Lost in the plot: missing visual elements in Kaplan-Meier plots of phase III oncology trials.

Missing visual elements (MVE) in Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves can misrepresent data, preclude curve reconstruction, and hamper transparency. This study evaluated KM plots of phase III oncology trials. MVE were defined as an incomplete y-axis range or missing number at risk table in a KM curve. Surrogate endpoint KM curves were additionally evaluated for complete interpretability, defined by (1) reporting the number of censored patients and (2) correspondence of the disease assessment interval with the number at risk interval. Among 641 trials enrolling 518 235 patients, 116 trials (18%) had MVE in KM curves. Industry sponsorship, larger trials, and more recently published trials were correlated with lower odds of MVE. Only 3% of trials (15 of 574) published surrogate endpoint KM plots with complete interpretability. Improvements in the quality of KM curves of phase III oncology trials, particularly for surrogate endpoints, are needed for greater interpretability, reproducibility, and transparency in oncology research.

Characteristics and Research Waste Among Randomized Clinical Trials in Gastric Cancer.

Importance: The results of numerous large randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have changed clinical practice in gastric cancer (GC). However, research waste (ie, unpublished data, inadequate reporting, or avoidable design limitations) is still a major challenge for evidence-based medicine. Objectives: To determine the characteristics of GC RCTs in the past 20 years and the presence of research waste and to explore potential targets for improvement. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cross-sectional study of GC RCTs, ClinicalTrials.gov was searched for phase 3 or 4 RCTs registered from January 2000 to December 2019 using the keyword gastric cancer. Independent investigators undertook assessments and resolved discrepancies via consensus. Data were analyzed from August through December 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were descriptions of the characteristics of GC RCTs and the proportion of studies with signs of research waste. Research waste was defined as unpublished data, inadequate reporting, or avoidable design limitations. Publication status was determined by searching PubMed and Scopus databases. The adequacy of reporting was evaluated using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) reporting guideline checklist. Avoidable design limitations were determined based on existing bias or lack of cited systematic literature reviews. In the analyses of research waste, 125 RCTs that ended after June 2016 without publication were excluded. Results: A total of 262 GC RCTs were included. The number of RCTs increased from 25 trials in 2000 to 2004 to 97 trials in 2015 to 2019, with a greater increase among RCTs of targeted therapy or immunotherapy, which increased from 0 trials in 2000 to 2004 to 36 trials in 2015 to 2019. The proportion of RCTs that were multicenter was higher in non-Asian regions than in Asian regions (50 of 71 RCTs [70.4%] vs 96 of 191 RCTs [50.3%]; P = .004). The analysis of research waste included 137 RCTs, of which 81 (59.1%) were published. Among published RCTs, 65 (80.2%) were judged to be adequately reported and 63 (77.8%) had avoidable design defects. Additionally, 119 RCTs (86.9%) had 1 or more features of research waste. Study settings that included blinding (odds ratio [OR], 0.56; 95% CI, 0.33-0.93; P = .03), a greater number of participants (ie, ≥200 participants; OR, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.01-0.51; P = .01), and external funding support (OR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.08-0.60; P = .004) were associated with lower odds of research waste. Additionally, 35 RCTs (49.3%) were referenced in guidelines, and 18 RCTs (22.2%) had their prospective data reused. Conclusions and Relevance: To our knowledge, this study is the first to describe the characteristics of GC RCTs in the past 20 years, and it found a research waste burden, which may provide evidence for the development of rational RCTs and reduction of waste in the future.

The quality of clinical trials in neuroendocrine tumours; have we learnt from our mistakes? An evaluation of phase II and phase III clinical trials.

