Optimizing Clinical Trials for Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis (RRMS): The Role of Adaptive Design and NEDA

Author: Manolo E. Beelke

Email: mbeelke@manolobeelke.com

Web: manolobeelke.com

Abstract

This white paper discusses the application and benefits of adaptive design methodologies and the use of No-Evidence-of-Disease Activity (NEDA) as primary endpoints in clinical trials for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). The evolving landscape of multiple sclerosis (MS) research necessitates innovative clinical trial designs to enhance efficacy, reduce sample sizes, and minimize patient exposure to ineffective treatments. This paper highlights recent advancements, the integration of adaptive designs, and the potential of NEDA in improving clinical trial outcomes. Additionally, it explores newer efficacy parameters such as brain volume loss (BVL) and serum neurofilament light chain (sNfL) levels.

Introduction

The landscape of multiple sclerosis (MS) research is rapidly evolving, driven by the increasing availability of highly effective treatment options for relapsing forms of MS. This evolution necessitates innovative clinical trial design strategies to address the unique challenges posed by these treatments. Among these strategies, adaptive design methodologies and the adoption of innovative primary outcome measurements like No-Evidence-of-Disease Activity (NEDA) have emerged as pivotal.

Understanding Adaptive Design Methodology

Adaptive design methodologies offer flexibility and efficiency in clinical trials, allowing modifications based on interim data without compromising the trial's integrity. This approach can shorten study follow-up periods, reduce the number of patients on placebo, and enhance the overall efficacy of clinical research.

Learning, Confirming, or Both?

Adaptive designs can serve both exploratory and confirmatory purposes. In early-phase studies, adaptive designs help in understanding dose-exposure-response relationships, while in later phases, they can confirm efficacy and safety. The flexibility of these designs supports seamless transitions between trial phases, optimizing resource utilization and accelerating the drug development process.

NEDA as a Primary Endpoint in RRMS Trials

NEDA, or No-Evidence-of-Disease Activity, has gained prominence as a comprehensive measure of disease activity in MS. It encompasses the absence of relapses, disability progression, and MRI activity. Incorporating NEDA as a primary endpoint in clinical trials can increase the sensitivity of outcome measures and reduce sample sizes, thereby making trials more efficient and potentially more effective.

Challenges in Traditional MS Clinical Trials

Traditional MS clinical trials often face challenges related to patient heterogeneity, ethical concerns over placebo use, and the limitations of conventional clinical endpoints. Adaptive designs and NEDA offer solutions to these challenges by providing more precise and ethically sound methodologies for assessing treatment efficacy.

Adaptive Design in Practice: Case Studies

Several clinical trials have successfully implemented adaptive design methodologies. For instance, the BOLD study utilized an adaptive, dose-ranging design to determine the optimal dose of a study drug for RRMS. This approach reduced placebo exposure and optimized dose selection, demonstrating the practical benefits of adaptive designs in MS research.

The Role of MRI in Adaptive Designs

MRI plays a crucial role in adaptive designs for MS trials. It serves as a surrogate marker for disease activity, enabling real-time adjustments in trial parameters. By incorporating MRI outcomes, researchers can refine patient selection, optimize dosing, and improve the overall trial design.

Ethical Considerations in Placebo-Controlled Trials

Ethical considerations are paramount in MS trials, especially concerning placebo use. Adaptive designs offer a way to minimize placebo exposure while maintaining the scientific rigor of the trial. This approach balances the need for robust data with the ethical imperative to provide effective treatments to all participants.

Future Directions in MS Research

The integration of adaptive design methodologies and NEDA as primary endpoints represents a significant advancement in MS research. These innovations promise to enhance the efficiency and efficacy of clinical trials, paving the way for more effective treatments and improved patient outcomes.

Modern Efficacy Parameters in MS Clinical Trials

While NEDA is a significant advancement, newer efficacy parameters are being considered to provide a more comprehensive evaluation of treatment efficacy in MS clinical trials.

