MULTINATIONAL RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIALS Gilles DELLA CORTE MD D ELLMED Consulting Introduction Multinational Randomized Clinical Trials MRCTs are challenging But despite the challenge the need to conduct clinical research internationally is stronger than ever ID: 778227
Download The PPT/PDF document "PITFALLS in the CONDUCT of" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
PITFALLS in the CONDUCT of MULTINATIONAL RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIALS
Gilles DELLA CORTE, MDDELLMED Consulting
Slide2IntroductionMultinational Randomized Clinical Trials (MRCTs) are challenging
But, despite the challenge, the need to conduct clinical research internationally is stronger than everThe increasing shift from expert opinion towards evidence-based medicine enhances the importance of MRCTsIn addition, the demand of Health Authorities (HAs) for high quality data is also increasing, leading to favor MRCTs
DELLMED Consulting
2
Slide3Pitfalls levels in MRCTsUnreasonable protocol design
Wrong outsourcing choiceNon optimal feasibility assessmentRegulatory naivetyBlurring border between Marketing and Research
Optimistic patients recruitment plan
Inadequate communication and monitoring
Deficiency in Data Management
Deficient statistics hypothesis and analysis methods
DELLMED Consulting
3
Slide4Unreasonable protocol design
Study investigated hypothesis is not clearly definedThe Null-Hypothesis under investigation must be clearly statedIn rule, limit the objectives to only one primary objective
Study design and investigations too much demanding
Too many visits or investigations leading to poor compliance from the patients and investigators
Investigations methods too tricky or not meaningful of the actual efficacy of the compound (e.g. use of of non-validated surrogate endpoint) or with a large inter-examiner variation
Placebo group not always acceptable (e.g. life-threatening disease)
Wrong inclusion/exclusion criteria
A right balance between recruitment needs and scientific constrains must be achieved
The population must be selected according to the compound characteristics and study goal and relevant to demonstrate “efficacy” of the compound but not too selective compared to real-life recruitment in order to demonstrate “effectiveness”
DELLMED Consulting
4
Slide5Unreasonable protocol design (cont)
Critical literature review is keyParticular interest in looking at the discussion section of paper regarding similar studies, the authors often speculate on what was the weaknessess and what needs to be accomplishedThe support of an Experts Steering Committee is keyChoice of the experts is challenging, aiming to obtain a right balance between scientific input and pragmatism
Include medical responsible and guests at request (statistician, monitor …)
Endorse Steering Committee proposals only if scientifically validated (literature, guidelines …)
The Investigators Meetings are key
To ensure full understanding and acceptation of the protocol and detect country-linked discrepancies
DELLMED Consulting
5
Slide6Wrong outsourcing choice
There is an inflationary trend for oursourcing at least part of services requested in MRCTsThe Contract Research Organisation (CRO) choice must focus on:Previous experience of the provider in this indication with a pool of « ready to use » sites
Significant monitors presence in the target regions (be mistrustful with CROs subcontracting locally or using local freelance CRAs, with just a local « storefront »)
Experience of CRAs involved (Minimal seniority must be defined with CVs provided)
Proposal describing precisely the services provided (optimally provide a proposal template to ensure comparibility of the proposals) with number of units and costs (including passthrough costs evaluation)
Previous experience with this provider (Preferred provider) is ofen an asset preventing the « learning period »
The CRO proposal for feasibility assessment (a « light » plan is not a good signal)
Pre-select at least 3 CROs based on a proposal draft and then organize individual bid meetings with them before getting their final proposal
Also consider the use of Site Management Organizations (SMOs)
Be careful if you give both the monitoring and the data management to the same provider as data quality concerns could be minimized
A provider coud be used for data management and analysis separately from that responsible for clinical operations and data collection. Moreover this allow to have the same provider responsible for data from all studies (homogeneity) when different providers are used for clinical operations depending on the study specific needs
DELLMED Consulting
