Upload
camdyn
View
52
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
TB new treatments and new methodological challenges. Dr Corinne Merle. Outline. C urrent pipeline of new TB drugs Methodological challenges for designing TB trials (using the OFLOTUB project as an example) Challenges in TB regimen development. TB drug development: to set the scene. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
TB new treatments and new methodological challenges
Dr Corinne Merle
Outline
Current pipeline of new TB drugs
Methodological challenges for designing TB trials (using the OFLOTUB project as an example)
Challenges in TB regimen development
TB drug development: to set the scene
1882
Description of the agent of TB
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
1943Streptomycine (S)
1952Isoniazid (H)
1954Pyrazinamide (Z)
1961Ethambutol (E)
1963Rifampicin (R)
1952: 1st regimen: S/PAS/H
18-24 months therapy
1970s: short course regimen: S/H/R or S/H/Z -9 months
therapy
1980s: modern short-course regimen:
E (S) H R Z6 months of therapy
1946: 1st drug: S Montotherapy led to S resistance
2010
TB drug development: to set the scene
1882
Description of the agent of TB
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
1943Streptomycine (S)
1952Isoniazid (H)
1954Pyrazinamide (Z)
1961Ethambutol (E)
1963Rifampicin (R)
1952: 1st regimen: S/PAS/H
18-24 months therapy
1970s: short course regimen: S/H/R or S/H/Z -9 months
therapy
1980s: modern short-course regimen:
E (S) H R Z6 months of therapy
1946: 1st drug: S Montotherapy led to S resistance
Effective treatment: 95% of treatment efficacyBut... 6 months treatment regimen problem of treatment adherence Emergence of MDRTB 8.8 millions new TB cases in 2010
2010
Development pipeline for new TB drugs Shortening TB treatment recognised as a major target for the improvement of
TB control Since the late 90s: new agents discovered Significant target diversity and potential for better combinations
Development pipeline for new TB drugs
Drugs at a Phase III stage Both gatifloxacin and moxifloxacin have
emerged as candidates from the 8-methoxyfluoroquinolones drug class and are proposed for shortened treatment of pan-susceptible TB.
Gatifloxacin was chosen based on its bactericidal activity and its generic status
flotub
35 years after the East African/British Medical Research Council trials, 3 new drugs currently assessed in large Phase III trials RIFAQUIN trial (Rifapentine) REMoxTB trial (Moxifloxacin) OFLOTUB trial (Gatifloxacin)
Gatifloxacin Product Development Plan
Pre-Clinical Toxicology studies Phase I Pharmacokinetic study (J Antimicrob Chemother.
2007 Dec;60(6):1398-401)
Phase II SSCC study (Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2008 Feb;12(2):128-38. ).
Phase III pivotal trial with a nested PK/PD
also called OFLOTUB
flotub
More than 10 years in
development
Overview of OFLOTUB project: Phase III/PK
Objective
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of 4-month gatifloxacin containing regimen compared to the standard WHO-recommended 6-month regimen
Study design A randomized (1:1), open-label, non-inferiority, multi-centre controlled trial with
a nested Pharmacokinetic (PK/PD) study
PatientsNewly diagnosed microbiologically confirmed TB sensitive adults patients in 5 countries in Africa
flotub
flotub
Follow-up 2 years after completion of TB treatment Patients seen at 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18 and 24 months after treatment Clinical examination, 2 sputum samples collected for smear & culture
Treatment Test arm : 2 months GHRZ / 2 months GHR Control arm: 2 months EHRZ / 4 months RH Daily DOT during the 1st 2 months of treatment, Weekly drug delivery during the continuation
phase
Overview of OFLOTUB project: Phase III/PK
flotub
Trial setting and OFLOTUB partners
Institute for Research & Development (Marseille)
PNLTB (Dakar, Senegal)
St George’s Hospital Medical School, (London)
KEMRI (Nairobi, Kenya)
Tropical Medical Institute (Antwerp)
Hôpital Raymond Poincaré (Paris)
PNLTB (Cotonou, Benin)
PNLTB (Conakry, Guinea)
MRC SA (Durban, South Africa)
WHO / TDR
(Geneva)
LUPIN Pharma
(India)
Thamassat University
(Bangkok)
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (London)
flotub
Trial setting and OFLOTUB partners
Institute for Research & Development (Marseille)
PNLTB (Dakar, Senegal)
St George’s Hospital Medical School, (London)
KEMRI (Nairobi, Kenya)
Tropical Medical Institute (Antwerp)
Hôpital Raymond Poincaré (Paris)
PNLTB (Cotonou, Benin)
PNLTB (Conakry, Guinea)
MRC SA (Durban, South Africa)
WHO / TDR
(Geneva)