Brain Volume Loss (BVL)

Brain volume loss (BVL) is emerging as a critical measure of disease progression in MS. BVL is associated with long-term disability and cognitive decline. Quantifying BVL using MRI can provide insights into the neuroprotective effects of MS therapies. Studies have shown that treatments reducing BVL are likely to be more effective in preventing long-term disability.

Serum Neurofilament Light Chain (sNfL) Levels

Serum neurofilament light chain (sNfL) is a biomarker of neuronal damage. Elevated sNfL levels are associated with disease activity and progression in MS. Measuring sNfL levels can offer a minimally invasive method to monitor disease activity and treatment response. Recent advancements in assays have made it feasible to include sNfL measurements in clinical trials, providing a dynamic marker of neurodegeneration.

Combining NEDA with Modern Efficacy Parameters

Combining NEDA with modern efficacy parameters like BVL and sNfL can enhance the sensitivity and specificity of clinical trial outcomes. This integrated approach provides a holistic view of disease activity and treatment efficacy, encompassing both clinical and subclinical disease aspects.

Implementation in Clinical Trials

Incorporating these modern efficacy parameters into adaptive designs can further refine patient selection, dosing, and outcome assessment. For instance, adaptive trials can use interim sNfL levels to adjust dosing or identify early signs of treatment efficacy or failure. Similarly, monitoring BVL can help in evaluating the long-term neuroprotective effects of treatments.

Case Studies Utilizing Modern Efficacy Parameters

Recent clinical trials have begun incorporating BVL and sNfL as secondary endpoints. For example, the OPERA I and II trials evaluating ocrelizumab in RRMS included BVL as a key measure, demonstrating significant reductions compared to interferon beta-1a. Similarly, the ASCLEPIOS I and II trials for ofatumumab included sNfL measurements, showing reductions in sNfL levels correlating with reduced relapse rates and MRI activity.

Ethical and Practical Considerations

While integrating these modern efficacy parameters, ethical and practical considerations must be addressed. Ensuring patient confidentiality and data integrity in biomarker analysis is crucial. Additionally, the cost and accessibility of advanced MRI techniques and sNfL assays should be considered to ensure the feasibility of large-scale trials.

Conclusion

The evolving landscape of MS research demands innovative clinical trial designs. Adaptive design methodologies and NEDA as primary endpoints, complemented by modern efficacy parameters like BVL and sNfL, offer promising solutions to the challenges faced in traditional MS trials. These advancements enhance the efficiency and efficacy of clinical research, paving the way for more effective treatments and improved patient outcomes.

References

• Beelke, M. E., Antonini, P., & Murphy, M. F. (2016). Evolving landscapes in multiple sclerosis research: adaptive designs and novel endpoints. Multiple Sclerosis and Demyelinating Disorders, 1(2). doi:10.1186/s40893-016-0003-1
• Cohen, J. A., Reingold, S. C., Polman, C. H., & Wolinsky, J. S. (2012). Disability outcome measures in multiple sclerosis clinical trials: current status and future prospects. The Lancet Neurology, 11(5), 467-476.
• Giovannoni, G., et al. (2015). Is it time to target No evident disease activity (NEDA) in multiple sclerosis? Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders, 4(4), 329-333.
• Kappos, L., et al. (2015). Ocrelizumab in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a phase 2, randomised, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial. The Lancet, 378(9805), 1779-1787.
• Polman, C. H., et al. (2005). Diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: 2005 revisions to the “McDonald Criteria”. Annals of Neurology, 58(6), 840-846. doi:10.1002/ana.20703
• Rotstein, D. L., et al. (2015). Evaluation of no evidence of disease activity in a 7-year longitudinal multiple sclerosis cohort. JAMA Neurology, 72(2), 152-158. doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2014.3537
• Sormani, M. P., & Bruzzi, P. (2013). MRI lesions as a surrogate for relapses in multiple sclerosis: a meta-analysis of randomised trials. The Lancet Neurology, 12(7), 669-676.
• Thompson, A. J., et al. (2018). Diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: 2017 revisions of the McDonald criteria. The Lancet Neurology, 17(2), 162-173.