The quality and reporting of neuroendocrine tumour (NET) clinical trials has previously been found to be heterogeneous impairing trial interpretability. We aimed to perform an updated review of the quality of phase II/III clinical trials in NET to assess if trial design and reporting have improved since 2011. We performed a PubMed search for phase II/III trials evaluating systemic anticancer therapies or liver-directed therapies published between 2011 and 2018. Data collected comprised administrative data, study population characteristics, endpoints, reporting and statistical design parameters, and results. Sixty studies were included (5218 patients): 50 phase II and 10 phase III trials. Study populations were heterogeneous: 52% of trials allowed tumours from various primary sites, 28% allowed both well- and poorly-differentiated tumour morphology or did not specify, and 57% did not report proliferative indices and/or tumour grade in ≥80% of the study population. Only 36% of trials mandated radiological disease progression on participant enrolment using a validated measure. Statistical design and primary endpoint were clearly defined in 67% and 88% of trials, respectively. Toxicity (88%), radiological response rate (85%) and progression-free survival/time to progression (82%) were well reported in a majority of trials, but health-related quality of life was included in the minority. Of the randomised trials (n = 11), study populations were more homogeneous and study design was more often clearly defined; however, only 45% mandated radiological progression at baseline as measured per Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumours, and reporting of health-related quality of life (55%) remained suboptimal. The design and reporting of NET clinical trials, predominantly of single-arm phase II trials, remains suboptimal and has not considerably improved over time despite the growth in our knowledge of the biology and unique characteristics of NETs. Higher quality is seen in randomised trials, although certain design and reporting elements remain inadequate in some studies. We must prioritise the design and conduct of NET clinical trials to effectively inform future research and guide practice change.

A Deferred-Vaccination Design to Assess Durability of COVID-19 Vaccine Effect After the Placebo Group Is Vaccinated.

Multiple candidate vaccines to prevent COVID-19 have entered large-scale phase 3 placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials, and several have demonstrated substantial short-term efficacy. At some point after demonstration of substantial efficacy, placebo recipients should be offered the efficacious vaccine from their trial, which will occur before longer-term efficacy and safety are known. The absence of a placebo group could compromise assessment of longer-term vaccine effects. However, by continuing follow-up after vaccination of the placebo group, this study shows that placebo-controlled vaccine efficacy can be mathematically derived by assuming that the benefit of vaccination over time has the same profile for the original vaccine recipients and the original placebo recipients after their vaccination. Although this derivation provides less precise estimates than would be obtained by a standard trial where the placebo group remains unvaccinated, this proposed approach allows estimation of longer-term effect, including durability of vaccine efficacy and whether the vaccine eventually becomes harmful for some. Deferred vaccination, if done open-label, may lead to riskier behavior in the unblinded original vaccine group, confounding estimates of long-term vaccine efficacy. Hence, deferred vaccination via blinded crossover, where the vaccine group receives placebo and vice versa, would be the preferred way to assess vaccine durability and potential delayed harm. Deferred vaccination allows placebo recipients timely access to the vaccine when it would no longer be proper to maintain them on placebo, yet still allows important insights about immunologic and clinical effectiveness over time.

Fragility index of trials supporting approval of anti-cancer drugs in common solid tumours.

BACKGROUND: The Fragility Indexquantifies the reliability of positive trials by estimating the number of events, which would change statistically significant results to non-significant results. METHODS: We identified randomized trials supporting drug approvals by the US FDA between 2009 and 2019 in lung, breast, prostate, and colon cancers and in melanoma. We reconstructed survival tablesand calculated the number of events, which would result in a non-significant result for the primary endpoint. The FI was then compared to the number of patients in each trial who withdrew consent or were lost to follow-up. Regression analyses were used to explore associations between RCT characteristics and FI and trials in which FI was lower or equal to number of participants who withdrew consent or were lost to follow-up. RESULTS: Among 81 RCTs, the median FI was 28. The median number of patients who withdrew consent or were lost to follow up was 27. FI was equal or lower than the number of patients who withdrew consent or were lost to follow-up in 47 trials (58%). There was a modest increase in FI over time (p = 0.02). Trials with overall survival as the primary endpoint (p = 0.006) and those in the palliative setting (p < 0.001) had lower FI. There was no association with trial sample size or duration of follow-up. FINDINGS: Statistical significance of RCTs in common solid tumours can be reversed often with a small number of additional events. Post-approval RCTs or real-world data analyses should be performed to ensure results of registration trials are robust.

