage for efficacy confirmation. In this article, we introduce, compare, and evaluate these criteria. Simulation studies and a numeric example are given to illustrate those criteria. Besides, we attempt to address some concerns for the two-stage seamless adaptive clinical trial.

An optimal Bayesian predictive probability design for phase II clinical trials with simple and complicated endpoints.

Most existing phase II clinical trial designs focus on conventional chemotherapy with binary tumor response as the endpoint. The advent of novel therapies, such as molecularly targeted agents and immunotherapy, has made the endpoint of phase II trials more complicated, often involving ordinal, nested, and coprimary endpoints. We propose a simple and flexible Bayesian optimal phase II predictive probability (OPP) design that handles binary and complex endpoints in a unified way. The Dirichlet-multinomial model is employed to accommodate different types of endpoints. At each interim, given the observed interim data, we calculate the Bayesian predictive probability of success, should the trial continue to the maximum planned sample size, and use it to make the go/no-go decision. The OPP design controls the type I error rate, maximizes power or minimizes the expected sample size, and is easy to implement, because the go/no-go decision boundaries can be enumerated and included in the protocol before the onset of the trial. Simulation studies show that the OPP design has satisfactory operatingcharacteristics.

Abstract CT166: A Phase I/II, open-label, two part study of GSK3359609 in combination with tremelimumab in participants with selected, advanced solid tumors

Abstract Background: GSK3359609 (GSK609) is an inducible T cell co-stimulator (ICOS) agonist antibody and tremelimumab (treme) is a cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-antigen 4 (CTLA-4) antagonist antibody. Nonclinical and clinical studies have shown that ICOS expression on T cells is upregulated after anti-CTLA-4 treatment (tx). ICOS+ T cells have a positive association with overall survival (OS) in treme treated chemotherapy-resistant malignant mesothelioma and melanoma patients (pts). Therefore, the combination of these 2 drugs may provide greater antitumoral response than either drug alone (Coutzac C: AACR 2019 meeting abstract). Methods: This is a Phase I/II, open-label, 2-part study. In Part 1, N=~24 pts will be enrolled. The study is designed to assess treme starting at 75 mg followed by GSK609 starting at 8 mg. At dose level (DL) 1, one pt who will receive the lowest doses of both drugs will be enrolled. If no dose limiting toxicity (DLT) is observed in the DLT observation period of 28 days, then 1-3 pts will be enrolled in DL2 - DL6 in a zone-based fashion (zones include the DLs with the next highest dose of one of the two drugs - 2DL are included in each zone in this study) with different dose combinations of the drugs being evaluated. The dose of 1 of the 2 drugs will be escalated with each new DL up to the highest dose of each. If ≥ grade 2 tx-related AEs occur at DL1 or 2, additional pts will be enrolled to collect more safety information. If DLTs are observed, the bivariate Continual Reassessment Method (CRM) model will be used to guide dose recommendations. The primary objective of Part 1 will be to assess safety. Additional pts may be enrolled in Part 1 to further evaluate pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics (PK/PD). Part 2 is a randomized expansion enrolling recurrent/metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma pts who have disease progression after platinum chemotherapy and anti-programmed death receptor protein-1 (PD-1)/anti-programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) therapy, in combination or separately. Pts may not have had ≥4 lines of prior tx in either Part 1 or 2. In Part 2, pts will be randomized 2:1 to the doses of GSK609 and treme (n=60) selected from Part 1 or to the Investigator’s choice of SOC single-agent therapy (paclitaxel, docetaxel or cetuximab) (n=30). The primary objective in Part 2 is to evaluate overall survival and the primary analysis is to perform Bayesian predictive probability of success for a future hypothetical Phase III study based on survival data. Secondary endpoints include safety, ORR, PFS, DOR, and PK while pharmacodynamic and other biomarker analyses constitute exploratory endpoints. Pts will be treated for up to 2 years with survival follow-up for up to 2 years post-tx. This study has enrolled 1 pt. Study NCT03693612 funded by GSK. Citation Format: Aaron Hansen, Raghad Abdul-Karim, Naiyer Rizvi, Danny Rischen, John Hilton, Zujun Li, Patrick Ott, Natalie Karpinich-Fedoriw, Sapna Yadavilli, Xiaowei Wang, Laurel Adams, Melody Wyres, Charles Ferte, Marc Ballas, Axel Hoos, Daniel Zandberg. A Phase I/II, open-label, two part study of GSK3359609 in combination with tremelimumab in participants with selected, advanced solid tumors [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2019; 2019 Mar 29-Apr 3; Atlanta, GA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(13 Suppl):Abstract nr CT166.

