Prevalence of preexisting articular bone pathology in patients with osteoarthritis screened for fasinumab clinical trials identified by X-ray or magnetic resonance imaging.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the prevalence of preexisting articular bone pathology in patients with hip or knee pain due to osteoarthritis (OA) screened for fasinumab clinical trials. METHOD: This post-hoc analysis included patients with OA screened for three phase 3 fasinumab studies (NCT02683239, NCT03161093, NCT03304379). During screening, participants who met other clinical inclusion/exclusion criteria underwent radiography of knees, hips, and shoulders. Those with Kellgren-Lawrence grade (KLG) ≥ 2 for index joint and without an exclusionary finding proceeded to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of index, contralateral, and KLG ≥ 3 joints. Exclusionary findings included bone fragmentation/collapse, bone loss/resorption, osteonecrosis, and fracture, by either X-ray or MRI. Participants with extensive subchondral cysts were also excluded. Prevalence of abnormalities on radiographs and MRIs are reported. RESULTS: Of 27,633 participants screened, 21,997 proceeded to imaging. Of these, 1203 (5.5%) were excluded due to the presence of ≥ 1 joint with severe articular bone pathology (X-ray or MRI): bone fragmentation/collapse (2.60%), subchondral insufficiency fracture (SIF; 1.67%), osteonecrosis (1.11%), and significant bone loss (0.32%). Additionally, 3.13% screen-failed due to extensive subchondral cysts. More than half of the exclusions due to bone fragmentation/collapse (386/572), osteonecrosis (141/245) and significant bone loss (59/71), and approximately one third of SIF (133/367) and extensive subchondral cysts (229/689) were evident on X-rays. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately one in 20 participants with OA who met the clinical screening criteria for fasinumab phase 3 trials were later excluded due to preexisting severe articular bone pathology findings by X-ray or MRI.

Impact of random variation in albuminuria and estimated glomerular filtration rate on patient enrolment and duration of clinical trials in nephrology.

AIM: To test whether a screening approach with more flexible urinary albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) thresholds would decrease screen failure rate without negatively impacting on the event rate and overall study duration. METHODS: We performed a post-hoc analysis of the ALTITUDE trial. We selected participants randomized to placebo with a UACR of >300 mg/g and an eGFR between 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 and 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 at the first visit (pre-screening) for the trial. We then used less stringent lower UACR and higher eGFR thresholds for the following qualifying visit. For each scenario we calculated the number of eligible participants, the number of renal and cardiovascular endpoints, and the event rates. Based on this, we performed simulations for a future trial and estimated the duration of enrolment and total duration of this trial. RESULTS: The base scenario consisted of 848 participants (median UACR 1239 mg/g; median eGFR 44 mL/min/1.73 m2 ). Lowering the UACR and/or raising eGFR qualification thresholds increased the number of eligible participants, decreased screen failures and resulted in only a modest decrease in renal and cardiovascular event rates. For example, relaxing the UACR criterion from 300 mg/g to 210 mg/g at the qualifying visit, increased the number of eligible patients from 848 to 923, and increased the number of renal events from 117 to 122 events. The event rate showed a moderate decrease from 5.6 (4.6-6.7) events per 100 patient-years to 5.3 (4.4-6.4) events per 100 patient-years. In simulations, lowering the UACR and raising eGFR thresholds for inclusion accelerated patient enrolment and did not increase in the overall trial duration. CONCLUSION: More flexible albuminuria and eGFR-based inclusion criteria, in participants who met the inclusion criteria of a trial based on pre-screening values prior to the clinical trial, decreases screen failure rates and accelerated patient enrolment leading to more efficient trial conduct without impacting the overall trial duration.

Effect of Reasons for Screen Failure on Subsequent Treatment Outcomes in Cancer Patients Assessed for Clinical Trials.

INTRODUCTION: The cancer research community increasingly question the rigidity of eligibility criteria in clinical trials. Common reasons for "screen failure" (RFSF) are well documented; however, their effect on subsequent standard therapy (SST) and outcomes is unclear. METHODS: This retrospective study evaluated patients aged ≥18 years with solid malignancy who were listed as ineligible on a screening log between February 2011 and March 2018. Patients screen-failed for biomarker results or incorrect cancer stage/prior treatment profile were excluded. Data were collected from electronic hospital records, including demographics, cancer history, RFSF, subsequent therapy, and outcomes. RESULTS: Overall, 217 patients were eligible. The most common histologies were lung (28%), melanoma, colon, and pancreatic (all 11%); 90% were metastatic. The most common RFSF were rapid disease progression (PD; 16%), performance status (PS) ≥2 (12%), and abnormal liver function tests (aLFT; 12%). After screen failure, 129/217 (59%) had SST; 9 were dose-reduced. Treatment-naïve or phase III trial-ineligible patients were more likely to receive SST than those pre-treated or phase I trial-ineligible (72/104 vs. 52/113, p = 0.0006; 71/109 vs. 15/42, p = 0.00013), respectively. RFSF stabilised/improved in 104/217 (48%); the main RFSF was co-morbidity (19/104). The most common RFSF to deteriorate were rapid PD (27/72), PS ≥2 (20/72), and aLFT with liver metastases (LM; 13/72). CONCLUSIONS: RFSF related to organ function rarely deteriorate unless directly involved with underlying malignancy. Most RFSF do not prevent patients from having SST, nor increase dose reductions, especially in treatment-naïve/phase III trial-ineligible patients. Those with RFSF of poor PS, rapid PD, and aLFT from LM are less suitable for SST. Careful broadening of trial eligibility is warranted.