6
Slide7Non optimal feasibility assessment
Feasibility study prior to trial start is keyShould not be limited to an e-questionnaire sent to sites, direct contacts is preferable (site qualification visits particularly for unknown sites)Recruitment potential is important but also verifyEquipment and drug storage facilities
Availability of CT dedicated staff
Competitive CTs ongoing or planned
Familiarity with electronic data capture (EDC)
Ability of the site to comply with protocol constrains, often different from the regular practice
Use of a non final protocol is a risk if important features are changed
Site selection is important but also regulatory frame per country and standard of care in the target indication must be assessed
Re-conduct site feasibility if > 3 months from selection to activation
DELLMED Consulting
7
Slide8Regulatory naivety
Local constrains must be taken into account:Agencies but also Institutional Review Boards/Ethics Committees structure, demands and approval timelinesCustoms clearance, taxation, licenses, documentationNeed for documents translation in local languages (sometimes « certified » translations can be obtained)
Local healthcare system reimbursment
Timelines must be evaluated per country leading to define a set-up strategy plan (stagger submissions)
Some proactive actions are useful:
Involve local Regulatory experts if not existing inhouse
A best case and a worst case must be set, probably the actual timelines will be in between
Finalize the protocol before submission
Ask for a pre-IND meeting is often useful
Make sure if some countries have data acceptance policies (e.g. acceptance of 100% foreign data for local marketing approval)
Establish a check list of required documents
Applied for more patients and sites than needed if possible
DELLMED Consulting
8
Slide9Regulatory naivety (cont)
Frequent naivety if to think approval is possible with only few doses testedDuring Phase II, in most of the cases, at least 3 doses must be tested because, to confirm the chosen dose is that with the best efficacy / safety ratio you need to demonstrate that a lower dose showed less efficacy and that a higher dose showed either not more efficacy or is less toleratedSometimes more than 3 doses tested in Phase II are necessary to reach this conclusion. Be conscious that numerous Phase III programs failed because the Phase II hadn’t been properly performed
A doubt can lead to test still 2 doses in Phase III
DELLMED Consulting
9
Slide10Blurring border between Marketing and Research
Key opinion Leaders (KOLs) involvement is important for commercial purpose but only if they have actually the capacity to perform the trial optimally from recruitment potential to quality data generation or if their poor performace is forecasted in the recruitment planAlways mix with lesser-known but highly motivated and competent investigatorsThe
Study Principal Investigator
(PI) must belong to both categories as he will have to adjudicate controversies, enforces the decisions, sign the Clinical Study Report and be the main author of the publication. As such, his legitimacy must be recognized by the sites PIs
If
Ancillary Studies
are implemented, they must really bring interesting data (e.g. pharmaco-economic) or be a motivation tool (specific publication) and not just « please » a local KOL and it must be sure they do not compromise the core MRCT (additional complexity that jeopardizes recruitement)
DELLMED Consulting
10
Slide11Optimistic patients recruitment plan
Investigators are often optimistic when they evaluate their patients recruitement potential; their statement must be ponderatedAnalyze disease prevalence and incidence per regionConsider catchment area of patients around site
Ensure the local standard of care makes your protocol acceptable
Competitive trials ongoing or planned must be identified
Proper site training must be delivered
Fair allocation of site grants must be ensured
Recruitment facilitation and patient retention methods are useful (after confirming acceptance for local regulation):
performance incentive with bonus to « good recruiters »
ads in newpaper or local radio
direct phone call from the investigator to the patient
involvment of GPs as referral network
« motivation » visits by the CRA
patients travel costs to hospital reimbursed …
electronic tools for recruitment tracking and boosting
DELLMED Consulting
11
Slide12Optimistic patients recruitment plan (cont)A CAPA Plan must be ready in case of low recruitment rate
Back-up sites identified from scratch and ready to operateMid-study rejuvenation meetingsprotocol amendment
« motivation » visits by the sponsor itself …
