Towards a multi-arm multi-stage platform trial of disease modifying approaches in Parkinson's disease

An increase in the efficiency of clinical trial conduct has been successfully demonstrated in the oncology field, by the use of multi-arm, multi-stage trials allowing the evaluation of multiple therapeutic candidates simultaneously, and seamless recruitment to Phase 3 for those candidates passing an interim signal of efficacy. Replicating this complex innovative trial design in diseases such as Parkinson's disease is appealing but in addition to the challenges associated with any trial assessing a single potentially disease modifying intervention in PD, a multi-arm platform trial must also specifically consider the heterogeneous nature of PD, alongside the desire to potentially test multiple treatments with different mechanisms of action. In a multi-arm trial, there is a need to appropriately stratify treatment arms to ensure each are comparable with a shared placebo/standard of care arm, however in PD there may be a preference to enrich an arm with a subgroup of patients that may be most likely to respond to a specific treatment approach. The solution to this conundrum lies in having clearly defined criteria for inclusion in each treatment arm as well as an analysis plan that takes account of pre-defined subgroups of interest, alongside evaluating the impact of each treatment on the broader population of PD patients. Beyond this, there must be robust processes of treatment selection, and consensus derived measures to confirm target engagement and interim assessments of efficacy, as well as consideration of the infrastructure needed to support recruitment, and the long-term funding and sustainability of the platform. This has to incorporate the diverse priorities of clinicians, triallists, regulatory authorities and above all the views of people with Parkinson's disease

Embedding Patient Input in Outcome Measures for Long-Term Disease-Modifying Parkinson Disease Trials

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials of disease-modifying therapies in PD require valid and responsive primary outcome measures that are relevant to patients. OBJECTIVES: The objective is to select a patient-centered primary outcome measure for disease-modification trials over three or more years. METHODS: Experts in Parkinson's disease (PD), statistics, and health economics and patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) representatives reviewed and discussed potential outcome measures. A larger PPIE group provided input on their key considerations for such an endpoint. Feasibility, clinimetric properties, and relevance to patients were assessed and synthesized. RESULTS: Although initial considerations favored the Movement Disorder Society-sponsored revision of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) Part III in Off, feasibility, PPIE input, and clinimetric properties supported the MDS-UPDRS Part II. However, PPIE input also highlighted the importance of nonmotor symptoms, especially in the longer term, leading to the selection of the MDS-UPDRS Parts I + II sum score. CONCLUSIONS: The MDS-UPDRS Parts I + II sum score was chosen as the primary outcome for large 3-year disease-modification trials. © 2023 The Authors. Movement Disorders published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society

Outcome Measures for Disease-Modifying Trials in Parkinson's Disease: Consensus Paper by the EJS ACT-PD Multi-Arm Multi-Stage Trial Initiative

BACKGROUND: Multi-arm, multi-stage (MAMS) platform trials can accelerate the identification of disease-modifying treatments for Parkinson's disease (PD) but there is no current consensus on the optimal outcome measures (OM) for this approach. OBJECTIVE: To provide an up-to-date inventory of OM for disease-modifying PD trials, and a framework for future selection of OM for such trials. METHODS: As part of the Edmond J Safra Accelerating Clinical Trials in Parkinson Disease (EJS ACT-PD) initiative, an expert group with Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) representatives' input reviewed and evaluated available evidence on OM for potential use in trials to delay progression of PD. Each OM was ranked based on aspects such as validity, sensitivity to change, participant burden and practicality for a multi-site trial. Review of evidence and expert opinion led to the present inventory. RESULTS: An extensive inventory of OM was created, divided into: general, motor and non-motor scales, diaries and fluctuation questionnaires, cognitive, disability and health-related quality of life, capability, quantitative motor, wearable and digital, combined, resource use, imaging and wet biomarkers, and milestone-based. A framework for evaluation of OM is presented to update the inventory in the future. PPIE input highlighted the need for OM which reflect their experience of disease progression and are applicable to diverse populations and disease stages. CONCLUSION: We present a range of OM, classified according to a transparent framework, to aid selection of OM for disease-modifying PD trials, whilst allowing for inclusion or re-classification of relevant OM as new evidence emerges

Towards a multi-arm multi-stage platform trial of disease modifying approaches in Parkinson's disease.