Dual versus monotherapy with bronchodilators in GOLD group B COPD patients according to baseline FEV1 level: a patient-level pooled analysis of phase-3 randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Which patients should receive dual therapy as initial treatment for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is only loosely defined. We evaluated if a lower forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) identifies a population more likely to benefit from dual therapy than monotherapy among group B COPD patients in whom Global initiative for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (GOLD) recommends monotherapy as initial treatment. METHODS: This was a patient-level pooled analysis of phase-3 randomized controlled trials involving dual bronchodilators. Study patients were classified into two groups based on the FEV1 of 50% of the predicted value (GOLD I/II versus GOLD III/IV). We evaluated the efficacy of dual versus monotherapy (long-acting beta-2 agonist [LABA] or long-acting muscarinic antagonist [LAMA]) between these two groups in the following outcomes: changes in trough FEV1, the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) score, the proportion of SGRQ responders, time to first exacerbation, and risk of adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 14,449 group B patients from 12 studies were divided into GOLD III/IV (n = 8043) or GOLD I/II group (n = 6406). In the GOLD III/IV group, dual therapy was significantly more effective in improving FEV1, reducing SGRQ scores, and achieving a higher proportion of SGRQ responders compared with either LABA or LAMA. Dual therapy also showed a significantly longer time to first exacerbation compared with LABA in the GOLD III/IV group. In contrast, in the GOLD I/II group, the benefits of dual therapy over monotherapy were less consistent. Although dual therapy resulted in significantly higher FEV1 than either LABA or LAMA, it did not show significant differences in the SGRQ score and proportion of SGRQ responders as compared with LABA. The time to first exacerbation was also not significantly different between dual therapy and either LABA or LAMA in the GOLD I/II group. CONCLUSIONS: Dual therapy demonstrated benefits over monotherapy more consistently in patients with lower FEV1 than those with higher FEV1.

Regulatory and operational challenges in conducting Asian International Academic Trial for expanding the indications of cancer drugs.

There are many differences between Asian regions in terms of the regulatory requirements and operational procedures in conducting international academic clinical trials for the approval of new drugs. The National Cancer Center Hospital in Japan has launched an international investigator-initiated registration-directed trial (IIRDT) in Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore, aiming at obtaining pharmaceutical approval in participating regions. Differences in regulatory and operational procedures were identified while coordinating the trial. In Japan, regulatory authority reviews should be performed after approval by institutional review boards for IIRDT, whereas in other regions these can be done in parallel. There were disparities in Good Manufacturing Practice-related documents between regions. Several differences were found regarding investigational product (IP) management, specifically concerning labeling, import/export procedures, and customs clearance costs. On the other hand, safety reporting procedures were relatively well-harmonized in accordance with International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use, Clinical Safety Data Management: Definitions and Standards for Expedited Reporting (ICH-E2A). Regions also differed in per-patient costs, due to varying regulations for academic registration-directed trials. In conclusion, the observed differences among Asian regions should be harmonized to facilitate international academic trials in Asia and thus resolve unmet patient needs worldwide. Study Highlights WHAT IS THE CURRENT KNOWLEDGE ON THE TOPIC? International clinical trials have become common because they make it possible to accrue patients faster and obtain new drug approval in wider areas. However, pharmaceutical regulatory differences hinder the efficient conduct of international clinical trials, especially in academia. WHAT QUESTION DID THIS STUDY ADDRESS? We conducted an academic international clinical trial on new drug applications in four Asian countries and clarified pharmaceutical regulatory differences and operational difficulties. WHAT DOES THIS STUDY ADD TO OUR KNOWLEDGE? The study identified differences between countries in terms of regulatory affairs, institutional review board (IRB) review processes, investigational new drug (IND) dossiers, investigational product (IP) management procedures, and clinical trial costs, while safety reporting procedures were relatively harmonized. Japan utilizes investigator-initiated registration-directed trials, an advanced regulatory system for new drug application by academia, but the other countries do not. HOW MIGHT THIS CHANGE CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY OR TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCE? Harmonization of pharmaceutical regulations and trial initiation procedures, and regulatory reform of clinical trial costs are important to accelerate academic international clinical trials for new drug applications.