Buffers must exist i the Clinical Development Plan (CDP) for unexpected delay and costs
DELLMED Consulting
12
Slide13Inadequate communication and monitoring
Face to face interaction is useful (at least video conferencing) and must not be replaced by only phone call or e-mailsUse a Clinical Trial Management System (CTMS) or at least a technology like SharepointWhether on-site or remotely, monitoring must ensure data quality
Adequete source data verification (with pre-defined %) has to be set-up
e-CRF with integrated on-line validation program is of great help
Build strong relationship with site PIs is key
Investigator meetings involving the sponsor (pre-study but also during it when long-term follow-up is planned)
monthly study newsletter, phone calls
fees difference between countries not too high (max 30% and always the same within a given country)
Only one point of contact in case of problem (usually the Study Medical Responsible of the sponsor who works closely with the Study PI and the CRO Project Leader)
DELLMED Consulting
13
Slide14Deficiency in Data Management
Lack of preservation or concealment of randomizationShould be prevent by internet-based randomizationIntent-to-treat analysis is keyRandomization is the only method that can balance unknown confounders between groups
Lack of blinding
Placebo must be identical to active drug
If not possible double dummy method must be used
If blinding of the investigator or patient is not possible (e.g. surgery versus medical treatment), use, as much as possible, an independant assessor to assess the main evaluation criterion
Wrong management of Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) meetings and decisions
Independence from the study investigators is key (use of external experts)
Involvement of the sponsor’s Medical Responsible
Involvement
of a Statistician (independant from the study statistician)
Possible involvement of a CRO Representative (e.g. Project Leader)
DELLMED Consulting
14
Slide15Deficient statistics hypothesis and analysis methods
Alpha Error (Type I) is usually set as p < 0,05Evaluation parameters must be defined before the trial startsP must be diminished in case of multiple comparisons to guard against the risk of false positive findings (e.g. p=0,05/N, N= number of comparisons)Be aware that not statistically significant just means that no conclusion can be withdrawn and not that there is no difference
Confident Intervals (CIs) are more informative than p-values
DELLMED Consulting
15
Slide16Deficient statistical hypothesis and analysis methods (cont 1)
Beta Error (Type II) is usually set as max 20% (power ≥ 80%)Meaning up to 20% false negative is acceptedThe patient sample size must be calculated accordingly based on the primary evaluation parameter.Sometimes meta-analysis is used to reduce beta error but they are limited by the heterogeneity of the pooled studies
Concerning the primary evaluation parameter:
the magnitude of the difference expected between groups must not be overestimated but it must be large enough to be « clinically relevant »
the anticipated standard deviations in each groups must not be underestimated. Variability can be linked with the patient response to treatment but also with the method used to assess this response
results from previous studies (from Proof Of Concept and Phase II studies, from literature about similar compounds) must be carefully assessed
DELLMED Consulting
16
Slide17Deficient statistical hypothesis and analysis methods (cont 2)
Neglect of site differencesSite x Treatment Interaction must be taken into account (even if the sample size necessary to have adequate power to detect an interaction is typically many times larger than that to detect a main effect of treatment)Potential site effect must be assessed (when recruitment is much larger in one site than in the others)
Not well defined expected drop-out rate
How the project deals with patients drop-out (and missing data) must be included in the statistical section
Post-hoc analysis must be avoided
Plan Ad-hoc sub-group analysis in the initial protocol as much as possible
Be aware that subgroup analysis introduces multiple testing and is not relevant to assess interaction between factors
Do not overemphasize the results of subgroups analyses, they are just indicative for further confirmatory trials
DELLMED Consulting
17
Slide18ConclusionAll stages of MRCTs set up and follow-up must be proactively assessed (protocol, CROs choice, recruitment, monitoring and communication, datamanagement and statistics) to prevent the numerous pitfalls that jeopardize the production of relevant conclusions
« Luck favors the well prepared »
DELLMED Consulting
18