EARLY-STAGE CLINICAL DEVELOPMENT


A hypothetical dose-escalation study To understand the importance of scenario planning as a risk-management tool within study designs, we can make several assumptions regarding a hypothetical first-in-human dose- escalation study that will utilise a traditional 3+3 trial design: • Five dose levels will be investigated • A 14-day screening period will apply • study drug to be administered every 14 days


• A 28-day dose limiting toxicity (DLT) window will apply from first study drug administration


• Dose escalation requires the approval of a safety review committee (SRC)


• Data entry and preparation for the SRC meeting is seven days


• First subject should be observed for 16 days (e.g., 48 hours after the second dose of study drug) for the occurrence of DLTs prior to the second subject being administered the study drug


• Subsequent subjects in dose escalation must be dosed at least 48) hours apart, with an average recruitment rate of one subject per week (recruitment pauses during DLT window and during SRC adjudication)


• No screen failures • No modification of dose escalation based on DLT observations


To keep things simple, let’s just consider the two scenarios in the table below. The first scenario assumes that no DLTs are observed during the dose escalation, and therefore the study progresses quickly with


three subjects treated at each dose level, for a total of 15 subjects.


The second scenario assumes that one DLT is observed in one of the three subjects treated at each dose level in the last week of the DLT window. As required by the rules of the 3+3 schema, each dose level is therefore required to expand to a total of six subjects. We have also assumed that no further DLTs are observed in the additional subjects recruited at each dose level, thereby allowing dose escalation to complete with six subjects at each of the five dose levels, for a total of 30 subjects. While some may argue that the likelihood of


every dose level experiencing a DLT in the last week of the DLT window is an extreme example, it is a great example to illustrate the importance of scenario planning!


Primary implications It doesn’t take much more than a curious glance to identify the primary implications to the study delivery between the two identified scenarios. First, the dose escalation timeline has increased from 44 weeks to 84 weeks; second, the number of subjects has increased from 15 to 30; and last, although not identified in this simplified model, a significant increase to costs (both investigator grants and CRO change orders) is very likely. While your consultant/CRO will be able to


assist you to quantify the primary implications (time and cost) between multiple scenarios (recruitment rates, number of sites, incidence of DLTs, etc), the consultant/CRO is not well-placed to scenario plan secondary implications. These secondary implications are often internal to the small and emerging biotech and not as well


Scenario 1


Dose A – First subject consented Dose B – First subject consented Dose C – First subject consented Dose D – First subject consented Dose E – First subject consented Dose E – Last subject consented 


No DLTs per dose level Week 1


Week 11 Week 21 Week 31 Week 41 Week 44


40 weeks Outsourcing in Clinical Trials Handbook | 83 Scenario 2


One (1) DLT per dose level Week 1


Week 19 Week 37 Week 55 Week 73 Week 84


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100