A Framework for the Use and Likelihood of Regulatory Acceptance of Single-Arm Trials.

BACKGROUND: Single-arm clinical trials (SAT) are common in drug and biologic submissions for rare or life-threatening conditions, especially when no therapeutic options exist. External control arms (ECAs) improve interpretation of SATs but pose methodological and regulatory challenges. OBJECTIVE: Through narrative reviews and expert input, we developed a framework for considerations that might influence regulatory use and likelihood of regulatory acceptance of an SAT, identifying non-oncology first indication approvals as an area of interest. We systematically analyzed FDA and EMA approvals using SATs as pivotal evidence. The framework guided outcome abstraction on regulatory responses. METHODS: We examined all non-oncology FDA and EMA drug and biologic approvals for first indications from 2019 to 2022 to identify those with SAT as pivotal safety or efficacy evidence. We abstracted outcomes, key study design features, regulator responses to SAT and (where applicable) ECA design, and product label content. RESULTS: Among 20 SAT-based FDA approvals and 17 SAT-based EMA approvals, most common indications were progressive rare diseases with high unmet need/limited therapeutic options and a natural history without spontaneous improvement. Of the types of comparators, most were natural history cohorts (45% FDA; 47% EMA) and baseline controls (40% FDA; 47% EMA). Common critiques were of non-contemporaneous ECAs, subjective endpoints, and baseline covariate imbalance between arms. CONCLUSION: Based on recent FDA and EMA approvals, the likelihood of regulatory success for SATs with ECAs depends on many design, analytic, and data quality considerations. Our framework is useful in early drug development when considering SAT strategies for evidence generation.

Skeletal muscle density performance for screening frailty in older adults with cancer and the impact of diabetes: The CARE Registry.

INTRODUCTION: Skeletal muscle density (SMD) measurements from imaging scans identify myosteatosis and could screen patients for geriatric assessment. We assessed SMD performance as a screening tool to identify older adults with cancer likely to be frail and who could benefit from in-depth assessment; we compared performance by sex and diabetes status. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed patients in the Cancer & Aging Resilience Evaluation (CARE) Registry. Frailty and diabetes were captured using a patient-reported geriatric assessment (CARE tool). Frailty was defined using CARE frailty index (CARE-FI) based on principles of deficit accumulation. SMD was calculated from computed tomography scans (L3 vertebrae). Analyses were conducted by sex and diabetes status. Scatterplots and linear regression described crude associations between SMD and frailty score. Classification performance (frail vs. non-frail) was analyzed with (1) area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) and confidence intervals (CIs); and (2) sensitivity/specificity for sex-specific SMD quartile cut-offs (Q1, median, Q3). Performance was compared between patients with and without diabetes using differences and estimated CIs (2000 bootstrap replicates). We additionally calculated positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR+, LR-). RESULTS: The analytic cohort included 872 patients (39% female, median age 68 years, 27% with diabetes) with predominately stage III/IV gastrointestinal cancer; >60% planning to initiate first-line chemotherapy. SMD was negatively associated with frailty score; models were best fit in male patients with diabetes. AUC estimates for female (range: 0.58-0.62) and male (0.58-0.68) patients were low. Q3 cut-offs had high sensitivity (range: 0.76-0.89), but poor specificity (0.25-0.34). Diabetes did not impact estimates for female patients. Male patients with diabetes had greater sensitivity estimates compared to those without (sensitivity differences: 0.23 [0.07, 0.38], 0.08 [-0.07, 0.24], and 0.11 [0.00, 0.22] for Q1, median, Q3, respectively). LR estimates were most notable for male patients with diabetes (LR+ = 2.92, Q1 cut-off; LR- = 0.46, Q3 cut-off). DISCUSSION: Using SMD alone to screen older patients for geriatric assessment requires improvement. High-sensitivity cut-off points could miss 11-24% of patients with frailty, and many non-frail patients may be flagged. Screening with SMD is practical but work is needed to understand clinical andresource impacts of different cut-off points. Future research should evaluate performance with additional clinical data and in subgroups.

Geriatric Assessment Impairment Profiles and Mortality in Older Adults with Gastrointestinal Cancers: Latent Class Analysis of the CARE Registry.

BACKGROUND: Many older adults with cancer have ≥2 impairments on geriatric assessment which impacts present and future frailty status, treatment tolerability, and outcomes. Our objective was to identify and describe distinct geriatric assessment impairment classes using latent class analysis (LCA) in older patients with gastrointestinal malignancies and assess 1-year mortality. METHODS: We used the Cancer & Aging Resilience Evaluation (CARE) Study, a registry of older adults (≥60 years) at University of Alabama at Birmingham. The analytic cohort included patients with gastrointestinal malignancies who completed a self-administered geriatric assessment (CARE tool) before chemotherapy and had ≥1 geriatric assessment impairment. Thirteen geriatric assessment impairments were used as indicators in LCA. Resultant classes were described, mortality was estimated, and risk contrasts (differences, hazard ratios) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals. For comparison, estimates were provided for frailty categories (robust, pre-frail, frail) determined from 44 items in the CARE tool. Stratified analyses included high-risk (pancreatic, hepatobiliary, esophageal) vs. low-risk gastrointestinal cancers, and stage (IV vs. I-III). RESULTS: Six geriatric assessment impairment classes were identified: Mild impairment (LC1); Social support impairment (LC2); Weight loss alone (LC3); Impaired, low anxiety/depression (LC4); Impaired with anxiety/depression (LC5); Global impairment (LC6). One-year mortality was 14%, 22%, 29%, 34%, 50% and 50% for LC1-LC6, respectively. For frailty categories, estimates ranged from 18% (robust) to 40% (frail). In stratified analyses, LC4-LC6 consistently had higher mortality estimates compared to LC1. CONCLUSIONS: The 6 geriatric assessment impairment classes showed a wider spread of mortality estimates compared to frailty categories and could be used to identify vulnerable patients and to plan interventions.

Messages that matter: Age differences in affective responses to framed health messages.

Age differences in responses to framed health messages-which can influence judgments and decisions-are critical to understand yet relatively unexplored. Age-related emotional shifts toward positivity would be expected to differentially impact the affective responses of older and younger adults to framed messages. In this study, we measured the subjective and physiological affective responses of older and younger adults to gain- and loss-framed exercise promotion messages. Relative to older adults, younger adults exhibited greater negative reactivity to loss-framed health messages. These results suggest that health message framing does matter, but it depends on the age of the message recipient. (PsycINFO Database Record