Estimation of treatment effects in short-term depression studies. An evaluation based on the ICH E9(R1) estimands framework.

Estimands aim to incorporate intercurrent events in design, data collection and estimation of treatment effects in clinical trials. Our aim was to understand what estimands may correspond to efficacy analyses commonly employed in clinical trials conducted before publication of ICH E9(R1). We re-analysed six clinical trials evaluating a new anti-depression treatment. We selected the following analysis methods-ANCOVA on complete cases, following last observation carried forward (LOCF) imputation and following multiple imputation; mixed-models for repeated measurements without imputation (MMRM), MMRM following LOCF imputation and following jump-to-reference imputation; and pattern-mixture mixed models. We included a principal stratum analysis based on the predicted subset of the study population who would not discontinue due to adverse events or lack of efficacy. We translated each analysis into the implicitly targeted estimand, and formulated corresponding clinical questions. We could map six estimands to analysis methods. The same analysis method could be mapped to more than one estimand. The major difference between estimands was the strategy for intercurrent events, with other attributes mostly the same across mapped estimands. The quantitative differences in MADRS10 population-level summaries between the estimands were 4-8 points. Not all six estimands had a clinically meaningful interpretation. Only a few analyses would target the same estimand, hence only few could be used as sensitivity analyses. The fact that an analysis could estimate different estimands emphasises the importance of prospectively defining the estimands targeting the primary objective of a trial. The fact that an estimand can be targeted by different analyses emphasises the importance of prespecifying precisely the estimator for the targeted estimand.

EMA Review of Axicabtagene Ciloleucel (Yescarta) for the Treatment of Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma.

On June 28, 2018, the Committee for Advanced Therapies and the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use adopted a positive opinion, recommending the granting of a marketing authorization for the medicinal product Yescarta for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma, after two or more lines of systemic therapy. Yescarta, which was designated as an orphan medicinal product and included in the European Medicines Agency's Priority Medicines scheme, was granted an accelerated review timetable. The active substance of Yescarta is axicabtagene ciloleucel, an engineered autologous T-cell immunotherapy product whereby a patient's own T cells are harvested and genetically modified ex vivo by retroviral transduction using a retroviral vector to express a chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) comprising an anti-CD19 single chain variable fragment linked to CD28 costimulatory domain and CD3-zeta signaling domain. The transduced anti-CD19 CAR T cells are expanded ex vivo and infused back into the patient, where they can recognize and eliminate CD19-expressing cells. The benefits of Yescarta as studied in ZUMA-1 phase II (NCT02348216) were an overall response rate per central review of 66% (95% confidence interval, 56%-75%) at a median follow-up of 15.1 months in the intention to treat population and a complete response rate of 47% with a significant duration. The most common adverse events were cytokine release syndrome, neurological adverse events, infections, pyrexia, diarrhea, nausea, hypotension, and fatigue. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Yescarta (axicabtagene ciloleucel) was the first chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy to be submitted for evaluation to the European Medicines Agency and admitted into the "priority medicine" scheme; it was granted accelerated assessment on the basis of anticipated clinical benefit in relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, a condition of unmet medical need. Indeed, Yescarta showed an overall response rate of 66% and a complete response rate of 47% with a significant duration and a manageable toxicity that compared very favorably with historical controls. Here the analysis of benefits and risks is presented, and specific challenges with this important novel product are highlighted, providing further insights and reflections for future medical research.

Beyond "Intent-to-treat" and "Per protocol": Improving assessment of treatment effects in clinical trials through the specification of an estimand.

There is a key problem in randomised clinical trials as outcomes can be distorted due to informative post-randomisation events. This is inadequately addressed by the use of traditional intention-to-treat or per protocol analysis sets and often either ignored or wrongly labelled as missing data. As a consequence, the treatment effects of interest in a clinical trial are not well defined and their estimates might be misinterpreted. The estimand framework should help all those planning, conducting and analysing clinical trials as well as those interpreting the results to better define, estimate and understand the treatment effects of interest. This framework is described in the addendum to ICH E9 and addresses precisely this problem. It is relevant for regulatory drug trials and academic-run trials, as well as for trials of nonpharmacological interventions.

The changing landscape of data monitoring committees-Perspectives from regulators, members, and sponsors.

