A new path for CF clinical trials through the use of historical controls

Given future challenges in conducting large randomized, placebo controlled trials for future CF therapeutics development, we evaluated the potential for using external historical controls to either enrich or replace traditional concurrent placebo groups in CF trials.

The study included data from sequentially completed, randomized, controlled clinical trials, EPIC and OPTIMIZE respectively, evaluating optimal antibiotic therapy to reduce the risk of pulmonary exacerbation in children with early Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection. The primary treatment effect in OPTIMIZE, the risk of pulmonary exacerbation associated with azithromycin, was re-estimated in alternative designs incorporating varying numbers of participants from the earlier trial (EPIC) as historical controls. Bias and precision of these estimates were characterized. Propensity scores were derived to adjust for baseline differences across study populations, and both Poisson and Cox regression were used to estimate treatment efficacy.

Replacing 86 OPTIMIZE placebo participants with 304 controls from EPIC to mimic a fully historically controlled trial resulted an 8% reduction in risk of pulmonary exacerbations (Hazard ratio (HR):0.92 95% CI 0.61, 1.34) when not adjusting for key baseline differences between study populations. After adjustment, a 37% decrease in risk of exacerbation (HR:0.63, 95% CI 0.50, 0.80) was estimated, comparable to the estimate from the original trial comparing the 86 placebo participants to 77 azithromycin participants on azithromycin (45%, HR:0.55, 95% CI: 0.34, 0.86). Other adjusted approaches provided similar estimates for the efficacy of azithromycin in reducing exacerbation risk: pooling all controls from both studies provided a HR of 0.60 (95% x`CI 0.46, 0.77) and augmenting half the OPTIMIZE placebo participants with EPIC controls gave a HR 0.63 (95% CI 0.48, 0.82).

The potential exists for future CF trials to utilize historical control data. Careful consideration of both the comparability of controls and of optimal methods can reduce the potential for biased estimation of treatment effects.