Abstract CT136: Evaluation of talazoparib in combination with irinotecan in early stage, high-risk HER2 negative breast cancer: Results from the I-SPY 2 TRIAL

Abstract Background: I-SPY2 is a multicenter, Phase II trial using response-adaptive randomization within biomarker subtypes to evaluate novel agents as neoadjuvant therapy for high-risk at least T2N0 breast cancer. The primary endpoint is pathologic complete response (pCR) at surgery. The goal is to identify regimens that have ≥ 85% Bayesian predictive probability of success in a 300-patient phase 3 neoadjuvant trial defined by hormone-receptor (HR) and HER2 status, and MammaPrint (MP). Regimens may leave the trial for futility (< 10% probability of success), maximum sample size accrual (with probability of success ≥ 10% and < 85%), or as recommended by the independent DSMB. For HER2- subjects the control arm is weekly paclitaxel x12 then doxorubicin & cyclophosphamide (AC) q2-3 weeks x4. For this arm, paclitaxel was omitted and replaced with maximum tolerated dose PARPi talazoparib with synergy dosed irinotecan (25mg/m2). Paclitaxel could be given adjuvantly for these subjects and non-responding subjects could be taken off of experimental therapy. Methods: Women with tumors ≥ 2.5cm were eligible for screening. MP low/HR+ tumors were ineligible. MRI scans (baseline, 3 cycles after start of therapy, prior to AC, and prior to surgery) were used in a longitudinal statistical model to predict pCR for individual patients. Talazoparib was given at 1mg daily with 25mg/m2 irinotecan q2wks. Analysis was intention to treat. Subjects who switched to non-protocol therapy count as non-pCR. Subjects on experimental therapy at time of arm closure are non-evaluable. Talazoparib/irinotecan (TI) was open only to HER2- tumors and eligible for graduation in 3 of 10 pre-defined signatures: HER2-, HR+HER2- and HR-/HER2-. Results: TI did not meet criteria for graduation and was stopped at the recommendation of the DSMB based on expectations of limited activity beyond that seen with standard treatment. Maximum sample size had been reached at the time of this recommendation and subjects currently receiving TI were allowed to continue or change to standard therapy. Exploratory “as treated” analysis for response in gBRCA mutation carriers showed 6/10 gBRCA carriers attained a pCR in the TI arm. Except for 1 patient these gBRCA pCR subjects had >90% tumor reduction by MRI after TI and prior to AC (range: 68-96%). In the TI arm pCR rates were also higher in subjects with a PARPi7-High/MP2 gene expression signature (0.344 vs 0.146). Expected differences in toxicity were seen between arms including g3/4 peripheral neuropathy on control therapy which included paclitaxel (2.6% vs none) and g3/4 neutropenia with TI (30.2% vs 8.2%). Notably gBRCA mutation carriers receiving TI had higher rates of g3/4 neutropenia (60% vs 25.9%). Conclusion: The I-SPY2 study finds the probability that investigational regimens will be successful in a Phase III neoadjuvant trial; TI did not reach the efficacy threshold of 85% probability of success in Phase III in any of the 3 signatures. However by adding talazoparib with synergy dosed irinotecan we were able to omit paclitaxel and observe similar estimated pCR rates. This informs current work to evolve the I-SPY2 trial design to reduce toxicity without compromising outcomes and develop successful combinations targeted to biology, including DNA repair deficiency. Citation Format: Richard Schwab, Amy S. Clark, Christina Yau, Nola Hylton, Wen Li, Denise Wolfe, A Jo Chien, Anne M. Wallace, Andres Forero-Torres, Erica Stringer-Reasor, Rita Nanda, Nora Jaskowiak, Judy Boughey, Tufia Haddad, Heather S. Han, Catherine Lee, Kathy Albain, Claudine Isaacs, Anthony D. Elias, Erin D. Ellis, Payal Shah, Julie E. Lang, Janice Lu, Debasish Tripathy, Kathleen Kemmer, Douglas Yee, Barbara Haley, Melanie Majure, Erin Roesch, Christos Vaklavas, Cheryl Ewing, Teresa Helsten, W Fraser Symmans, Jane Perlmutter, Hope S. Rugo, Michelle Melisko, Amy Wilson, Ruby Singhrao, Laura van 't Veer, Angela DeMichele, Smita Asare, Don Berry, Laura J. Esserman. Evaluation of talazoparib in combination with irinotecan in early stage, high-risk HER2 negative breast cancer: Results from the I-SPY 2 TRIAL [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2019; 2019 Mar 29-Apr 3; Atlanta, GA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(13 Suppl):Abstract nr CT136.

Simulation optimization for Bayesian multi-arm multi-stage clinical trial with binary endpoints

ABSTRACT Multi-arm multi-stage designs, in which multiple active treatments are compared to a control and accumulated information from interim data are used to add or remove arms from the trial, may reduce development costs and shorten the drug development timeline. As such, this adaptive update is a natural complement to Bayesian methodology in which the prior clinical belief is sequentially updated using the observed probability of success. Simulation is often required for planning clinical trials to accommodate the complexity of the design and to optimize key design characteristics. This paper addresses two key limiting factors in simulations, namely the computational burden and the time needed to obtain results. We first introduce a generic process for simulating Bayesian multi-arm multi-stage designs with binary endpoints. Then, to address the computational burden and time, we optimize the method for calculating the posterior probability and posterior predictive probability of success.