Are randomized controlled trials being conducted with the right justification?

OBJECTIVE: It has been estimated that much of health research may be wasted, resulting in billions of dollars in wasteful research spending worldwide each year. Given the increased use of randomized trials and their influence on medicine, one method to combat research waste is to conduct randomized clinical trials (RCTs) only when a systematic review (SR) suggests more data are needed or when no previous SRs are identified. Here, we analyzed RCTs to determine whether SRs were cited as justification for conducting a trial. METHODS: We analyzed phase III RCTs published between 2016 and 2018 in New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet, and JAMA. We performed duplicate and independent data extraction to ensure the accuracy and validity of our data. For each trial, we extracted whether SRs were cited as justification for conducting the clinical trial. RESULTS: We examined 637 RCTs that cited 728 SRs. Overall, 38.1% (243/637) of RCTs cited an SR as either verbatim (6.9%, 44/637) or inferred (31.2%, 199/637) for trial justification. The 79 remaining RCTs cited SRs in other ways. Approximately, 49.5% (315/637) of RCTs did not cite a SR. CONCLUSIONS: Less than half of the analyzed clinical trials cited a SRs as the basis for undertaking the trial. We believe trialists should be required to present relevant SRs to an ethics or peer review committee demonstrating an unmet need prior to initiating a trial. Eliminating research waste is both a scientific and ethical responsibility.

Consistency of trial reporting between ClinicalTrials.gov and corresponding publications: one decade after FDAAA.

The FDA Amendments Act (FDAAA) required that information for certain clinical trials, such as details about study design features and endpoints, as well as results, be publicly reported in ClinicalTrials.gov . We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of phase III trials with primary results published between January 1, 2016, and June 30, 2017, in high-impact journals and found 74% contained at least one discrepancy between results reported in ClinicalTrials.gov and the corresponding publication. Our findings underscore the necessity for monitoring of clinical trial information and result reporting between sources; a checklist may provide a systemized procedure for investigators and editors to monitor accurate reporting.

Community pharmacy: a crucial enabler in creating the effectiveness study environment in the Salford Lung Studies.

OBJECTIVE: Creating an environment that supports conditions of routine clinical practice and enables an effectiveness trial design with a pre-licensed medicine is extremely challenging. Here, we summarise our experiences and achievements with engaging and mobilising community pharmacies in and around Salford, United Kingdom, in the Phase III effectiveness Salford Lung Studies (SLS). METHODS: This article provides the authors' personal experiences and viewpoints on community pharmacy involvement in the SLS. KEY FINDINGS: More than 130 community pharmacies were enabled, and >2500 pharmacy staff trained, for involvement in the SLS. Key to community pharmacy participation in the SLS was the formation of the SLS Pharmacy Steering Group (PSG), contributing to study oversight, and the development of a pharmacy standard operating procedure document, the major principle of which was to ensure minimum disruption to the normal medicine dispensing process while ensuring compliance with regulations, guidelines, good clinical practice and requirements for pharmacovigilance. The high level of commitment and collaboration of community pharmacy in the SLS demonstrated a willingness to work together and take on additional and novel roles beyond their everyday commercial functions for the benefit of patients, despite normally competing for prescription business. CONCLUSIONS: The involvement and integration of community pharmacy as a key partner in the SLS was pivotal in securing the delivery of these world-first clinical effectiveness studies. To our knowledge, this has not been previously achieved in a study of a pre-licensed maintenance therapy for a common disease in primary care.

