In the world of clinical research, "breaking the
blind" is typically a cardinal sin. Yet, high-stakes Phase 3 trials like ORIGIN
3 (atacicept), PROTECT (sparsentan), and ATTRIBUTE-CM
(acoramidis) have all successfully navigated the complex path of publishing
interim results in the New England Journal of Medicine while keeping
their long-term studies scientifically intact.
- Lafayette et al (2026) A Phase 3 Trial of Atacicept in Patients with IgA Nephropathy
- Perkovic et al (2026) Sibeprenlimab in IgA Nephropathy — Interim Analysis of a Phase 3 Trial
- Gillmore, et al (2024)Efficacy and Safety of Acoramidis in Transthyretin Amyloid Cardiomyopathy and its attached protocol and statistical analysis plan "
How do they pull off this statistical magic trick? It comes down to a rigorous architectural separation of data and people including statistical analysis team. Here is a look at the techniques used to maintain the "blind" during interim disclosures.
1. The "Firewall" Strategy: Independent
Reporting Teams
The most critical technique used across all three studies is
the creation of a "Firewall."
While a trial is ongoing, the people running the study
(Sponsor clinical teams, investigators at hospitals, and the patients) must
remain blinded. To perform an interim analysis, the Sponsor appoints an
- How
it works: This group has no contact with the study sites. They receive
the raw "unblinded" data, perform the calculations for the
primary endpoint (like the 36-week proteinuria reduction in PROTECT or
ORIGIN 3), and prepare the manuscript for publication.
- The
Result: The people actually treating the patients remain in the dark,
ensuring their medical decisions aren't influenced by knowing who is on
the "winning" drug.
2. Safeguarding Against "Functional Unblinding"
In some trials, the drug’s effect is so obvious it could
accidentally reveal the treatment.
- In
ORIGIN 3: Atacicept significantly lowers serum IgA and IgG levels. If
a doctor saw these lab results, they would immediately know the patient
was on the active drug. To prevent this, these specific lab values are suppressed.
The results are sent to the Independent Reporting Team but are hidden from
the investigators and the Sponsor’s site monitors.
- In
PROTECT: This study compared two active drugs (sparsentan vs.
irbesartan). To ensure the difference in pill appearance didn't tip anyone
off, they used a Double-Dummy design. Every patient took two sets
of pills—one active and one placebo—so the physical routine remained
identical for everyone.
3. Aggregate vs. Individual Disclosure
A common misconception is that "publishing the
results" means everyone knows who got what. In reality, the NEJM
publications for these trials only disclose aggregate data (group
averages), not the individual patient level data.
- In
ATTRIBUTE-CM: When the Part A results (12-month 6-minute walk
distance) were disclosed, the public learned how the group
performed. However, the individual treatment assignments for each
patient remained locked in the secure database.
- The
Benefit: Even if an investigator reads the NEJM article and sees that
acoramidis is effective, they still do not know if the specific patient
sitting in their office is receiving acoramidis or the placebo.
4. Prespecified Alpha Spending and "The
Gatekeeper"
To maintain the statistical integrity of the final results
(like the 104-week kidney function in ORIGIN 3 or the 30-month clinical
outcomes in ATTRIBUTE-CM), the Statistical Analysis Plan (SAP) dictates
exactly how much "statistical credit" is used during the interim
look.
- The Independent Data Monitoring Committee (iDMC) acts as the gatekeeper. They review
the unblinded data behind closed doors and only allow the trial to proceed
if the interim disclosure doesn't compromise the "power" of the
final analysis.
Why go through all this trouble?
The goal is Accelerated Approval. By using these
techniques, sponsors can show the FDA (and the medical community) that a drug
works on a "surrogate marker" (like proteinuria) at an interim stage.
This allows life-saving drugs to reach patients years earlier, while the "blinded"
portion of the trial continues to gather the long-term data needed for full,
traditional approval.
By combining physical dummies, suppressed lab data, and
strict "firewalls" between statistical teams, researchers prove that
you can indeed share the news of a trial's success without ruining the science
that supports it.
Some Extra Words on ATTRIBUTE-CM Study
ATTRIBUTE-CM study is a phase 3, double-blind trial, 632 patients with transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive acoramidis hydrochloride at a dose of 800 mg twice daily or matching placebo for 30 months. The study contained two parts: Part A with primary endpoint of change from baseline to Month 12 of treatment in distance walked during the 6MWT, Part B with primary endpoint of a hierarchical combination of All-Cause mortality and CV-related hospitalization over a 30month period.Following the successful long-term data (Part B), which showed a 25% reduction in all-cause mortality and 50% reduction in cardiovascular hospitalization frequency (known as Attruby), the drug was approved by the FDA, with 3,751 prescriptions filled as of August 2025.
No comments:
Post a Comment