An increase in the efficiency of clinical trial conduct has been successfully demonstrated in the oncology field, by the use of multi-arm, multi-stage trials allowing the evaluation of multiple therapeutic candidates simultaneously, and seamless recruitment to Phase 3 for those candidates passing an interim signal of efficacy. Replicating this complex innovative trial design in diseases such as Parkinson's disease is appealing but in addition to the challenges associated with any trial assessing a single potentially disease modifying intervention in PD, a multi-arm platform trial must also specifically consider the heterogeneous nature of PD, alongside the desire to potentially test multiple treatments with different mechanisms of action. In a multi-arm trial, there is a need to appropriately stratify treatment arms to ensure each are comparable with a shared placebo/standard of care arm, however in PD there may be a preference to enrich an arm with a subgroup of patients that may be most likely to respond to a specific treatment approach. The solution to this conundrum lies in having clearly defined criteria for inclusion in each treatment arm as well as an analysis plan that takes account of pre-defined subgroups of interest, alongside evaluating the impact of each treatment on the broader population of PD patients. Beyond this, there must be robust processes of treatment selection, and consensus derived measures to confirm target engagement and interim assessments of efficacy, as well as consideration of the infrastructure needed to support recruitment, and the long-term funding and sustainability of the platform. This has to incorporate the diverse priorities of clinicians, triallists, regulatory authorities and above all the views of people with Parkinson's disease

Towards a multi-arm multi-stage platform trial of disease modifying approaches in Parkinson's disease.

An increase in the efficiency of clinical trial conduct has been successfully demonstrated in the oncology field, by the use of multi-arm, multi-stage trials allowing the evaluation of multiple therapeutic candidates simultaneously, and seamless recruitment to Phase 3 for those candidates passing an interim signal of efficacy. Replicating this complex innovative trial design in diseases such as Parkinson's disease is appealing but in addition to the challenges associated with any trial assessing a single potentially disease modifying intervention in PD, a multi-arm platform trial must also specifically consider the heterogeneous nature of PD, alongside the desire to potentially test multiple treatments with different mechanisms of action. In a multi-arm trial, there is a need to appropriately stratify treatment arms to ensure each are comparable with a shared placebo/standard of care arm, however in PD there may be a preference to enrich an arm with a subgroup of patients that may be most likely to respond to a specific treatment approach. The solution to this conundrum lies in having clearly defined criteria for inclusion in each treatment arm as well as an analysis plan that takes account of pre-defined subgroups of interest, alongside evaluating the impact of each treatment on the broader population of PD patients. Beyond this, there must be robust processes of treatment selection, and consensus derived measures to confirm target engagement and interim assessments of efficacy, as well as consideration of the infrastructure needed to support recruitment, and the long-term funding and sustainability of the platform. This has to incorporate the diverse priorities of clinicians, triallists, regulatory authorities and above all the views of people with Parkinson's disease.Edmond J Safra Foundation

Embedding Patient Input in Outcome Measures for Long‐Term Disease‐Modifying Parkinson Disease Trials

Publication status: PublishedBackground: Clinical trials of disease‐modifying therapies in PD require valid and responsive primary outcome measures that are relevant to patients. Objectives: The objective is to select a patient‐centered primary outcome measure for disease‐modification trials over three or more years. Methods: Experts in Parkinson's disease (PD), statistics, and health economics and patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) representatives reviewed and discussed potential outcome measures. A larger PPIE group provided input on their key considerations for such an endpoint. Feasibility, clinimetric properties, and relevance to patients were assessed and synthesized. Results: Although initial considerations favored the Movement Disorder Society‐sponsored revision of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS‐UPDRS) Part III in Off, feasibility, PPIE input, and clinimetric properties supported the MDS‐UPDRS Part II. However, PPIE input also highlighted the importance of nonmotor symptoms, especially in the longer term, leading to the selection of the MDS‐UPDRS Parts I + II sum score. Conclusions: The MDS‐UPDRS Parts I + II sum score was chosen as the primary outcome for large 3‐year disease‐modification trials. © 2023 The Authors. Movement Disorders published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society

Outcome Measures for Disease-Modifying Trials in Parkinson's Disease: Consensus Paper by the EJS ACT-PD Multi-Arm Multi-Stage Trial Initiative.

BACKGROUND: Multi-arm, multi-stage (MAMS) platform trials can accelerate the identification of disease-modifying treatments for Parkinson's disease (PD) but there is no current consensus on the optimal outcome measures (OM) for this approach. OBJECTIVE: To provide an up-to-date inventory of OM for disease-modifying PD trials, and a framework for future selection of OM for such trials. METHODS: As part of the Edmond J Safra Accelerating Clinical Trials in Parkinson Disease (EJS ACT-PD) initiative, an expert group with Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) representatives' input reviewed and evaluated available evidence on OM for potential use in trials to delay progression of PD. Each OM was ranked based on aspects such as validity, sensitivity to change, participant burden and practicality for a multi-site trial. Review of evidence and expert opinion led to the present inventory. RESULTS: An extensive inventory of OM was created, divided into: general, motor and non-motor scales, diaries and fluctuation questionnaires, cognitive, disability and health-related quality of life, capability, quantitative motor, wearable and digital, combined, resource use, imaging and wet biomarkers, and milestone-based. A framework for evaluation of OM is presented to update the inventory in the future. PPIE input highlighted the need for OM which reflect their experience of disease progression and are applicable to diverse populations and disease stages. CONCLUSION: We present a range of OM, classified according to a transparent framework, to aid selection of OM for disease-modifying PD trials, whilst allowing for inclusion or re-classification of relevant OM as new evidence emerges