3+3 Design [Design Issues]

posted by Pharma_88 – India, 2020-01-08 09:55 (264 d 11:13 ago) – Posting: # 21065
Views: 1,532

» Are you referring to Phase I trials in patients, mostly in oncology ? My experience in such trials is that you start each cohort with 3 patients, if you have 0 or 1 patient experiencing a dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) after e.g. 1 month you can enrol 3 more. Depending on the total number of DLT in these 6 patients you may then progress to the next dose level. If 2 or 3 of the first 3 patients have a DLT you stop there and you don't increase the dose to the next cohort. Is this what you have in mind ?

yes. Same design.

» In the design I have in mind, the group/cohort is completed with 3+3 patients, not just 3. And you enrol new patients in each cohort (if you only use the same patients who have a good tolerability, you have some bias).

Yes. but intial cohort (means first one) is started with 3 patients only. subsequent cohort will have 3+3 patients. Right?

» » Further, in next cohort suppose 1 patient is withdrawn or have some AE then its compulsory to add 3 more patients to inline with multiplication of 3?
»
» If a patient is withdrawn due to a DLT, see my first paragraph. The patient is not replaced. If he is withdrawn for another reason: you really have to be extra-sure it is really totally unrelated to a DLT. You may decide to replace that patient (meaning, only 1 extra-patient). Make sure this is properly defined in your protocol. I would not use 3 patients to replace just 1.

So, in this case, total 4 patients are required to enroll (1 for replacement and 3 others). Correct?


Edit: Full quote removed. Please delete everything from the text of the original poster which is not necessary in understanding your answer; see also this post! [Ohlbe]

Complete thread:

Activity
 Admin contact
21,084 posts in 4,398 threads, 1,468 registered users;
online 3 (0 registered, 3 guests [including 2 identified bots]).
Forum time: Monday 22:09 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

A central lesson of science is that to understand complex issues
(or even simple ones), we must try to free our minds of dogma and
to guarantee the freedom to publish, to contradict, and to experiment.
Arguments from authority are unacceptable.    Carl Sagan

The Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum is hosted by
BEBAC Ing. Helmut Schütz
HTML5