LUPIN Pharma
(India)
Thamassat University
(Bangkok)
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (London)
flotub
Trial setting and OFLOTUB partners
Institute for Research & Development (Marseille)
PNLTB (Dakar, Senegal)
St George’s Hospital Medical School, (London)
KEMRI (Nairobi, Kenya)
Tropical Medical Institute (Antwerp)
Hôpital Raymond Poincaré (Paris)
PNLTB (Cotonou, Benin)
PNLTB (Conakry, Guinea)
MRC SA (Durban, South Africa)
WHO / TDR
(Geneva)Thamassat University
(Bangkok)
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (London) LUPIN Pharma
(India)
flotub
Trial setting and OFLOTUB partners
Institute for Research & Development (Marseille)
St George’s Hospital Medical School, (London)
KEMRI (Nairobi, Kenya)
Tropical Medical Institute (Antwerp)
Hôpital Raymond Poincaré (Paris)
PNLTB (Cotonou, Benin)
PNLTB (Conakry, Guinea)
MRC SA (Durban, South Africa)
WHO / TDR
(Geneva)Thamassat University
(Bangkok)
PNLTB (Dakar, Senegal)
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (London) LUPIN Pharma
(India)
flotub
Trial setting and OFLOTUB partners
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (London)
Institute for Research & Development (Marseille)
St George’s Hospital Medical School, (London)
KEMRI (Nairobi, Kenya)
Tropical Medical Institute (Antwerp)
Hôpital Raymond Poincaré (Paris)
PNLTB (Cotonou, Benin)
PNLTB (Conakry, Guinea)
MRC SA (Durban, South Africa)
WHO / TDR
(Geneva)Thamassat University
(Bangkok)
PNLTB (Dakar, Senegal)
LUPIN Pharma
(India)
1836 patients recruited 316 in Benin, 452 in Guinea, 200 in Kenya,
358 in Senegal and 510 in South Africa Last patient completed treatment end of
April 2009 Last patient last visit: April 2011 (i.e. 24
months of follow-up following the end of treatment)
Percentage of patients LTFU estimated to be around 10 %
First results should be released in November 2012
Progress status
Overview of OFLOTUB project: Phase III/PK
Non-inferiority design
flotub
Rationale for Choice of Non-inferiority design
Highly efficient current TB treatment (95% cure rate) Unlikely that a new regimen will demonstrate superiority Interest lies with showing whether a new regimen is not inferior
Non-inferiority design is an excellent choice for current TB sensitive drug development (A. Nunn et al, Tuberculosis(2008))
Non-inferiority design
flotub
Rationale for Choice of Non-inferiority design
Highly efficient current TB treatment (95% cure rate) Unlikely that a new regimen will demonstrate superiority Interest lies with showing whether a new regimen is not inferior
NI design is an excellent choice for current TB sensitive drug development (A. Nunn et al, Tuberculosis(2008))
Implication of NI design on trial population to be analysed Intention-To-Treat (ITT) Vs Per-Protocol (PP) ITT approach tends to minimise differences by including protocol deviations PP is biased because not including all randomised patients
In fact, both are equally important and require similar conclusions in order to support final result (Piaggio G, Elbourne DR, et al. JAMA 2006;295(10):1152-60.)
Choice & measurement of the endpoints
flotub
In 1947, endpoint of BMRC Streptomycin trial: Survival or Chest Xray
Nowadays, bacteriological endpoints TB recurrence main outcome of interest But restricted to patients cured at the end of the treatment
A composite “unfavourable outcome” endpoint including: - treatment failure - Death - TB recurrences
Choice & measurement of the endpoints Bacteriological diagnosis: Cultures Solid Vs liquid media False-positive cultures results from
Misidentification of the strain Laboratory cross-contamination Clerical error reporting More than 3 % of false positive (Burman et al Clin Infect Dis 2000,
31(6):1390-1395)
Necessity to take 2 sputum samples per visit, per patient to minimise unavailability or false positive culture results
Solid medium is the gold standard
Recurrence, relapse and re-infection
flotub
Relapse : Reactivation of the original infection Re-infection: Infection with a new TB strain Effective treatment should prevent relapse but have no effect on re-
infection Context of TB and HIV, proportion of re-infection can be high Non-inferiority design context
Necessity to differentiate relapse from re-infection using molecular method (e.g. MIRU-VNTR)
Recurrence considered to allow comparison with previous trials
Length of patient follow-up
flotub
For a TB regimen to be acceptable: • Patient must convert to culture negative by
the end of treatment• most importantly, it must demonstrate
clearance of bacteria by keeping patients relapse-free
How long is long enough?
