In­no­va­tion in the clin­ic is pick­ing up steam. How adap­tive de­signs could pave the road to per­son­al­ized med­i­cine

Biotech Voices is a collection of exclusive opinion editorials from some of the leading voices in biopharma on the biggest industry questions today. Think you have a voice that should be heard? Reach out to senior editors Kyle Blankenship and Amber Tong.

Nor­mal­ly, when you hear about in­no­va­tion in R&D, the fo­cus is on the “R” and not the “D.” There’s a ten­den­cy to as­sume that lab-based sci­en­tists do the re­al­ly cre­ative re­search, where­as clin­i­cal de­vel­op­ment is a fair­ly straight­for­ward, check-the-box­es ac­tiv­i­ty.

There’s a ker­nel of truth in this oth­er­wise un­fair as­sump­tion. Just as the ba­sic de­sign of a car hasn’t changed much from the cars our grand­par­ents drove — gas and brake ped­als, four tires, and a steer­ing wheel — clin­i­cal tri­als still have time-hon­ored fea­tures like ran­dom­iza­tion, con­trol arms and blind­ing. What is chang­ing, though, is that we’ve be­gun to aug­ment well-es­tab­lished meth­ods with in­no­va­tions that promise to make drug de­vel­op­ment faster, less ex­pen­sive and more suc­cess­ful.

One big el­e­ment in this trans­for­ma­tion is broad­er use of adap­tive study de­signs. In con­ven­tion­al clin­i­cal tri­als, the study pro­to­col is carved in stone at the out­set, and you ex­e­cute that de­sign with no de­vi­a­tions from start to fin­ish. In adap­tive tri­als, you can build flex­i­bil­i­ty in­to the pro­to­col, which al­lows you to change key pa­ra­me­ters of the study in re­sponse to in­com­ing da­ta.

Adap­tive de­signs are typ­i­cal­ly em­ployed in Phase II tri­als, where re­sults from a small group of pa­tients are used to de­cide if a much larg­er Phase III study is war­rant­ed. “Adap­tive” doesn’t mean you can make any change that seems ad­van­ta­geous—the op­tions need to be spec­i­fied in ad­vance. But if the ear­ly da­ta con­form to pre-es­tab­lished cri­te­ria, you can al­ter the size or du­ra­tion of the study, drop or add dos­es to en­sure more pa­tients re­ceive the op­ti­mal dose, or bring in more of the types of pa­tients who seem to be re­spond­ing well to the test drug.

Adap­tive mod­i­fi­ca­tions don’t change the prop­er­ties of the drug mol­e­cule be­ing test­ed, but they im­prove the odds of test­ing it in the right pa­tients, at the right dose, for the right du­ra­tion to show its risks and ben­e­fits. Greater clar­i­ty can re­duce the risk of false-pos­i­tive or false-neg­a­tive re­sults. A false pos­i­tive — think­ing a drug works when it doesn’t — can lead a com­pa­ny to in­vest heav­i­ly in a large study that will ul­ti­mate­ly fail to de­liv­er what pa­tients need. A false neg­a­tive can cast doubt on the val­ue of a ther­a­py and ter­mi­nate de­vel­op­ment of an in­ves­ti­ga­tion­al drug with re­al ben­e­fits for pa­tients Ul­ti­mate­ly, adap­tive de­signs can al­low us to more read­i­ly achieve a per­son­al­ized med­i­cine, in which pa­tients most like­ly to ben­e­fit from a drug are the ones to re­ceive it.

The ba­sic idea of adap­tive clin­i­cal tri­al de­signs isn’t new — clin­i­cal sci­en­tists from acad­e­mia and in­dus­try have been study­ing this con­cept for two decades. But for much of that time, these meth­ods were seen as too un­proven and risky. Sev­er­al years ago, Am­gen de­cid­ed there was more risk in not adopt­ing these new ap­proach­es, which have the po­ten­tial to de­liv­er more suc­cess­ful stud­ies more quick­ly and with low­er de­vel­op­ment costs.

In con­ven­tion­al tri­als, this trio of pri­or­i­ties — cost, speed, and like­li­hood of suc­cess — in­volve trade-offs that make it hard to pur­sue all three goals si­mul­ta­ne­ous­ly. For ex­am­ple, to boost the like­li­hood of suc­cess, you nor­mal­ly need to col­lect more da­ta from more pa­tients, which trans­lates in­to added time and ex­pense. But im­ple­ment­ed cor­rect­ly, adap­tive de­signs can po­ten­tial­ly avoid these trade­offs and fa­cil­i­tate small­er and faster tri­als that re­veal a drug’s true po­ten­tial with more pre­ci­sion.