Improving the evaluation of COPD exacerbation treatment effects by accounting for early treatment discontinuations: a post-hoc analysis of randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) clinical trials aimed at evaluating treatment effects on exacerbations often suffer from early discontinuations of randomized treatment. Treatment discontinuations imply a loss of information and should ideally be considered in the statistical analysis of trial results, particularly if the discontinuations are related to the disease or treatment itself. Here, we explore this issue by investigating (1) whether there exists an association between the risks of exacerbation and treatment discontinuation in COPD clinical trials and (2) whether disregarding this association can cause bias in exacerbation treatment effect estimates. We focus on the hypothetical estimand, i.e. the treatment effect that would have been observed had all subjects completed the trial as planned. METHODS: The association between exacerbation and discontinuation risks was analysed by applying a joint frailty (random effect) model - allowing for the simultaneous analysis of multiple types of correlated events - to data from five Phase III-IV COPD clinical trials. Specifically, the impact of the association on exacerbation treatment effect estimates was assessed by comparing the treatment hazard ratios of the joint frailty model to the rate/hazard ratios of two related statistical models (the negative binomial and shared frailty models), which both assume discontinuations to be unrelated to the trial outcome. The models were also compared using simulated data. RESULTS: A statistically significant (p < 0.0001), positive association between exacerbation and discontinuation risks was found in all trials. Importantly, simulations confirmed that - with such an association - models disregarding the association risk producing biased results (> 5 percentage point difference in hazard/rate ratio). For some treatment comparisons in the clinical trials, the difference in treatment effect estimates between the joint frailty and the other models was as high as 10-15 percentage points. The difference was affected by the strength of the exacerbation-discontinuation association, the population heterogeneity in exacerbation risk, and the difference in discontinuation rates between treatment arms. CONCLUSIONS: We have identified an association between the risks of exacerbation and treatment discontinuation in five COPD clinical trials. We recommend using the joint frailty model to account for this association when estimating exacerbation treatment effects, particularly when targeting the hypothetical estimand.

How to use frailtypack for validating failure-time surrogate endpoints using individual patient data from meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The use of valid surrogate endpoints can accelerate the development of phase III trials. Numerous validation methods have been proposed with the most popular used in a context of meta-analyses, based on a two-step analysis strategy. For two failure time endpoints, two association measures are usually considered, Kendall's τ at individual level and adjusted R2 ([Formula: see text]) at trial level. However, [Formula: see text] is not always available mainly due to model estimation constraints. More recently, we proposed a one-step validation method based on a joint frailty model, with the aim of reducing estimation issues and estimation bias on the surrogacy evaluation criteria. The model was quite robust with satisfactory results obtained in simulation studies. This study seeks to popularize this new surrogate endpoints validation approach by making the method available in a user-friendly R package. METHODS: We provide numerous tools in the frailtypack R package, including more flexible functions, for the validation of candidate surrogate endpoints using data from multiple randomized clinical trials. RESULTS: We implemented the surrogate threshold effect which is used in combination with [Formula: see text] to make decisions concerning the validity of the surrogate endpoints. It is also possible thanks to frailtypack to predict the treatment effect on the true endpoint in a new trial using the treatment effect observed on the surrogate endpoint. The leave-one-out cross-validation is available for assessing the accuracy of the prediction using the joint surrogate model. Other tools include data generation, simulation study and graphic representations. We illustrate the use of the new functions with both real data and simulated data. CONCLUSION: This article proposes new attractive and well developed tools for validating failure time surrogate endpoints.

Real-World Data and Randomised Controlled Trials: The Salford Lung Study.