When to start the clock…after the end of treatment (equal follow-up between arms)? or post randomization (unequal follow-up)?
Conservative approach: 24 months after the end of the treatment
In the light of BMRC trials: 1 year follow-up could be enough (Nunn AJ et al. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2010, 14(2):241-242)
Discussion on when to start the clock (even more important for shorter treatment regimen trial)
Blinded design versus Open-label design
Options i) non-blinded design: an arm with 4 months of test regimen vs an arm with 6
months of standard regimen ii) blinded design : 2-months placebo added to the test arm
Discussion Double blinding design favoured in many trial situations For a shorter regimen, one of the mechanisms for treatment efficacy might
be better adherence to treatment Aspect not captured in blinded design Pro and Cons
Requirements if Open-label designLaboratory staff are blinded to the treatment regimen the patient is receivingStrict & objective endpoint definitions and a blinded endpoint committee
Sample size calculation
Sample size calculation for a constant 2.5% 1-sided level of significance and variable values for primary outcome percentage, power and delta
‘Event’ percentage in control group
Number per group for given delta and power
Delta=3% Delta=5% Delta=6%
80% 90% 80% 90% 80% 90%
5% 828 1110 298 399 207 277
10% 1570 2102 565 757 392 525
15% 2224 2977 801 1072 556 744
Sample size calculation
OFLOTUB
Major Efficacy Outcome “Unfavourable” events
% events in control arm 20%
1-sided significance level 2.5%
Power 80%
Non-inferiority margin δ 6%
# of patients overall 1,394 (2 arms)
Adjustment for non assessable patients 15%
Grand total 1,640
Importance of being powered for both ITT and PP analysis
TB Drug development challenges
Objective is to get new TB treatment regimen not only new TB drug Novel 3-drug combinations that have potential to:
Shorten treatment to 2 months or less Be co-administered with ARVs Be effective against MDR- and XDR-TB
ABFE
AB
ABCE
ABCD GFEE
D
CF
G
Conventional approach would need 24-30 years to develop a combination that contains ≥ 3 new drugs
Adaptive multi-arm multistage (MAMS) trial design, which has been successfully used in cancer — is under discussion.
Even if MAMS, TB drug trial are long and costly
8-10 years
8-10 Years
8-10 years
24-30 Years
Gatifloxacin product development Length
flotub
Dec 2002, Grant approval (P III)
Nov 2012, 1st efficacy results
Jan - Mars 2005, initiation visits in the 5 recruitment sites for Phase III & PK/PD
Design of the phase III study & set-up,
capacity building +++
Phase III: last patient recruited: 31 Oct 2008
Follow-up period
Phase III: April 2011, last patient FU
In total 10 to 11 years
Phase I, Phase II, Phase III & PK/PD
July 2004, Phase II SSCC
August 2003, Phase I & PK
Phase III Recruitment period
Gatifloxacin product development Length
flotub
Dec 2002, Grant approval (P III)
Nov 2012, 1st efficacy results
Jan - Mars 2005, initiation visits in the 5 recruitment sites for Phase III & PK/PD
Design of the phase III study & set-up,
capacity building +++
Phase III: last patient recruited: 31 Oct 2008
Follow-up period
Phase III: April 2011, last patient FU
Phase I, Phase II, Phase III & PK/PD
July 2004, Phase II SSCC
August 2003, Phase I & PK
Phase III Recruitment period
2.5 years
Gatifloxacin product development Length
flotub
Dec 2002, Grant approval (P III)
Nov 2012, 1st efficacy results
Jan - Mars 2005, initiation visits in the 5 recruitment sites for Phase III & PK/PD
Design of the phase III study & set-up,
capacity building +++
Phase III: last patient recruited: 31 Oct 2008
Follow-up period
Phase III: April 2011, last patient FU
Phase I, Phase II, Phase III & PK/PD
July 2004, Phase II SSCC
August 2003, Phase I & PK
Phase III Recruitment period
2.5 years