Two de­vel­op­ments are ac­cel­er­at­ing the trend to­ward adap­tive de­signs. First, the FDA is en­cour­ag­ing clin­i­cal in­no­va­tion and part­ner­ing with com­pa­nies that are will­ing to try new ap­proach­es. For ex­am­ple, Am­gen has an in­ves­ti­ga­tion­al ther­a­py for lu­pus, efavaleukin al­fa (for­mer­ly AMG 592), which is par­tic­i­pat­ing in the FDA’s Com­plex In­no­v­a­tive Tri­al De­sign (CID) Pi­lot Pro­gram. We plan to use an adap­tive de­sign to work to ze­ro in on the op­ti­mal dose and to en­sure more pa­tients re­ceive this op­ti­mal dose to in­crease the like­li­hood that the right dose is se­lect­ed for fu­ture stud­ies.

A re­lat­ed de­vel­op­ment has been greater ac­cess to re­al-world da­ta and ad­vances in com­pu­ta­tion­al meth­ods that use these da­ta to sim­u­late clin­i­cal tri­als. Sim­u­la­tions can’t pre­dict how a drug will per­form in an ac­tu­al clin­i­cal study, but they can show how dif­fer­ent study de­signs are ex­pect­ed to per­form un­der dif­fer­ent sce­nar­ios.

In de­sign­ing any tri­al, you need to make as­sump­tions about a whole range of vari­ables — the ef­fect size of the drug you are test­ing; how long it takes for this ef­fect to emerge; the re­sponse rate to the place­bo or com­para­tor drugs, etc. For our study in lu­pus pa­tients, we ran mil­lions of sim­u­la­tions, plug­ging in dif­fer­ent val­ues for these vari­ables and oth­ers, with the goal of find­ing the de­sign op­tions most like­ly to yield re­li­able re­sults.

In­no­v­a­tive de­signs ex­tend to tri­als where the drug it­self is the el­e­ment that is open to mod­i­fi­ca­tion. The COVID-19 pan­dem­ic has un­der­scored the im­por­tance of speed in drug de­vel­op­ment, and adap­tive plat­form tri­als pro­vide a way to rapid­ly test mul­ti­ple po­ten­tial ther­a­pies us­ing a sin­gle pro­to­col.

As part of the COVID R&D Al­liance, Am­gen is part­ner­ing with Take­da and UCB in the COM­MU­NI­TY study, which will ini­tial­ly test three po­ten­tial treat­ments for pa­tients hos­pi­tal­ized with COVID-19. The de­sign is ef­fi­cient be­cause it us­es same en­try cri­te­ria for all agents be­ing eval­u­at­ed, and it em­ploys a com­mon con­trol arm and a com­mon fu­til­i­ty bar to eval­u­ate for ef­fi­ca­cy. Test drugs can be dropped from the tri­al if they show lack of ef­fi­ca­cy, and new agents can be in­tro­duced quick­ly to take ad­van­tage of the es­tab­lished pro­to­col.

Am­gen is us­ing a sim­i­lar con­cept to in­ves­ti­gate so­tora­sib, a po­ten­tial new tar­get­ed ther­a­py for pa­tients with non-small cell lung can­cer who car­ry a mu­tat­ed gene known as KRAS G12C. Many of these pa­tients have failed to re­spond to stan­dard ther­a­pies, so there is an ur­gent need to eval­u­ate oth­er po­ten­tial treat­ment op­tions rapid­ly. To ac­cel­er­ate test­ing of so­tora­sib in com­bi­na­tion with oth­er can­cer ther­a­pies, we es­tab­lished a 10-arm mas­ter pro­to­col with a high­ly flex­i­ble de­sign. The goal is to de­tect any pos­i­tive ef­fi­ca­cy sig­nals as ear­ly as pos­si­ble, so that the most promis­ing com­bi­na­tions can be quick­ly iden­ti­fied and ex­pand­ed in­to larg­er stud­ies.

Clin­i­cal in­no­va­tion isn’t on­ly a smarter way to do drug de­vel­op­ment, it is bet­ter for pa­tients as well. The soon­er we can de­ter­mine whether an in­ves­ti­ga­tion­al ther­a­py or spe­cif­ic dose works or not, the soon­er we can ei­ther ad­vance that ther­a­py or stop test­ing it in pa­tients. Speed and clar­i­ty are im­por­tant in re­search, but even more im­por­tant to pa­tients search­ing for the right treat­ment for their dis­ease.

Qual­i­ty Con­trol in Cell and Gene Ther­a­py – What’s Re­al­ly at Stake?

In early 2021, Bluebird Bio was forced to suspend clinical trials of its gene therapy for sickle cell disease after two patients in the trial developed cancer. As company scientists rushed to assess whether there was any causal link between the therapy and the cancer cases, Bluebird’s stock value plummeted – as did those of multiple other biopharma companies developing similar therapies.

While investigations concluded that the gene therapy was unlikely to have caused cancer, investors and the public may be more skittish regarding the safety of gene and cell therapies after this episode. This recent example highlights how delicate the fields of cell and gene therapy remain today, even as they show great promise.

Law pro­fes­sors call for FDA to dis­close all safe­ty and ef­fi­ca­cy da­ta for drugs

Back in early 2018 when Scott Gottlieb led the FDA, there was a moment when the agency seemed poised to release redacted complete response letters and other previously undisclosed data. But that initiative never gained steam.

