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 Parkinson’s disease, a multi-arm platform trial must also specifically consider the heterogeneous nature of the disease, 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 Parkinson’s disease 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 predefined subgroups of interest, alongside evaluating the impact of each treatment on the broader population of Parkinson’s disease 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

Investigating trial design variability in trials of disease-modifying therapies in Parkinson’s disease: a scoping review protocol

Introduction Parkinson’s disease (PD) is a debilitating neurological disorder for which the identification of disease-modifying interventions represents a major unmet need. Diverse trial designs have attempted to mitigate challenges of population heterogeneity, efficacious symptomatic therapy and lack of outcome measures that are objective and sensitive to change in a disease modification setting. It is not clear whether consensus is emerging regarding trial design choices. Here, we report the protocol of a scoping review that will provide a contemporary update on trial design variability for disease-modifying interventions in PD. Methods and analysis The Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome and Study design (PICOS) framework will be used to structure the review, inform study selection and analysis. The databases MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane and the trial registry ClinicalTrials.gov will be systematically searched to identify published studies and registry entries in English. Two independent reviewers will screen study titles, abstracts and full text for eligibility, with disagreements being resolved through discussion or by a third reviewer where necessary. Data on general study information, eligibility criteria, outcome measures, trial design, retention and statistically significant findings will be extracted into a standardised form. Extracted data will be presented in a descriptive analysis. We will report our findings using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Scoping Review extension. Ethics and dissemination This work will provide an overview of variation and emerging trends in trial design choices for disease-modifying trials of PD. Due to the nature of this study, there are no ethical or safety considerations. We plan to publish our findings in a peer-reviewed journal

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.</p

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

Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement in the Development of a Platform Clinical Trial for Parkinson's Disease: An Evaluation Protocol

BACKGROUND: Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in the design of trials is important, as participant experience critically impacts delivery. The Edmond J Safra Accelerating Clinical Trials in PD (EJS ACT-PD) initiative is a UK consortium designing a platform trial for disease modifying therapies in PD. OBJECTIVE: The integration of PPIE in all aspects of trial design and its evaluation throughout the project. METHODS: PwP and care partners were recruited to a PPIE working group (WG) via UK Parkinson's charities, investigator patient groups and participants of a Delphi study on trial design. They are supported by charity representatives, trial delivery experts, researchers and core project team members. PPIE is fully embedded within the consortium's five other WGs and steering group. The group's terms of reference, processes for effective working and PPIE evaluation were co-developed with PPIE contributors. RESULTS: 11 PwP and 4 care partners have supported the PPIE WG and contributed to the development of processes for effective working. A mixed methods research-in-action study is ongoing to evaluate PPIE within the consortium. This includes the Patient Engagement in Research Scale -a quantitative PPIE quality measure; semi-structured interviews -identifying areas for improvement and overall impressions of involvement; process fidelity- recording adherence; project documentation review - identifying impact of PPIE on project outputs. CONCLUSIONS: We provide a practical example of PPIE in complex projects. Evaluating feasibility, experiences and impact of PPIE involvement in EJS ACT-PD will inform similar programs on effective strategies. This will help enable future patient-centered research

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 Parkinson’s disease, a multiarm platform trial must also specifically consider the heterogeneous nature of the disease, 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 Parkinson’s disease 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 predefined subgroups of interest, alongside evaluating the impact of each treatment on the broader population of Parkinson’s disease 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.</p

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 Parkinson’s disease, a multiarm platform trial must also specifically consider the heterogeneous nature of the disease, 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 Parkinson’s disease 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 predefined subgroups of interest, alongside evaluating the impact of each treatment on the broader population of Parkinson’s disease 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.</p