Data Monitoring Committees (DMCs) are an integral part of clinical drug development. Their use has evolved along with changing study designs and regulatory expectations, which has associated statistical and ethical implications. Although there is guidance from the different regulatory agencies, there are opportunities to bring more consistency to address practical issues of establishing and operating a DMC. Challenging issues include defining the scope of DMC decisions, the regulatory requirements and expectations, the perceived independence of DMCs, the specific focus primarily on safety, etc. Wider use of adaptive clinical trial designs in recent years introduce additional challenges in terms of trial governance and the complexity of DMC activities. A panel comprised of clinical and statistical experts from across academia, industry, and regulatory agencies shared their experience and thoughts on the importance of these aspects and offered perspectives on the future of the DMCs. This paper documents the thinking from the panel session at the CEN-ISBS conference held in Vienna, Austria, 2017.

The impact of parallel regulatory-health technology assessment scientific advice on clinical development. Assessing the uptake of regulatory and health technology assessment recommendations.

AIMS: The parallel regulatory-health technology assessment scientific advice (PSA) procedure allows manufacturers to receive simultaneous feedback from both EU regulators and health technology assessment (HTA) bodies on development plans for new medicines. The primary objective of the present study is to investigate whether PSA is integrated in the clinical development programmes for which advice was sought. METHODS: Contents of PSA provided by regulators and HTA bodies for each procedure between 2010 and 2015 were analysed. The development of all clinical studies for which PSA had been sought was tracked using three different databases. The rate of uptake of the advice provided by regulators and HTA bodies was assessed on two key variables: comparator/s and primary endpoint. RESULTS: In terms of uptake of comparator recommendations at the time of PSA in the actual development, our analysis showed that manufacturers implemented comparators to address both the needs of regulators and of at least one HTA body in 12 of 21 studies. For primary endpoints, in all included studies manufacturers addressed both the needs of the regulators and at least one HTA body. CONCLUSIONS: One of the key findings of this analysis is that manufacturers tend to implement changes to the development programme based on both regulatory and HTA advice with regards to the choice of primary endpoint and comparator. It also confirms the challenging choice of the study comparator, for which manufacturers seem to be more inclined to satisfy the regulatory advice. Continuous research efforts in this area are of paramount importance from a public health perspective.

How aligned are the perspectives of EU regulators and HTA bodies? A comparative analysis of regulatory-HTA parallel scientific advice.

BACKGROUND: In 2010, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) initiated a pilot project on parallel scientific advice with Health Technology Assessment bodies (HTABs) that allows manufacturers to receive simultaneous feedback from both the European Union (EU) regulators and HTABs on their development plans for medicines. AIMS: The present retrospective qualitative analysis aimed to explore how the parallel scientific advice system is working and levels of commonality between the EU regulators and HTABs, and among HTABs, when applicants obtain parallel scientific advice from both a regulatory and an HTA perspective. METHODS: We analysed the minutes of discussion meetings held at the EMA between 2010, when parallel advice was launched, and 1 May 2015, when the cutoff date for data extraction was set. The analysis was based on predefined criteria and conducted at two different levels of comparison: the answers of the HTABs vs. those of the regulators, and between the answers of the participating HTA agencies. RESULTS: The analysis was based on 31 procedures of parallel scientific advice. The level of full agreements was highest for questions on patient population (77%), while disagreements reached a peak for questions on the study comparator (30%). With regard to comparisons among HTABs, there was a high level of agreement for all domains. CONCLUSIONS: There is evident commonality, in terms of evidence requirements between the EU regulators and participating HTABs, as well as among HTABs, on most aspects of clinical development. Indeed, regardless of the question content, the analysis showed that a high level of overall agreement was reached through the process of parallel scientific advice.

Protocol adherence and the progression of cardiovascular calcification in the ADVANCE study.