Gatifloxacin product development Length
flotub
Dec 2002, Grant approval (P III)
Nov 2012, 1st efficacy results
Jan - Mars 2005, initiation visits in the 5 recruitment sites for Phase III & PK/PD
Design of the phase III study & set-up,
capacity building +++
Phase III: last patient recruited: 31 Oct 2008
Follow-up period
Phase III: April 2011, last patient FU
Phase I, Phase II, Phase III & PK/PD
July 2004, Phase II SSCC
August 2003, Phase I & PK
Phase III Recruitment period
3.5 years
Gatifloxacin product development Length
flotub
Dec 2002, Grant approval (P III)
Nov 2012, 1st efficacy results
Jan - Mars 2005, initiation visits in the 5 recruitment sites for Phase III & PK/PD
Design of the phase III study & set-up,
capacity building +++
Phase III: last patient recruited: 31 Oct 2008
Follow-up period
Phase III: April 2011, last patient FU
Phase I, Phase II, Phase III & PK/PD
July 2004, Phase II SSCC
August 2003, Phase I & PK
Phase III Recruitment period
2 years ?
Gatifloxacin product development Length
flotub
Dec 2002, Grant approval (P III)
Nov 2012, 1st efficacy results
Jan - Mars 2005, initiation visits in the 5 recruitment sites for Phase III & PK/PD
Design of the phase III study & set-up,
capacity building +++
Phase III: last patient recruited: 31 Oct 2008
Follow-up period
Phase III: April 2011, last patient FU
Phase I, Phase II, Phase III & PK/PD
July 2004, Phase II SSCC
August 2003, Phase I & PK
Phase III Recruitment period
Data management
To reduce the length of TB drug development
Set-up phase Enhancing local capacity; training & re-training…..
Huge capacity building investment, important that it is being capitalised and optimised
Necessity to ensure continuity of the research investments in these sites
Necessity to adopt common guidelines for designing TB treatment trials
Recruitment period
Patient follow-up & outcome of interest Reduced to 12 months post treatment Necessity to validate surrogate markers
Datamanagement
Conclusion
flotub
Shortening the duration of TB treatment is the major target There are TB drug development challenges There are methodological challenges when designing phase III TB
sensitive RCT We are advocating for:
a non-inferiority design, a non-blinded design, a composite unfavourable endpoint, a follow-up of 12 months post treatment completion, added trial procedures specifically aiming at minimizing
unavailability of endpoints, and distinguishing between relapse and re-infection.
Conclusion
1882
Description of the agent of TB
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
1943Streptomycine (S)
1952Isoniazid (H)
1954Pyrazinamide (Z)
1961Ethambutol (E)
1963Rifampicin (R)
1952: 1st regimen: S/PAS/H
18-24 months therapy
1970s: short course regimen: S/H/R or S/H/Z -9 months
therapy
1980s: modern short-course regimen:
E (S) H R Z6 months of therapy
1946: 1st drug: S Montotherapy led to S resistance
2010
?
Conclusion
1882
Description of the agent of TB
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
1943Streptomycine (S)
1952Isoniazid (H)
1954Pyrazinamide (Z)
1961Ethambutol (E)
1963Rifampicin (R)
1952: 1st regimen: S/PAS/H
18-24 months therapy
1970s: short course regimen: S/H/R or S/H/Z -9 months
therapy
1980s: modern short-course regimen:
E (S) H R Z6 months of therapy
1946: 1st drug: S Montotherapy led to S resistance
2010
?
TB Alliance is instrumental (www.tballiance.org)
Conclusion
1882
Description of the agent of TB
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
1943Streptomycine (S)
1952Isoniazid (H)
1954Pyrazinamide (Z)
1961Ethambutol (E)
1963Rifampicin (R)
1952: 1st regimen: S/PAS/H
18-24 months therapy
1970s: short course regimen: S/H/R or S/H/Z -9 months
therapy
1980s: modern short-course regimen:
E (S) H R Z6 months of therapy
1946: 1st drug: S Montotherapy led to S resistance
2010
?
Ignoring the vulnerable Children TB/HIV co-infected
patients