Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 2
  • Print publication year: 2011
  • Online publication date: December 2011

21 - The growing need for alternative clinical trial designs for multiple sclerosis

from Section II - Clinical trial methodology

Summary

Double inversion recovery (DIR) is an inversion recovery sequence which applies two consecutive inversion pulses leading to a simultaneous attenuation of the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and white matter which improves the contrast between gray and white matter. Quantitative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) techniques are able to detect and to quantify primary and secondary gray matter abnormalities and provide further insights into disease progression and contribution of these changes to clinical outcome measures. Proton MR spectroscopy (1H-MRS) is frequently used for the evaluation of normal appearing brain tissue in multiple sclerosis (MS). Diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) assesses the random movement of water molecules within the brain tissue. Magnetization transfer (MT) imaging is based on a magnetization interaction between free water protons and protons bound to macromolecular structures. T1- and T2-relaxation time (RT) measurements allow the assessment and quantification of white matter and gray matter damage in various neurodegenerative and neuro-inflammatory diseases.

References

1. Herndon R. Multiple sclerosis. Proceedings of the International Conference on Therapeutic Trials in Multiple Sclerosis. Grand Island, NY, April 23–24, 1982. Arch Neurol 1983 40: 663–710.
2. Wolinsky JS, Reingold SC. When progress slows progress. ACP Med 2008; 31: 1–3.
3. McFarland HF, Reingold SC. The future of multiple sclerosis therapies: redesigning multiple sclerosis clinical trials in a new therapeutic era. Mult Scler 2005; 11: 669–76.
4. Food and Drug Administration. 2010. Adaptive design clinical trials for drugs and biologics. www.fda.gov/ downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM201790. (Accessed September 19, 2010.)
5. Hollon T. FDA uneasy about placebo revision. Nat Med 2001; 7: 7.
6. Bland JM, Kerr D. Fifth revision of Declaration of Helsinki. Clause 29 forbids trails from using placebos when effective treatment exists. BMJ 2002; 324: 975.
7. Lublin FD, Reingold SC. Placebo-controlled clinical trials in multiple sclerosis: ethical considerations. National Multiple Sclerosis Society (USA) Task Force on Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trials in MS. Ann Neurol 2001; 49: 677–81.
8. Polman CH, Reingold SC, Barkhof F, et al. Ethics of placebo-controlled clinical trials in multiple sclerosis: a reassessment. Neurology 2008; 70: 1134–40.
9. Kappos LK, Weinshenker B, Pozzilli, C, et al. Interferon beta-1a in secondary progressive MS. Neurology 2004; 63: 1779–87.
10. Coste J, Fermanian J, Venot A. Methodological and statistical problems in the construction of composite measurement scales: a survey of six medical and epidemiological journals. Stat Med 1995; 331–45.
11. Petkau AJ. Statistical and design considerations for multiple sclerosis clinical trials. In Goodkin DE and Rudick RA, eds. Multiple Sclerosis: Advances in Clinical Trials. London: Springer-Verlag, 1996: 63–103.
12. Kurtzke JF. Rating neurological impairment in multiple sclerosis: an expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology 1983; 33: 1444–52.
13. O’Brien PC. Procedures for comparing samples with multiple endpoints. Biometrics 1984; 40: 1079–87.
14. Pocock SJ, Geller NL, Tsiatis AA. The analysis of multiple endpoints in clinical trials. Biometrics 1987; 43: 487–98.
15. Rudick R, Antel J, Confavreux C, et al. Clinical outcomes assessment in multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol 1996; 40: 469–79.
16. Rudick R, Antel J, Confavreux C, et al. Recommendations from the National Multiple Sclerosis Society Clinical Outcomes Assessment Task Force. Ann Neurol 1997; 42: 379–82.
17. Cohen JA, Cutter GR, Fischer JS, et al. Benefit of interferon beta-1a on MSFC progression in secondary progressive MS. Neurology 2002; 59: 679–87.