BACKGROUND: The ADVANCE study assessed the progression of vascular and cardiac valve calcification in 360 hemodialysis patients with secondary hyperparathyroidism (sHPT) assigned randomly to treatment either with cinacalcet plus low-dose vitamin D (≤ 6 µg/week of intravenous paricalcitol equivalent) or with varying doses of vitamin D alone for 52 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was progression of coronary artery calcification (CAC). METHODS: In this post-hoc analysis, we compared CAC progression among 70 protocol-adherent subjects given cinacalcet and low doses of vitamin D (CPA) as specified in the study protocol and 120 control subjects given vitamin D sterols. RESULTS: Baseline patient characteristics did not differ between CPA and control subjects. The mean (standard error of the mean, SEM) doses of vitamin D at week 2 were 4.7 (0.3) and 12.8 (1.0) µg/week in CPA and control subjects, respectively, and the corresponding mean cumulative doses of vitamin D over 52 weeks in each group were 225 (22) and 671 (47) µg. The median change in Agatston CAC score after 52 weeks was less in CPA subjects than in controls (17.8% versus 31.3%, P = 0.02). The median increase in calcification scores in the aortic valve also was less in CPA subjects than in controls (6.0% versus 51.5% P = 0.02). Reductions in serum parathyroid hormone, calcium and phosphorus levels were significantly greater in CPA subjects than in controls (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The progression of cardiovascular calcification was attenuated among cinacalcet-treated subjects with sHPT given low doses of vitamin D per protocol compared with control subjects in whom sHPT was treated with higher doses of vitamin D sterols alone.

Presence of valvular calcification predicts the response to cinacalcet: data from the ADVANCE study.

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY: Cardiac valve calcification (CVC) and coronary artery calcification (CAC) appear to be linked pathogenetically, and both are associated with a poor prognosis among patients with chronic kidney disease on dialysis (CKD-5D). Little is known, however, about factors that affect the progression of CVC and CAC. METHODS: A post-hoc analysis was performed of the ADVANCE study to assess whether patients with CVC are more prone to CAC progression, and whether CVC predicts the response to different treatments for secondary hyperparathyroidism. RESULTS: Subjects were randomized to treatment with either cinacalcet and low doses of vitamin D analogs or larger, varying doses of vitamin D. Among 235 subjects, aortic valve or mitral valve calcification was detected in 108 (46%) and 118 (50%), respectively; 69 subjects (29%) had calcification of both valves. CVC was associated both with baseline CAC and CAC progression (p < 0.05). Subjects with aortic valve calcification who were treated with cinacalcet and low doses of vitamin D experienced less progression of CAC than subjects given larger, varying doses of vitamin D (adjusted OR: 0.26; 95% CI: 0.10, 0.64). This effect was greater in subjects with larger CAC burden at baseline. CONCLUSION: The study findings suggest that CVC is a predictor of CAC progression and, potentially, of greater cardiovascular vulnerability. Treatment with cinacalcet combined with low doses of vitamin D slowed the progression of CAC compared to therapy using larger, varying doses of vitamin D.

Ultrasonographic measures of synovitis in an early phase clinical trial: a double-blind, randomised, placebo and comparator controlled phase IIa trial of GW274150 (a selective inducible nitric oxide synthase inhibitor) in rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To test the sensitivity to change of ultrasonographic endpoints in early phase clinical trials in subjects with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: A double-blind, placebo and comparator controlled, randomised, two-centre study investigated the effect on synovial thickness and vascularity of 28 days repeat daily oral dosing of 60 mg of the inducible nitric oxide synthase inhibitor GW274150 or 7.5 mg prednisolone in RA. Fifty patients with DAS28 scores ≥4.0 were assigned to 3 treatment arms of 17, 19 and 14 (on placebo, GW274150 and prednisolone respectively). Synovial thickness and vascularity of all 10 metacarpophalangeal joints were assessed by ultrasonography using a semi-quantitative scale at baseline (Day 1), Day 15 and Day 28. Vascularity was also measured quantitatively by power Doppler area. RESULTS: At Day 28, the GW274150 group showed a trend towards reduction in synovial thickness compared with placebo, with an adjusted mean decrease of 33% (p=0.072); the prednisolone group decreased significantly by 44% (p=0.011). Similarly, there was a trend to reduced synovial vascularity with GW274150 by 42% compared with placebo (p=0.075); prednisolone resulted in a statistically significant decrease of 55% (p=0.012). There was a 55% decrease in power Doppler area for GW274150, compared with placebo although the result was not statistically significant (p=0.375). Prednisolone 7.5 mg resulted in a highly statistically significant decrease of 95% (p=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: This study advocates the use of ultrasonographic measures of metacarpophalangeal joint synovitis as an endpoint for clinical studies assessing therapeutic potential of new compounds in small patient cohorts over 28 days.

