A framework for assessing the impact of accelerated approval.

The FDA's Accelerated Approval program (AA) is a regulatory program to expedite availability of products to treat serious or life-threatening illnesses that lack effective treatment alternatives. Ideally, all of the many stakeholders such as patients, physicians, regulators, and health technology assessment [HTA] agencies that are affected by AA should benefit from it. In practice, however, there is intense debate over whether evidence supporting AA is sufficient to meet the needs of the stakeholders who collectively bring an approved product into routine clinical care. As AAs have become more common, it becomes essential to be able to determine their impact objectively and reproducibly in a way that provides for consistent evaluation of therapeutic decision alternatives. We describe the basic features of an approach for evaluating AA impact that accommodates stakeholder-specific views about potential benefits, risks, and costs. The approach is based on a formal decision-analytic framework combining predictive distributions for therapeutic outcomes (efficacy and safety) based on statistical models that incorporate findings from AA trials with stakeholder assessments of various actions that might be taken. The framework described here provides a starting point for communicating the value of a treatment granted AA in the context of what is important to various stakeholders.

Ethical Considerations in Adaptive Design Clinical Trials.

Adaptive design clinical trial methodologies offer both opportunities and challenges for observing basic ethical principles in human subject research. Using both published and unpublished adaptive design clinical trials, we have selected and reviewed examples of clinical trials with different design adaptations to discuss the ethical obstacles presented and often successfully resolved by these approaches, including (1) confirmatory trials for treatments widely accepted on the basis of uncontrolled case series or open-label trials (clinical equipoise and "justice" in the sense of which trial groups will "receive the benefits of research and bear its burdens") (infantile hemangioma/propranolol); (2) interim results analysis by unblinded data monitoring committees ("withholding information necessary to make a considered judgment" ["respect for persons"] versus compromising the trial's scientific basis) (BIG 1-98); (3) adaptations involving sample size reassessment or dose adjustment via dropping or adding treatment arms, allowing fewer subjects to produce statistically significant results, fewer subjects treated with ineffective/toxic doses, and more subjects given doses showing tolerance and treatment activity ("beneficence" or "protecting from harm and making efforts to secure wellbeing") (ECMO, Neuromyelitis Optica); (4) adaptive randomization inferential problems balanced against ethical benefits (trastuzumab vs taxane in advanced gastric cancer; ADVENT); (5) more efficient allocation of societal resources for research, in both public and commercial realms, versus uncertain regulatory acceptance (indicaterol; VALOR); and (6) platform, umbrella, and basket trials offering additional efficiencies (I-SPY II, BATTLE, Lung-MAP). The importance of careful design, meticulous planning, and rigorous ethical review of adaptive design trials on a case-by-case basis cannot be overemphasized.

Results of an international randomized phase III trial of the mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor ridaforolimus versus placebo to control metastatic sarcomas in patients after benefit from prior chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: Aberrant mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) signaling is common in sarcomas and other malignancies. Drug resistance and toxicities often limit benefits of systemic chemotherapy used to treat metastatic sarcomas. This large randomized placebo-controlled phase III trial evaluated the mTOR inhibitor ridaforolimus to assess maintenance of disease control in advanced sarcomas. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with metastatic soft tissue or bone sarcomas who achieved objective response or stable disease with prior chemotherapy were randomly assigned to receive ridaforolimus 40 mg or placebo once per day for 5 days every week. Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary end points included overall survival (OS), best target lesion response, safety, and tolerability. RESULTS: A total of 711 patients were enrolled, and 702 received blinded study drug. Ridaforolimus treatment led to a modest, although significant, improvement in PFS per independent review compared with placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.72; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.85; P = .001; median PFS, 17.7 v 14.6 weeks). Ridaforolimus induced a mean 1.3% decrease in target lesion size versus a 10.3% increase with placebo (P < .001). Median OS with ridaforolimus was 90.6 weeks versus 85.3 weeks with placebo (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.12; P = .46). Adverse events (AEs) more common with ridaforolimus included stomatitis, infections, fatigue, thrombocytopenia, noninfectious pneumonitis, hyperglycemia, and rash. Grade ≥ 3 AEs were more common with ridaforolimus than placebo (64.1% v 25.6%). CONCLUSION: Ridaforolimus delayed tumor progression to a small statistically significant degree in patients with metastatic sarcoma who experienced benefit with prior chemotherapy. Toxicities were observed with ridaforolimus, as expected with mTOR inhibition. These data provide a foundation on which to further improve control of sarcomas.

Phase II study of the mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor ridaforolimus in patients with advanced bone and soft tissue sarcomas.

PURPOSE: Ridaforolimus is an inhibitor of mammalian target of rapamycin, an integral component of the phosphatidyl 3-kinase/AKT signaling pathway, with early evidence of activity in sarcomas. This multicenter, open-label, single-arm, phase II trial was conducted to assess the antitumor activity of ridaforolimus in patients with distinct subtypes of advanced sarcomas. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with metastatic or unresectable soft tissue or bone sarcomas received ridaforolimus 12.5 mg administered as a 30-minute intravenous infusion once daily for 5 days every 2 weeks. The primary end point was clinical benefit response (CBR) rate (complete response or partial response [PR] or stable disease ≥ 16 weeks). Safety, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), time to progression, and duration of response were also evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 212 patients were treated in four separate histologic cohorts. In this heavily pretreated population, 61 patients (28.8%) achieved CBR. Median PFS was 15.3 weeks; median OS was 40 weeks. Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) confirmed response rate was 1.9%, with four patients achieving confirmed PR (two with osteosarcoma, one with spindle cell sarcoma, and one with malignant fibrous histiocytoma). Archival tumor protein markers analyzed were not correlated with CBR. Related adverse events were generally mild or moderate and consisted primarily of stomatitis, mucosal inflammation, mouth ulceration, rash, and fatigue. CONCLUSION: Single-agent ridaforolimus in patients with advanced and pretreated sarcomas led to PFS results that compare favorably with historical metrics. A phase III trial based on these data will further define ridaforolimus activity in sarcomas.

A phase I trial to determine the safety, tolerability, and maximum tolerated dose of deforolimus in patients with advanced malignancies.

PURPOSE: This was a phase I trial to determine the maximum tolerated dose and toxicity of deforolimus (AP23573, MK-8669), an inhibitor of mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR). The pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and antineoplastic effects were also studied. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Deforolimus was administered intravenously over 30 min every 7 days according to a flat dosing schedule. Dose was escalated according to an accelerated titration design. Patients remained on study until disease progression as long as they tolerated the drug without significant toxicities. RESULTS: Forty-six patients were enrolled on the study. Common side effects included fatigue, anorexia, and mucositis. The maximum tolerated dose was 75 mg and mucositis was the dose-limiting toxicity. Similar to other mTOR inhibitors, deforolimus exhibited nonlinear pharmacokinetics and a prolonged half-life. Among 34 patients evaluable for response, 1 patient had a partial response, 21 patients had stable disease, and 12 had progressed. Percent change in tumor size was significantly associated with AUC (P=0.015). A significant association was also detected for maximum change in cholesterol within the first two cycles of therapy and change in tumor size (r=-0.38; P=0.029). CONCLUSIONS: Deforolimus was well tolerated on the schedule tested in this trial with toxicity and pharmacokinetic profiles that were similar to that of other mTOR inhibitors. Additional phase II studies are needed to determine if deforolimus is superior to other mTOR inhibitors in terms of efficacy. The change in serum cholesterol as a potential biomarker of activity should be studied further.

Efficacy and tolerability of long-acting injectable naltrexone for alcohol dependence: a randomized controlled trial.

CONTEXT: Alcohol dependence is a common disorder associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Naltrexone, an opioid antagonist, has been shown to be effective for treatment of alcohol dependence. However, adherence to daily oral pharmacotherapy can be problematic, and clinical acceptance and utility of oral naltrexone have been limited. OBJECTIVE: To determine efficacy and tolerability of a long-acting intramuscular formulation of naltrexone for treatment of alcohol-dependent patients. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A 6-month, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted between February 2002 and September 2003 at 24 US public hospitals, private and Veterans Administration clinics, and tertiary care medical centers. Of the 899 individuals screened, 627 who were diagnosed as being actively drinking alcohol-dependent adults were randomized to receive treatment and 624 received at least 1 injection. INTERVENTION: An intramuscular injection of 380 mg of long-acting naltrexone (n = 205) or 190 mg of long-acting naltrexone (n = 210) or a matching volume of placebo (n = 209) each administered monthly and combined with 12 sessions of low-intensity psychosocial intervention. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The event rate of heavy drinking days in the intent-to-treat population. RESULTS: Compared with placebo, 380 mg of long-acting naltrexone resulted in a 25% decrease in the event rate of heavy drinking days (P = .02) [corrected] and 190 mg of naltrexone resulted in a 17% decrease (P = .07). Sex and pretreatment abstinence each showed significant interaction with the medication group on treatment outcome, with men and those with lead-in abstinence both exhibiting greater treatment effects. Discontinuation due to adverse events occurred in 14.1% in the 380-mg and 6.7% in the 190-mg group and 6.7% in the placebo group. Overall, rate and time to treatment discontinuation were similar among treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Long-acting naltrexone was well tolerated and resulted in reductions in heavy drinking among treatment-seeking alcohol-dependent patients during 6 months of therapy. These data indicate that long-acting naltrexone can be of benefit in the treatment of alcohol dependence.