Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 14, 2025
A Clinical Trial Assessing the Safety, Efficacy, and Delivery of Olive-Oil-Based Three-Chamber Bags for Parenteral Nutrition
Published on: September 20, 2019
Comparison of design methods for a safety run-in phase of a phase II clinical trial
1Department of Population and Public Health Sciences, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Background/Aims:
In pediatric oncology, a Phase II trial often utilizes a safety run-in phase followed by an efficacy phase that enrolls at the dose level selected based on the safety run-in. Different from a Phase I trial, a Phase II safety run-in often assesses a very small number of dose levels. In the context of a safety run-in that assesses two or three dose levels, this article aims to compare three design methods, including the algorithm-based designs 3 + 3 and Rolling 6, and the model-assisted designs such as the Bayesian optimal interval design.
Methods:
Extensive simulations were conducted to evaluate and compare operating characteristics of the three design methods for a safety run-in with two or three dose levels, varying the starting dose level.
Results:
The performance of algorithm-based and model-assisted designs can be influenced by selection of the starting dose level, with trials starting at a lower dose level having a higher probability of selecting a low dose or considering all doses as toxic. The impact is larger for 3 + 3 and Rolling 6 but to a lesser extent for Bayesian optimal interval design. For a safety run-in with two dose levels, using 3 + 3 or Rolling 6 and starting at the higher dose often lead to similar performance to Bayesian optimal interval design. For safety run-in with three dose levels, starting at the middle dose with 3 + 3, Rolling 6 or Bayesian optimal interval design is a good compromise between improving correct dose selection and imposing a toxic dose to less patients.
Conclusions:
Despite being sensitive to the starting dose level, the 3 + 3, Rolling 6 and Bayesian optimal interval designs overall demonstrate reasonable performance, which can be further improved with wise selection of the starting dose level. The Rolling 6 design remains the recommended design method especially if pharmacokinetics is important or required with this design having the feature of treating six patients per dose level. When designing a safety run-in, selection of a design method or selection of a starting dose should consider both the performance of the design approaches with different choices of a starting dose level and the magnitude of safety concerns with the dose levels under investigation.
More Related Videos
06:20Irradiator Commissioning and Dosimetry for Assessment of LQ α and β Parameters, Radiation Dosing Schema, and in vivo Dose Deposition
Published on: March 11, 2021
07:25In Vitro Methods for Comparing Target Binding and CDC Induction Between Therapeutic Antibodies: Applications in Biosimilarity Analysis
Published on: May 4, 2017
Related Concept Videos
01:11Clinical Trials: Overview
01:16Clinical Trials
There are four phases in a clinical trial. A phase one...
01:28Preclinical Development: Overview
01:16Crossover Experiments
Crossover designs are performed even with smaller sample sizes since the samples can act as their controls. These are better than simple randomized trials since patients are exposed to all the treatments.
01:23Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
01:26Drug Administration and Therapy Phases: Overview
The pharmaceutical phase focuses on leveraging the physicochemical properties of the drug to design and manufacture an effective product. Variants include orally administered tablets or capsules, topical creams or ointments, and parenteral-delivery solutions or emulsions.
The pharmacokinetic phase...