The Impact of COVID-19 on the Initiation of Clinical Trials in Europe and the United States.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has a major impact not only on public health and daily living, but also on clinical trials worldwide. To investigate the potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the initiation of clinical trials, we have descriptively analyzed the longitudinal change in phase II and III interventional clinical trials initiated in Europe and in the United States. Based on the public clinical trial register EU Clinical Trials Register and clinicaltrials.gov, we conducted (i) a yearly comparison of the number of initiated trials from 2010 to 2020 and (ii) a monthly comparison from January 2020 to February 2021 of the number of initiated trials. The analyses indicate that the COVID-19 pandemic affected both the initiation of clinical trials overall and the initiation of non-COVID-19 trials. An increase in the overall numbers of clinical trials could be observed both in Europe and the United States in 2020 as compared with 2019. However, the number of non-COVID-19 trials initiated is reduced as compared with the previous decade, with a slightly larger relative decrease in the United States as compared to Europe. Additionally, the monthly trend for the initiation of non-COVID-19 trials differs between regions. In the United States, after a sharp decrease in April 2020, trial numbers reached the levels of 2019 from June 2020 onward. In Europe, the decrease was less pronounced, but trial numbers mainly remained below the 2019 average until February 2021.

Use of Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium (CDISC) Standards for Real-world Data: Expert Perspectives From a Qualitative Delphi Survey.

BACKGROUND: Real-world data (RWD) and real-world evidence (RWE) are playing increasingly important roles in clinical research and health care decision-making. To leverage RWD and generate reliable RWE, data should be well defined and structured in a way that is semantically interoperable and consistent across stakeholders. The adoption of data standards is one of the cornerstones supporting high-quality evidence for the development of clinical medicine and therapeutics. Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium (CDISC) data standards are mature, globally recognized, and heavily used by the pharmaceutical industry for regulatory submissions. The CDISC RWD Connect Initiative aims to better understand the barriers to implementing CDISC standards for RWD and to identify the tools and guidance needed to more easily implement them. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to understand the barriers to implementing CDISC standards for RWD and to identify the tools and guidance that may be needed to implement CDISC standards more easily for this purpose. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative Delphi survey involving an expert advisory board with multiple key stakeholders, with 3 rounds of input and review. RESULTS: Overall, 66 experts participated in round 1, 56 in round 2, and 49 in round 3 of the Delphi survey. Their inputs were collected and analyzed, culminating in group statements. It was widely agreed that the standardization of RWD is highly necessary, and the primary focus should be on its ability to improve data sharing and the quality of RWE. The priorities for RWD standardization included electronic health records, such as data shared using Health Level 7 Fast Health care Interoperability Resources (FHIR), and the data stemming from observational studies. With different standardization efforts already underway in these areas, a gap analysis should be performed to identify the areas where synergies and efficiencies are possible and then collaborate with stakeholders to create or extend existing mappings between CDISC and other standards, controlled terminologies, and models to represent data originating across different sources. CONCLUSIONS: There are many ongoing data standardization efforts around human health data-related activities, each with different definitions, levels of granularity, and purpose. Among these, CDISC has been successful in standardizing clinical trial-based data for regulation worldwide. However, the complexity of the CDISC standards and the fact that they were developed for different purposes, combined with the lack of awareness and incentives to use a new standard and insufficient training and implementation support, are significant barriers to setting up the use of CDISC standards for RWD. The collection and dissemination of use cases, development of tools and support systems for the RWD community, and collaboration with other standards development organizations are potential steps forward. Using CDISC will help link clinical trial data and RWD and promote innovation in health data science.

Effectiveness of cinacalcet in patients with recurrent/persistent secondary hyperparathyroidism following parathyroidectomy: results of the ECHO study.

BACKGROUND: Progressive secondary hyperparathyroidism (sHPT) is characterized by parathyroid gland hyperplasia which may ultimately require parathyroidectomy (PTX). Although PTX is generally a successful treatment for those patients subjected to surgery, a significant proportion develops recurrent sHPT following PTX. ECHO was a pan-European observational study which evaluated the achievement of KDOQI(TM) treatment targets with cinacalcet use in patients on dialysis. Previously published results showed that cinacalcet plus flexible vitamin D therapy lowered serum PTH, phosphorus and calcium in the clinical practice with similar efficacy as seen in phase III trials. METHODS: This subgroup analysis of ECHO describes the real-world cinacalcet treatment effect in patients with recurrent or persistent sHPT after PTX (n = 153) compared to sHPT patients without prior history of PTX (n = 1696). RESULTS: Both groups of patients had substantially elevated serum PTH with comparable sHPT severity at baseline. After 12 months of cinacalcet treatment, 20.3% (26/128) of patients with prior PTX and 18.2% (253/1388) of patients without prior PTX achieved serum PTH and Ca × P values within the recommended KDOQI(TM) target ranges. CONCLUSIONS: Our data support the successful use of cinacalcet in patients with recurrent/persistent sHPT after PTX.