18. Hommel G. A stagewise rejective multiple test procedure based on modified Bonferroni test. Biometrika 1988; 75: 383–6.
19. Hochberg Y. A sharper Bonferroni procedure for multiple tests of significance. Biometrika 1988; 75: 800–2.
20. Goodkin DE, Rudick RA, VanderBrug Mendendorp S, et al. Low dose (7.5 mg) oral methotrexate reduces the rate of progression in chronic progressive multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol 1995; 37: 30–40.
21. Havrdova E, Galetta S, Hutchinson M, et al. Effect of natalizumab on clinical and radiological disease activity in multiple sclerosis: retrospective analysis of the Natalizumab Safety and Efficacy in Relapsing–Remitting Multiple Sclerosis (AFFIRM) study. Lancet Neurol 2009; 8: 254–60.
22. Follmann D, Wittes J, Cutler JA. The use of subjective rankings in clinical trials with an application to cardiovascular disease. Stat Med 1992; 427–37.
23. Wei LJ, Lachin JM. Two-sample asymptotically distribution-free test for incomplete multivariate observations. J Am Stat Assoc 1984; 79: 653–61.
24. Hartung HP, Gonsette R, Konig N, et al. Mitoxantone in progressive multiple sclerosis: a placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized, multicentre trial. Lancet 2002; 360: 2018–25.
25. Tang D-I, Geller NL, Pocock SJ. On the design and analysis of randomized clinical trials with multiple endpoints. Biometrics 1993; 49: 23–30.
26. Follmann D. A simple multivariate test for one-sided alternatives. J Am Stat Assoc 1996: 91: 854–61.
27. Lehmacher W, Wassmer G, Reitmeir P. Procedures for two-sample comparisons with multiple endpoints controlling the experimentwise error rate. Biometrics 1991: 47: 511–21.
28. Rosenberger WF, Lachin JM. Randomization in Clinical Trials: Theory and Practice. New York, Wiley, 2002.
29. Hu F, Rosenberger WF. The Theory of Response – Adaptive Randomization in Clinical Trials. New York: Wiley, 2006.
30. Ware JH, Investigating therapies of potentially great benefit: ECMO. Stat Sci 1989; 4: 298–306.
31. Begg CB. On inferences from Wei's biased coin design for clinical trials. Biometrika 1990; 77: 73.
32. European Medicines Agency. Guideline on clinical investigation of medicinal products for the treatment of multiple sclerosis. 2006. http://www.ema. europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/regulation/general/general_content_000425.jsp&murl=menus/regulations/regulations.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac0580034cf5. (Accessed September 19, 2010.)
33. Schwid SR, Thorpe J, Sharief M, et al. Enhanced benefit of increasing interferon beta-1a dose and frequency in relapsing multiple sclerosis: the EVIDENCE study. Arch Neurol 2005; 2: 785–92.
34. Prentice RL. Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: definition and operational criteria. Stat Med 1989: 8: 431–40.
35. Fleming TR, DeMets DL. Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: are we being misled? Ann Intern Med 1996: 125: 605–13.
36. Petkau J, Reingold SC, Held U, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging as a surrogate outcome for multiple sclerosis relapses. Mult Scler 1998; 14: 770–8.
37. Daumer M, Neuhaus, A, Morrissey S, et al. MRI as an outcome in multiple sclerosis clinical trials. Neurology 2009; 72: 705–11.
38. Sormani MP, Bonzano L, Roccatagliata L, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging as a potential surrogate for relapses in MS: a meta-analytic approach. Ann Neurol 2009; 65: 268–75.
39. Daniels MJ, Hughes MD. Meta-analysis for the evaluation of potential surrogate markers. Stat Med 1997: 16: 1965–82.
40. Korn EL, Albert PS, McShane LM. Assessing surrogates as trial endpoints using mixed models. Stat Med 2005: 24; 163–82.
41. Burzykowski T, Molenberghs G, Buyse M. The Evaluation of Surrogate Endpoints. New York, Springer, 2006.
42. Bornkamp B, Bretz F, Dmitrienko A, et al. Innovative approaches for designing and analyzing adaptive dose-ranging trials. J Biopham Stat 2007; 17: 965–95.
43. Bretz F, Hsu J, Pinheiro J, Liu Y. Dose finding – a challenge in statistics. Biom J 2008; 50: 480–504.