Effect of Levocarnitine vs Placebo as an Adjunctive Treatment for Septic Shock

Sepsis induces profound metabolic derangements, while exogenous levocarnitine mitigates metabolic dysfunction by enhancing glucose and lactate oxidation and increasing fatty acid shuttling. Previous trials in sepsis suggest beneficial effects of levocarnitine on patient-centered outcomes. To test the hypothesis that levocarnitine reduces cumulative organ failure in patients with septic shock at 48 hours and, if present, to estimate the probability that the most efficacious dose will decrease 28-day mortality in a pivotal phase 3 clinical trial. Multicenter adaptive, randomized, blinded, dose-finding, phase 2 clinical trial (Rapid Administration of Carnitine in Sepsis [RACE]). The setting was 16 urban US medical centers. Participants were patients aged 18 years or older admitted from March 5, 2013, to February 5, 2018, with septic shock and moderate organ dysfunction. Within 24 hours of identification, patients were assigned to 1 of the following 4 treatments: low (6 g), medium (12 g), or high (18 g) doses of levocarnitine or an equivalent volume of saline placebo administered as a 12-hour infusion. The primary outcome required, first, a greater than 90% posterior probability that the most promising levocarnitine dose decreases the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score at 48 hours and, second (given having met the first condition), at least a 30% predictive probability of success in reducing 28-day mortality in a subsequent traditional superiority trial to test efficacy. Of the 250 enrolled participants (mean [SD] age, 61.7 [14.8] years; 56.8% male), 35, 34, and 106 patients were adaptively randomized to the low, medium, and high levocarnitine doses, respectively, while 75 patients were randomized to placebo. In the intent-to-treat analysis, the fitted mean (SD) changes in the SOFA score for the low, medium, and high levocarnitine groups were -1.27 (0.49), -1.66 (0.38), and -1.97 (0.32), respectively, vs -1.63 (0.35) in the placebo group. The posterior probability that the 18-g dose is superior to placebo was 0.78, which did not meet the a priori threshold of 0.90. Mortality at 28 days was 45.9% (34 of 74) in the placebo group compared with 43.3% (45 of 104) for the most promising levocarnitine dose (18 g). Similar findings were noted in the per-protocol analysis. In this dose-finding, phase 2 adaptive randomized trial, the most efficacious dose of levocarnitine (18 g) did not meaningfully reduce cumulative organ failure at 48 hours. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01665092.

Predictive probability of success using surrogate endpoints.

The predictive probability of success of a future clinical trial is a key quantitative tool for decision-making in drug development. It is derived from prior knowledge and available evidence, and the latter typically comes from the accumulated data on the clinical endpoint of interest in previous clinical trials. However, a surrogate endpoint could be used as primary endpoint in early development and, usually, no or limited data are collected on the clinical endpoint of interest. We propose a general, reliable, and broadly applicable methodology to predict the success of a future trial from surrogate endpoints, in a way that makes the best use of all the available evidence. The predictions are based on an informative prior, called surrogate prior, derived from the results of past trials on one or several surrogate endpoints. If available, in a Bayesian framework, this prior could be combined with data from past trials on the clinical endpoint of interest. Two methods are proposed to address a potential discordance between the surrogate prior and the data on the clinical endpoint. We investigate the patterns of behavior of the predictions in a comprehensive simulation study, and we present an application to the development of a drug in Multiple Sclerosis. The proposed methodology is expected to support decision-making in many different situations, since the use of predictive markers is important to accelerate drug developments and to select promising drug candidates, better and earlier.

Decision-making in drug development using a composite definition of success.

Evidence-based quantitative methodologies have been proposed to inform decision-making in drug development, such as metrics to make go/no-go decisions or predictions of success, identified with statistical significance of future clinical trials. While these methodologies appropriately address some critical questions on the potential of a drug, they either consider the past evidence without predicting the outcome of the future trials or focus only on efficacy, failing to account for the multifaceted aspects of a successful drug development. As quantitative benefit-risk assessments could enhance decision-making, we propose a more comprehensive approach using a composite definition of success based not only on the statistical significance of the treatment effect on the primary endpoint but also on its clinical relevance and on a favorable benefit-risk balance in the next pivotal studies. For one drug, we can thus study several development strategies before starting the pivotal trials by comparing their predictive probability of success. The predictions are based on the available evidence from the previous trials, to which new hypotheses on the future development could be added. The resulting predictive probability of composite success provides a useful summary to support the discussions of the decision-makers. We present a fictive, but realistic, example in major depressive disorder inspired by a real decision-making case.