Lessons Learned from Phase II and Phase III Trials Investigating Therapeutic Agents for Cerebral Ischemia Associated...

One of the challenges in bringing new therapeutic agents (since nimodipine) in for the treatment of cerebral ischemia associated with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) is the incongruence in therapeutic benefit observed between phase II and subsequent phase III clinical trials. Therefore, identifying areas for improvement in the methodology and interpretation of results is necessary to increase the value of phase II trials. We performed a systematic review of phase II trials that continued into phase III trials, evaluating a therapeutic agent for the treatment of cerebral ischemia associated with aSAH. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines for systematic reviews, and review was based on a peer-reviewed protocol (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews no. 222965). A total of nine phase III trials involving 7,088 patients were performed based on eight phase II trials involving 1558 patients. The following therapeutic agents were evaluated in the selected phase II and phase III trials: intravenous tirilazad, intravenous nicardipine, intravenous clazosentan, intravenous magnesium, oral statins, and intraventricular nimodipine. Shortcomings in several design elements of the phase II aSAH trials were identified that may explain the incongruence between phase II and phase III trial results. We suggest the consideration of the following strategies to improve phase II design: increased focus on the selection of surrogate markers of efficacy, selection of the optimal dose and timing of intervention, adjustment for exaggerated estimate of treatment effect in sample size calculations, use of prespecified go/no-go criteria using futility design, use of multicenter design, enrichment of the study population, use of concurrent control or placebo group, and use of innovative trial designs such as seamless phase II to III design. Modifying the design of phase II trials on the basis of lessons learned from previous phase II and phase III trial combinations is necessary to plan more effective phase III trials.