44. Jennison C, Turnbull BW. Group Sequential Methods with Applications to Clinical Trials. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC, 2000.
45. Chow S-C, Chang M. Adaptive Design: Methods in Clinical Trials. Boca Raton, Chapman & Hall/CRC, 2007.
46. Jennison C, Turnbull BW. Mid-course sample size modification in clinical trials based on the observed treatment effect. Stat Med 2003; 23: 971–93.
47. Friede T, Kieser M. Sample size recalculation in internal pilot study designs: a review. Biom J 2006; 48: 537–55.
48. Prochan MA. Sample size re-estimation in clinical trials. Biom J 2009; 51: 348–57.
49. Friede T, Schmidli H. Blinded sample size reestimation with count data: methods and applications in multiple sclerosis. Stat Med 2010; 29: 1145–56.
50. Schmidli H, Bretz F, Racine A, Maurer W. Confirmatory seamless phase II/III clinical trials with hypotheses selection at interim: application and practical considerations. Biom J 2006; 48: 635–43.
51. Jennison C, Turnbull BW. Adaptive seamless designs: selection and prospective testing of hypotheses. J Biopharm Stat 2007; 17: 1135–61.
52. Wang SJ, Hung HM, O’Neill RT. Adaptive patient enrichment designs in therapeutic trials. Biom J 2009; 51: 358–74.
53. Brannath W, Zuber E, Branson M, et al. Confirmatory adaptive designs with Bayesian decision tools for a targeted therapy in oncology. Stat Med 2009; 28: 1445–63.
54. US Food and Drug Administration. Critical Path Initiative Opportunity List. 2006. http://www.fda.gov/ ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/CriticalPathInitiative/CriticalPathOpportunitiesReports/ucm077251.htm. (Accessed September 17, 2010.)
55. Mehta C, Gao P, Bhatt DL, et al. Optimizing trial design: sequential, adaptive and enrichment strategies. Circulation 2009; 119: 597–605.
56. Bretz F, Branson M, Burman C-F, et al. Adaptivity in drug discovery and development. Drug Dev Res 2009; 70: 169–90.
57. Jennison C, Turnbull BW. Adaptive and nonadaptive group sequential designs. Biometrika 2006; 93: 1–21.
58. Burman C-F, Sonesson C. Are flexible designs sound? Biometrics 2006: 62: 664–9.
59. European Medicines Agency. Reflection paper on methodological issues in confirmatory clinical trials planned with an adaptive design. 2006. www.ema.europa.eu/ema/pages/includes/document/open_document.jsp?webContentId=WC500003616. (Accessed September 19, 2010.)
60. Bauer P, Köhne K. Evaluations of experiments with adaptive interim analyses. Biometrics 1994; 50: 1029–41.
61. Brannath W, Posch M, Bauer P. Recursive combination tests. J Am Stat Assoc 2002; 97: 236–44.
62. Prochan MA, Hunsberger SA. Designed extension of studies based on conditional power. Biometrics 1995; 51: 1315–24.
63. Müller H, Schäfer H. A general statistical principle for changing a design any time during the course of a trial. Stat Med 2004; 23: 2497–508.
64. Brannath W, Mehta CR, Posch M. Exact confidence bounds following adaptive group sequential tests. Biometrics 2009; 65: 539–46.
65. Wu SS, Wang W, Yang MCK. Interval estimation for drop-the-losers designs. Biometrika 2010; 97: 405–18.
66. Spiegelhalter DJ, Freedman LS, Parmar MK. Bayesian Approaches to Clinical Trials and Health Care Evaluation. New York: Wiley, 2004.
67. Carlin BP, Louis TA. Bayesian Methods for Data Analysis, Third Edition. New York: Chapman & Hall/CRC, 2008.
68. Thall PF, Russell KE. A strategy for dose-finding and safety monitoring based on efficacy and adverse outcomes in phase I/II clinical trials. Biometrics 1998; 54: 251–64.
69. Krams M, Lees KR, Hacke W, et al. Acute stroke therapy by inhibition of neutrophils (ASTIN): an adaptive dose-response study of UK-279,276 in acute ischemic stroke. Stroke 2003; 34; 2543–8.
70. Wilber DJ, Pappone C, Neuzil P, et al. Comparison of antiarrythmic drug therapy and radiofrequency catheter ablation in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: a randomized controlled trial. J Am Med Assoc 2010: 303: 333–40.
71. Berry SM, Carlin BP, Lee JJ, Müller P. Bayesian Adaptive Methods for Clinical Trials. New York: Chapman & Hall/CRC, 2010.