To blind or not to blind first in human and exploratory clinical trials: Acceleration of development vs. risk of bias.

An IQ consortium working group (WG) conducted a survey across multiple biopharmaceutical companies to gain information about the level of blinding commonly utilized for early clinical development trials. The main objectives were: (1) to understand blinding practices between healthy volunteer (HV) and early explorative patient trials in all therapeutic areas except oncology where early clinical trials are commonly open-label; (2) to understand the rationale for blinding/unblinding practices; (3) to understand the groups and personnel involved in unblinding; and (4) strategic considerations around blinding/unblinding options in early clinical development trials-risk of bias vs. potential for acceleration. A survey containing 31 main questions with additional sub-clarifying questions was conducted. Sixteen large and mid-size pharmaceutical companies responded. Responses were aligned across functions within each participating company. Additional information was gathered at an American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists (AAPS) webinar with polling options to roughly 550 registered attendees to evaluate the reason for the unblinding decisions. The results revealed divergence across companies in the blinding approaches most commonly applied but with some study types, there were clearly favored options. Based on these results, the WG developed strategic considerations for first-in-human HV trials and nonpivotal explorative trials in patients. This paper should facilitate discussions among various clinical development functions, such as Clinical Pharmacology, Statistics, Clinical, Bioanalytics, and Regulatory Functions. Such discussions on study design and operations are warranted to allow implementation of more flexible blinding approaches to accelerate data driven decisions in drug development and allow earlier access of patients to needful medicines.

Phase Ib Study of High-dose Intermittent Afatinib in Patients With Advanced Solid Tumors.

BACKGROUND: The present phase Ib study assessed the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), safety, pharmacokinetics, and antitumor activity of high-dose intermittent (HDI) afatinib monotherapy for patients with advanced solid tumors. The planned focus was patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) T790M+ non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eligible patients had histologically confirmed advanced solid tumors that were unsuitable for, or unresponsive to, standard therapy. The study used a 3+3 design with a starting dose of 90 mg/d for 3 days every 14 days (28-day cycles) and incremental dose escalations to 200 mg/d. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients (18 with NSCLC) were treated (6 at 90 mg; 3 at 120 mg; 9 at 150 mg; 11 at 160 mg; and 6 at 200 mg). One patient in the 90-mg cohort (grade 3 rash) and 2 patients in the 200-mg cohort (grade 3 diarrhea; grade 3 mucositis) experienced a dose-limiting toxicity. The MTD was 160 mg. The most common treatment-related adverse events were diarrhea (total, 88.6%; grade 3, 14.3%), rash/acne (total, 62.9%; grade 3, 2.9%), and fatigue (total, 40.0; grade 3, 0%). The maximum afatinib plasma concentration at the MTD was 313 ng/mL, exceeding the in vitro IC50 (inhibitor concentration decreased by one half) range for T790M inhibition. The trough levels suggested no systematic change in afatinib plasma concentrations during long-term treatment at this dosing schedule. Of the 13 T790M+ NSCLC patients, 1 achieved an objective response (7.7%). CONCLUSION: HDI afatinib was feasible and tolerable and could potentially be further explored for NSCLC indications, including patients with central nervous system disease, rare EGFR mutations, or T790M+ NSCLC intolerant of third-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors.