BACKGROUND: Unique challenges posed by emerging infectious diseases often expose inadequacies in the conventional phased investigational therapeutic development paradigm. The recent Ebola outbreak in West Africa presents a critical case-study highlighting barriers to faster development. During the outbreak, clinical trials were implemented with unprecedented speed. Yet, in most cases, this fast-tracked approach proved too slow for the rapidly evolving epidemic. Controversy abounded as to the most appropriate study designs to yield safety and efficacy data, potentially causing delays in pivotal studies. Preparation for research during future outbreaks may require acceptance of a paradigm that circumvents, accelerates, or reorders traditional phases, without losing sight of the traditional benchmarks by which drug candidates must be assessed for activity, safety and efficacy. METHODS: We present the design of an adaptive, parent protocol, ongoing in West Africa until January 2016. The exigent circumstances of the outbreak and limited prior clinical experience with experimental treatments, led to more direct bridging from preclinical studies to human trials than the conventional paradigm would typically have sanctioned, and required considerable design flexibility. RESULTS: Preliminary evaluation of the "barely Bayesian" design was provided through computer simulation studies. The understanding and public discussion of the study design will help its future implementation. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America 2016. This work is written by (a) US Government employee(s) and is in the public domain in the US.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Unique challenges posed by emerging infectious diseases often expose inadequacies in the conventional phased investigational therapeutic development paradigm. The recent Ebola outbreak in West Africa presents a critical case-study highlighting barriers to faster development. During the outbreak, clinical trials were implemented with unprecedented speed. Yet, in most cases, this fast-tracked approach proved too slow for the rapidly evolving epidemic. Controversy abounded as to the most appropriate study designs to yield safety and efficacy data, potentially causing delays in pivotal studies. Preparation for research during future outbreaks may require acceptance of a paradigm that circumvents, accelerates, or reorders traditional phases, without losing sight of the traditional benchmarks by which drug candidates must be assessed for activity, safety and efficacy. METHODS: We present the design of an adaptive, parent protocol, ongoing in West Africa until January 2016. The exigent circumstances of the outbreak and limited prior clinical experience with experimental treatments, led to more direct bridging from preclinical studies to human trials than the conventional paradigm would typically have sanctioned, and required considerable design flexibility. RESULTS: Preliminary evaluation of the "barely Bayesian" design was provided through computer simulation studies. The understanding and public discussion of the study design will help its future implementation. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America 2016. This work is written by (a) US Government employee(s) and is in the public domain in the US.
Authors: Rashid Ansumana; Kathryn H Jacobsen; Foday Sahr; M'baimba Idris; Henry Bangura; Mohamed Boie-Jalloh; Joseph M Lamin; Santigie Sesay Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-12-24 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Scott R Rosas; Jeffrey T Schouten; Dennis Dixon; Suresh Varghese; Marie T Cope; Joe Marci; Jonathan M Kagan Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2014-06-30 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Peter B Jahrling; Lisa E Hensley; Kevin Barrett; Henry Clifford Lane; Richard T Davey Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2015-05-09 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: Kim A Lindblade; Francis Kateh; Thomas K Nagbe; John C Neatherlin; Satish K Pillai; Kathleen R Attfield; Emmanuel Dweh; Danielle T Barradas; Seymour G Williams; David J Blackley; Hannah L Kirking; Monita R Patel; Monica Dea; Mehran S Massoudi; Kathleen Wannemuehler; Albert E Barskey; Shauna L Mettee Zarecki; Moses Fomba; Steven Grube; Lisa Belcher; Laura N Broyles; T Nikki Maxwell; Jose E Hagan; Kristin Yeoman; Matthew Westercamp; Joseph Forrester; Joshua Mott; Frank Mahoney; Laurence Slutsker; Kevin M DeCock; Tolbert Nyenswah Journal: Emerg Infect Dis Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 6.883
Authors: Ben S Cooper; Maciej F Boni; Wirichada Pan-ngum; Nicholas P J Day; Peter W Horby; Piero Olliaro; Trudie Lang; Nicholas J White; Lisa J White; John Whitehead Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2015-04-14 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Richard T Davey; Lori Dodd; Michael A Proschan; James Neaton; Jacquie Neuhaus Nordwall; Joseph S Koopmeiners; John Beigel; John Tierney; H Clifford Lane; Anthony S Fauci; Moses B F Massaquoi; Foday Sahr; Denis Malvy Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-10-13 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jerome F Pierson; Matthew C Kirchoff; Susan M Orsega; Scott F Giberson; Betsey R Herpin; Travis W Ready; Michelle L Holshue; Grace G Kelly Journal: Fed Pract Date: 2017-08
Authors: Guodong Liu; Gary Wong; Shuo Su; Yuhai Bi; Frank Plummer; George F Gao; Gary Kobinger; Xiangguo Qiu Journal: Trends Mol Med Date: 2017-08-17 Impact factor: 11.951
Authors: Richard T Davey; Lori Dodd; Michael Proschan; Peter Jahrling; Lisa Hensley; Elizabeth Higgs; H Clifford Lane Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2018-11-22 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: Aleksandra Leligdowicz; William A Fischer; Timothy M Uyeki; Thomas E Fletcher; Neill K J Adhikari; Gina Portella; Francois Lamontagne; Christophe Clement; Shevin T Jacob; Lewis Rubinson; Abel Vanderschuren; Jan Hajek; Srinivas Murthy; Mauricio Ferri; Ian Crozier; Elhadj Ibrahima; Marie-Claire Lamah; John S Schieffelin; David Brett-Major; Daniel G Bausch; Nikki Shindo; Adrienne K Chan; Tim O'Dempsey; Sharmistha Mishra; Michael Jacobs; Stuart Dickson; G Marshall Lyon; Robert A Fowler Journal: Crit Care Date: 2016-07-29 Impact factor: 9.097