The multi-domain responder index: a novel analysis tool to capture a broader assessment of clinical benefit in heterogeneous complex rare diseases

P K Tandon, Emil D Kakkis, P K Tandon, Emil D Kakkis

Abstract

In traditional clinical trial design, efficacy is typically assessed using a single primary endpoint in a randomized controlled trial to detect an expected treatment effect of a therapy in a narrowly selected patient population. This accepted paradigm is based on clinical evaluations that may not actually capture the breadth of the impact of a disease, which is especially true in the setting of complex, multisystem, rare diseases with small, extremely heterogeneous patient populations. The multi-domain responder index (MDRI) is a novel approach that accommodates complex and heterogeneous disease manifestations and evaluates a broad array of clinical disease without impairing the power or rigor of a study to fully understand a treatment. The MDRI sums the scores corresponding to clinically significant thresholds of change for each component domain in each individual patient, capturing the mean clinically meaningful change across multiple domains within individuals. This novel approach combines and then sums the results of independent domain endpoint responder analyses into one responder score to provide a broad basis for the assessment of efficacy. The impact of a treatment across multiple, physiologically independent domains, can be assessed clinically, reducing the adverse impact of heterogeneity on trial outcomes and allowing eligibility criteria to enroll a wider range of patients, ultimately resulting in efficacy and safety assessments of a therapy across a broad group of heterogeneous patients in rare disease programs.Trial registration The following studies are referenced within this manuscript (CLINICALTRIALS.GOV registration numbers): NCT00912925; NCT00146770; NCT00067470; NCT00104234; NCT00069641; NCT02230566; NCT02377921; NCT02432144.

Keywords: Laronidase; MDRI; MPS; Mucopolysaccharidosis; Multi-domain responder index; Vestronidase alfa.

Conflict of interest statement

PKT and EDK are employees and shareholders of Ultragenyx Pharmaceutical Inc.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
MDRI example construction and calculation
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
MDRI response using heat map approach in the Phase 3 Laronidase study
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Net change in domains from a Phase 3 study of Laronidase versus Placebo
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Mean (± SE) MDRI score during the Vestronidase blind-start and extension studies* [27]
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Patient-level MDRI at baseline and week 48 in the extension study* [27]
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Clinical Global Impression (CGI) Scale rating of severity at baseline in Angelman syndrome