Addressing Technical Failures in a Diabetic Retinopathy Screening Program.

Purpose: Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is a preventable cause of blindness detectable through screening using retinal digital photography. The Irish National Diabetic Retina Screening (DRS) programme, Diabetic RetinaScreen, provides free screening services to patients with diabetes from aged 12 years and older. A technical failure (TF) occurs when digital retinal imaging is ungradable, resulting in delays in the diagnosis and treatment of sight-threatening disease. Despite their impact, the causes of TFs, and indeed the utility of interventions to prevent them, have not been extensively examined. Aim: Primary analysis aimed to identify factors associated with TF. Secondary analysis examined a subset of cases, assessing patient data from five time points between 2019 and 2021 to identify photographer/patient factors associated with TF. Methods: Patient data from the DRS database for one provider were extracted for analysis between 2018 and 2022. Information on patient demographics, screening results, and other factors previously associated with TF were analyzed. Primary analysis involved using mixed-effects logistic regression models with nested patient-eye random effects. Secondary analysis reviewed a subset of cases in detail, checking for causes of TF. Results: The primary analysis included a total of 366,528 appointments from 104,407 patients over 5 years. Most patients had Type 2 diabetes (89.2%), and the overall TF rate was 4.9%. Diabetes type and duration, dilate pupil status, and the presence of lens artefacts on the camera were significantly associated with TF. The Secondary analysis identified the primary cause of TF was found to be optically dense cataracts, accounting for over half of the TFs. Conclusion: This study provides insight into the causes of TF within the Irish DRS program, highlighting cataracts as the primary contributing factor. The identification of patient-level factors associated with TF facilitates appropriate interventions that can be put in place to improve patient outcomes and minimize delays in treatment and diagnosis.

Analysis of Clinical Trial Screen Failures in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases (IBD): Real World Results from the International Organization for the study of IBD.

BACKGROUND: Recruitment for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in IBD have substantially dropped over time. This study aimed to assess reasons why IBD patients are not included in sponsored multicenter phase IIb-III RCTs. METHODS: All IOIBD members (n=58) were invited to participate. We divided barriers to participation as follow: 1) reasons patients with active IBD were not deemed appropriate for a RCT; 2) reasons qualified patients did not wish to participate; 3) reasons for screen failure (SF) in patients agreeing to participate. We assess those in a 4-week prospective study including, consecutively, all patients with symptomatic disease for whom a treatment change was required. In addition, we performed a 6-month retrospective study to further evaluate reasons for SF. RESULTS: A total of 106 patients (60 male (56.6%), 63 Crohn's disease [CD] (59.4%)), from 10 centers across the world, were included in the prospective study. A RCT has not been proposed to 65 of them (mainly due to eligibility criteria). Of the 41 patients to whom a RCT was offered, 8 refused (mainly due to reluctance to receive placebo) and 28 agreed to participate. Among these 28 patients, 5 failed their screening and 23 were finally included in a RCT. A total of 107 patients (61 male (57%), 67 CD (62.6%)), from 13 centers worldwide, were included in our retrospective study of SFs. The main reason was insufficient disease activity. CONCLUSION: This first multicenter study analyzing reasons for non-enrollment in IBD RCTs shown that we lose patients at each step. Eligibility criteria, the risk of placebo assignment and insufficient disease activity were part of the main barriers.

Reasons why patients fail screening in Indian breast cancer trials.

INTRODUCTION: An increased number of screen failure patients in a clinical trial increases time and cost required for the recruitment. Assessment of reasons for screen failure can help reduce screen failure rates and improve recruitment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We collected retrospective data of human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER2) positive Indian breast cancer patients, who failed screening for phase 3 clinical trials and ascertained their reasons for screen failure from screening logs. Statistical comparison was done to ascertain if there are any differences between private and public sites. RESULTS: Of 727 patients screened at 14 sites, 408 (56.1%) failed screening. The data on the specific reasons for screen failures was not available at one of the public sites (38 screen failures out of 83 screened patients). Hence, after excluding that site, further analysis is based on 644 patients, of which 370 failed screening. Of these, 296 (80%) screen failure patients did not meet selection criteria. The majority -266 were HER2 negative. Among logistical issues, 39 patients had inadequate breast tissue sample. Sixteen patients withdrew their consent at private sites as compared to six at public sites. The difference between private and public sites for the above three reasons was statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Use of prescreening logs to reduce the number of patients not meeting selection criteria and protocol logistics, and patient counseling to reduce consent withdrawals could be used to reduce screen failure rate.