Traditional efficacy double-blind randomised controlled trials (DBRCTs) measure the benefit a treatment produces under near-ideal test conditions in highly selected patient populations; however, the behaviour of patients and investigators in such trials is highly controlled, highly compliant and adherent, and non-representative of routine clinical practice. Pragmatic effectiveness trials measure the benefit a treatment produces in patients in everyday "real-world" practice. Ideally, effectiveness trials should recruit patients as similar as possible to those who will ultimately be prescribed the medicine, and create freedom within the study design to allow normal behaviours of patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs) to be expressed. The Salford Lung Study (SLS) was a world-first, prospective, phase III, pragmatic randomised controlled trial (RCT) programme in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma to evaluate the effectiveness of a pre-licensed medication (fluticasone furoate/vilanterol) in real-world practice using electronic health records and through collaboratively engaging general practitioners and community pharmacists in clinical research. The real-world aspect of SLS was unique, requiring careful planning and attention to the goals of maximising the external validity of the trials while maintaining scientific rigour and securing suitable electronic processes for proper interpretation of safety data. Key learnings from SLS that may inform the design of future pragmatic effectiveness RCTs include: (1) ensuring the trial setting and operational infrastructure are aligned with routine clinical care; (2) recruiting a broad patient population with characteristics as close as possible to patients in routine clinical practice, to maximise the generalisability and applicability of trial results; (3) ensuring that patients and HCPs are suitably engaged in the trial, to maximise the chances of successful trial delivery; and (4) careful study design, incorporating outcomes of value to patients, HCPs, policymakers and payers, and using pre-planned analyses to address scientifically valid research hypotheses to ensure robustness of the trial data.

Transforming Performance of Clinical Trials in Pediatric Type 2 Diabetes: A Consortium Model.

Background: Completing phase 3 trials of new drugs for youth with type 2 diabetes is challenging. The Pediatric Diabetes Consortium (PDC) of U.S. pediatric treatment centers developed a Consortium model to improve the efficiency of successfully completing these trials. Aims and Innovations: An aim of the PDC model is to utilize the resources of the PDC Coordinating Center and Executive Committee to improve study protocols, centralize interactions with sponsors, and oversee the performance of PDC Clinical Centers. Key features include a Consulting Group to improve protocol design; Master Service Agreements between the Coordinating Center and Clinical Centers covering confidentiality agreements and contract language; negotiation of a standard Site Budget with Contract Research Organizations (CROs)/Sponsors that reflect actual Clinical Center costs; Weekly Conference Calls with CROs/sponsors to track progress of Clinical Center launches, Monthly Oversight Calls with investigators and study Coordinators to track Clinical Center performance, discuss enrollment strategies, and identify emerging problems. Successes and Challenges: The Consortium model played a key role in the completion of the pivotal trial of liraglutide for treatment of youth with type 2 diabetes. PDC centers also played a pivotal role in exceeding the projected number of randomized subjects needed by two ongoing studies that are nearing completion. Conclusions: While the Consortium model is still a work in progress, PDC has assisted in the successful launch of new type 2 diabetes studies, and negotiations are in underway for PDC participation in pediatric type 1 diabetes and other diabetes-related studies.

Improving Study Conduct and Data Quality in Clinical Trials of Chronic Pain Treatments: IMMPACT Recommendations.

The estimated probability of progressing from phase 3 analgesic clinical trials to regulatory approval is approximately 57%, suggesting that a considerable number of treatments with phase 2 trial results deemed sufficiently successful to progress to phase 3 do not yield positive phase 3 results. Deficiencies in the quality of clinical trial conduct could account for some of this failure. An Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials meeting was convened to identify potential areas for improvement in trial conduct in order to improve assay sensitivity (ie, ability of trials to detect a true treatment effect). We present recommendations based on presentations and discussions at the meeting, literature reviews, and iterative revisions of this article. The recommendations relate to the following areas: 1) study design (ie, to promote feasibility), 2) site selection and staff training, 3) participant selection and training, 4) treatment adherence, 5) data collection, and 6) data and study monitoring. Implementation of these recommendations may improve the quality of clinical trial data and thus the validity and assay sensitivity of clinical trials. Future research regarding the effects of these strategies will help identify the most efficient use of resources for conducting high quality clinical trials. PERSPECTIVE: Every effort should be made to optimize the quality of clinical trial data. This manuscript discusses considerations to improve conduct of pain clinical trials based on research in multiple medical fields and the expert consensus of pain researchers and stakeholders from academia, regulatory agencies, and industry.