References

    1. Greene JA, Podolsky SH. Reform, regulation, and pharmaceuticals–the Kefauver–Harris Amendments at 50. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(16):1481–1483. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1210007.
    1. Wraith JE, et al. Enzyme replacement therapy for mucopolysaccharidosis I: a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, multinational study of recombinant human alpha-l-iduronidase (laronidase) J Pediatr. 2004;144(5):581–588. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2004.01.046.
    1. Harmatz P, et al. Enzyme replacement therapy for mucopolysaccharidosis VI: a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multinational study of recombinant human N-acetylgalactosamine 4-sulfatase (recombinant human arylsulfatase B or rhASB) and follow-on, open-label extension study. J Pediatr. 2006;148(4):533–539. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2005.12.014.
    1. Kakkis ED, et al. Long-term and high-dose trials of enzyme replacement therapy in the canine model of mucopolysaccharidosis I. Biochem Mol Med. 1996;58(2):156–167. doi: 10.1006/bmme.1996.0044.
    1. Clarke LA, et al. Long-term efficacy and safety of laronidase in the treatment of mucopolysaccharidosis I. Pediatrics. 2009;123(1):229–240. doi: 10.1542/peds.2007-3847.
    1. Muenzer J, et al. A phase II/III clinical study of enzyme replacement therapy with idursulfase in mucopolysaccharidosis II (Hunter syndrome) Genet Med. 2006;8(8):465–473. doi: 10.1097/01.gim.0000232477.37660.fb.
    1. Chi GY. Some issues with composite endpoints in clinical trials. Fundam Clin Pharmacol. 2005;19(6):609–619. doi: 10.1111/j.1472-8206.2005.00370.x.
    1. Sankoh AJ, Li H, D'Agostino RB., Sr Use of composite endpoints in clinical trials. Stat Med. 2014;33(27):4709–4714. doi: 10.1002/sim.6205.
    1. Garcia-Garcia HM, et al. Standardized end point definitions for coronary intervention trials: the academic research consortium-2 consensus document. Circulation. 2018;137(24):2635–2650. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.029289.
    1. Mazzone ES, et al. Reliability of the North Star Ambulatory Assessment in a multicentric setting. Neuromuscul Disord. 2009;19(7):458–461. doi: 10.1016/j.nmd.2009.06.368.
    1. Mayhew J, et al. Development and preliminary evidence of the psychometric properties of the GNE myopathy functional activity scale. J Comp Eff Res. 2018;7(4):381–395. doi: 10.2217/cer-2017-0062.
    1. Vockley J, et al. Results from a 78-week, single-arm, open-label phase 2 study to evaluate UX007 in pediatric and adult patients with severe long-chain fatty acid oxidation disorders (LC-FAOD) J Inherit Metab Dis. 2019;42(1):169–177. doi: 10.1002/jimd.12038.
    1. Balwani M, et al. Phase 3 trial of RNAi therapeutic Givosiran for acute intermittent porphyria. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(24):2289–2301. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1913147.
    1. O'Brien PC. Procedures for comparing samples with multiple endpoints. Biometrics. 1984;40(4):1079–1087. doi: 10.2307/2531158.
    1. Pocock SJ, Geller NL, Tsiatis AA. The analysis of multiple endpoints in clinical trials. Biometrics. 1987;43(3):487–498. doi: 10.2307/2531989.
    1. Tandon PK. Applications of global statistics in analysing quality of life data. Stat Med. 1990;9(7):819–827. doi: 10.1002/sim.4780090711.
    1. Harmatz P, et al. A novel Blind Start study design to investigate vestronidase alfa for mucopolysaccharidosis VII, an ultra-rare genetic disease. Mol Genet Metab. 2018;123(4):488–494. doi: 10.1016/j.ymgme.2018.02.006.
    1. Redelmeier DA, et al. Interpreting small differences in functional status: the Six Minute Walk test in chronic lung disease patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1997;155(4):1278–1282. doi: 10.1164/ajrccm.155.4.9105067.
    1. Puhan MA, et al. Interpretation of treatment changes in 6-minute walk distance in patients with COPD. Eur Respir J. 2008;32(3):637–643. doi: 10.1183/09031936.00140507.
    1. du Bois RM, et al. Six-minute-walk test in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: test validation and minimal clinically important difference. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2011;183(9):1231–1237. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201007-1179OC.
    1. Mathai SC, et al. The minimal important difference in the 6-minute walk test for patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2012;186(5):428–433. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201203-0480OC.
    1. Okuyama T, et al. Japan Elaprase Treatment (JET) study: idursulfase enzyme replacement therapy in adult patients with attenuated Hunter syndrome (Mucopolysaccharidosis II, MPS II) Mol Genet Metab. 2010;99(1):18–25. doi: 10.1016/j.ymgme.2009.08.006.
    1. Photodynamic therapy of subfoveal choroidal neovascularization in age-related macular degeneration with verteporfin: one-year results of 2 randomized clinical trials--TAP report. Treatment of age-related macular degeneration with photodynamic therapy (TAP) Study Group. Arch Ophthalmol, 1999. 117(10): p. 1329–45.
    1. Ferris FL, 3rd, et al. New visual acuity charts for clinical research. Am J Ophthalmol. 1982;94(1):91–96. doi: 10.1016/0002-9394(82)90197-0.
    1. Reeves BC, Wood JM, Hill AR. Reliability of high- and low-contrast letter charts. Ophthal Physiol Opt. 1993;13(1):17–26. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-1313.1993.tb00421.x.
    1. Wuang YP, Su CY. Reliability and responsiveness of the Bruininks–Oseretsky test of motor proficiency-second edition in children with intellectual disability. Res Dev Disabil. 2009;30(5):847–855. doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2008.12.002.
    1. Wang RY, et al. The long-term safety and efficacy of vestronidase alfa, rhGUS enzyme replacement therapy, in subjects with mucopolysaccharidosis VII. Mol Genet Metab. 2020;129(3):219–227. doi: 10.1016/j.ymgme.2020.01.003.
    1. Dagli, A.I., J. Mueller, and C.A. Williams, Angelman Syndrome, in GeneReviews((R)), M.P. Adam, et al., Editors. 1993: Seattle (WA).
    1. Wheeler AC, Sacco P, Cabo R. Unmet clinical needs and burden in Angelman syndrome: a review of the literature. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2017;12(1):164. doi: 10.1186/s13023-017-0716-z.
    1. Keute M, et al. Angelman syndrome genotypes manifest varying degrees of clinical severity and developmental impairment. Mol Psychiatry. 2020;66:5.
    1. Gentile JK, et al. A neurodevelopmental survey of Angelman syndrome with genotype-phenotype correlations. J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2010;31(7):592–601. doi: 10.1097/DBP.0b013e3181ee408e.
    1. Willgoss T, et al. Measuring what matters to individuals with Angelman syndrome and their families: Development of a patient-centered disease concept model. Child Psychiatry Hum Dev. 2020;66:459.
    1. Gaasterland CMW, et al. Goal attainment scaling as an outcome measure in rare disease trials: a conceptual proposal for validation. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19(1):227. doi: 10.1186/s12874-019-0866-x.
    1. Little RJA, Rubin DB. Statistical Analysis with Missing Data. 2. Wiley; 2002.

Source: PubMed

3
订阅