Now, a growing chorus of researchers are finding that a dearth of public data on clinical trials and pharmaceuticals means industry and the FDA cannot be held accountable, two law professors from Yale and New York University write in an article published Wednesday in the California Law Review.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

Unlock this article along with other benefits by subscribing to one of our paid plans.

Novavax CEO Stanley Erck at the White House in 2020 (Andrew Harnik, AP Images)

As fears mount over J&J and As­traZeneca, No­vavax en­ters a shaky spot­light

As concerns rise around the J&J and AstraZeneca vaccines, global attention is increasingly turning to the little, 33-year-old, productless, bankruptcy-flirting biotech that could: Novavax.

In the now 16-month race to develop and deploy Covid-19 vaccines, Novavax has at times seemed like the pandemic’s most unsuspecting frontrunner and at times like an overhyped also-ran. Although they started the pandemic with only enough cash to last 6 months, they leveraged old connections and believers into $2 billion and emerged last summer with data experts said surpassed Pfizer and Moderna. They unveiled plans to quickly scale to 2 billion doses. Then they couldn’t even make enough material to run their US trial and watched four other companies beat them to the finish line.

FDA of­fers scathing re­view of Emer­gent plan­t's san­i­tary con­di­tions, em­ploy­ee train­ing af­ter halt­ing pro­duc­tion

The FDA wrapped up its inspection of Emergent’s troubled vaccine manufacturing plant in Baltimore on Tuesday, after halting production there on Monday. By Wednesday morning, the agency already released a series of scathing observations on the cross contamination, sanitary issues and lack of staff training that caused the contract manufacturer to dispose of millions of AstraZeneca and J&J vaccine doses.

Brad Bolzon (Versant)

Ver­sant pulls the wraps off of near­ly $1B in 3 new funds out to build the next fleet of biotech star­tups. And this new gen­er­a­tion is built for speed

Brad Bolzon has an apology to offer by way of introducing a set of 3 new funds that together pack a $950 million wallop in new biotech creation and growth.

“I want to apologize,” says the Versant chairman and managing partner, laughing a little in the intro, “that we don’t have anything fancy or flashy to tell you about our new fund. Same team, around the same amount of capital, same investment strategy. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

But then there’s the flip side, where everything has changed. Or at least speeded into a relative blur. Here’s Bolzon:

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

Unlock this article along with other benefits by subscribing to one of our paid plans.

Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) (Graeme Sloan/Sipa USA/Sipa via AP Images)

Sen­a­tors to NIH: Do more to pro­tect US bio­med­ical re­search from for­eign in­flu­ence

Although Thursday’s Senate health committee hearing was focused on how foreign countries and adversaries might be trying to steal or negatively influence biomedical research in the US, the only country mentioned by the senators and expert witnesses was China.

Committee chair Patty Murray (D-WA) made clear in her opening remarks that the US cannot “let the few instances of bad actors” overshadow the hard work of the many immigrant researchers in the US, many of which have won Nobel prizes for their work. But she also said, “There is more the NIH can be doing here.”

Jenny Rooke (Genoa Ventures)

Ear­ly Zymer­gen in­vestor Jen­ny Rooke re­flects on 'chimeras' in biotech, what it takes to spot a $500M gem

When Jenny Rooke first heard of Zymergen back in 2014, she knew she was looking at something different and exciting. The Emeryville, CA biotech held the promise of blending biology and technology to solve a huge unmet need for cost-effective chemicals — of all things — and a stellar founding team to boot.

But back then, West Coast venture capitalists didn’t see in Zymergen the one thing they were looking for in a winning biotech: therapeutic potential. Rooke, however, saw an opportunity and made her bets. Seven years later, that bet is paying off in a big way.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 107,500+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Saurabh Saha at Endpoints News' #BIO19

On the heels of $250M launch, Centes­sa barges ahead with an IPO to fu­el its 10-in-1 Medicxi pipeline

Francesco De Rubertis made no secret of IPO plans for Centessa, his 10-in-1 legacy play. Barely two months later, the S-1 is in.

The hot-off-the-press filing depicts the same grand vision that the longtime VC touted when he did the rounds in February: Take the asset-centric mindset that he’s been preaching at Medicxi over the years, and roll up a bunch of biotech upstarts, with unrelated risk profiles, into 1 pharma company that can carry on the development at scale.

Emma Walmsley, GlaxoSmithKline CEO (Kevin Dietsch/Pool via CNP/Alamy)

Glax­o­SmithK­line hus­tles the 7th PD-1 past the fin­ish line with Jem­per­li. But how big will up­take be?

Everything came up sevens for GlaxoSmithKline on Thursday as the pharma notched the seventh PD-1 approval seven years after the first such drugs were OK’ed in Keytruda and Opdivo. But will it bring GSK good fortune?

The FDA granted accelerated approval to dostarlimab, to be branded Jemperli, to treat recurrent or advanced endometrial cancer in a specific subset of patients following platinum-based chemo. It’s a drug that came to GSK through its buyout of Tesaro, which it snapped up for $5.1 billion back in December 2018.