The inhaled phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor GSK256066 reduces allergen challenge responses in asthma.

UNLABELLED: GSK256066 is a selective phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor that can be given by inhalation, minimising the potential for side effects. We evaluated the effects of GSK256066 on airway responses to allergen challenge in mild asthmatics. METHODS: In a randomised, double blind, cross-over study, 24 steroid naive atopic asthmatics with both early (EAR) and late (LAR) responses to inhaled allergen received inhaled GSK256066 87.5 mcg once per day and placebo for 7 days, followed by allergen challenge. Methacholine reactivity was measured 24 h post-allergen. Plasma pharmacokinetics were measured. The primary endpoint was the effect on LAR. RESULTS: GSK256066 significantly reduced the LAR, attenuating the fall in minimum and weighted mean FEV1 by 26.2% (p = 0.007) and 34.3% (p = 0.005) respectively compared to placebo. GSK256066 significantly reduced the EAR, inhibiting the fall in minimum and weighted mean FEV1 by 40.9% (p = 0.014) and 57.2% (p = 0.014) respectively compared to placebo. There was no effect on pre-allergen FEV1 or methacholine reactivity post allergen. GSK256066 was well tolerated, with low systemic exposure; plasma levels were not measurable after 4 hours in the majority of subjects. CONCLUSIONS: GSK256066 demonstrated a protective effect on the EAR and LAR. This is the first inhaled PDE4 inhibitor to show therapeutic potential in asthma.

Current Statistical Considerations and Regulatory Perspectives on the Planning of Confirmatory Basket, Umbrella, and Platform Trials.

Master protocols have received a growing interest during the last years. By assigning patients to specific substudies, they aim at targeting and accelerating clinical development. Given their complexity, basket, umbrella, and platform designs have raised challenging regulatory and statistical questions, especially the control of multiplicity in confirmatory trials. In basket trials, regulatory assessment of the benefit/risk in pooled populations and choice of the treatment indication is challenging. We provide here our perspectives on these topics. In master protocols, as long as the statistical hypotheses tested between the different substudies are independent, no supplementary adjustment for multiplicity over the different substudies should be required. Moreover, sharing a control arm within an umbrella or a platform trial investigating different drugs would not require a correction for the type I error rate, whereas the chance of multiple false positive regulatory decisions should be recognized. In basket trials, pooling across substudies requires a rationale supporting the intended indication and should be preplanned. Assessment of the benefit/risk in pooled target populations can be complicated by differences in design or in efficacy/safety signals between the substudies. While trials governed by a master protocol can offer logistic and financial advantages, more experience is needed to gain a deeper insight into this novel framework.

Are Novel, Nonrandomized Analytic Methods Fit for Decision Making? The Need for Prospective, Controlled, and Transparent Validation.

Real-world data and patient-level data from completed randomized controlled trials are becoming available for secondary analysis on an unprecedented scale. A range of novel methodologies and study designs have been proposed for their analysis or combination. However, to make novel analytical methods acceptable for regulators and other decision makers will require their testing and validation in broadly the same way one would evaluate a new drug: prospectively, well-controlled, and according to a pre-agreed plan. From a European regulators' perspective, the established methods qualification advice procedure with active participation of patient groups and other decision makers is an efficient and transparent platform for the development and validation of novel study designs.

Adaptive designs in clinical trials: from scientific advice to marketing authorisation to the European Medicine Agency.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, experience on the application of adaptive designs in confirmatory clinical trials has accumulated. Although planning such trials comes at the cost of additional operational complexity, adaptive designs offer the benefit of flexibility to update trial design and objectives as data accrue. In 2007, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) provided guidance on confirmatory clinical trials with adaptive (or flexible) designs. In order to better understand how adaptive trials are implemented in practice and how they may impact medicine approval within the EMA centralised procedure, we followed on 59 medicines for which an adaptive clinical trial had been submitted to the EMA Scientific Advice (SA) and analysed previously in a dedicated EMA survey of scientific advice letters. We scrutinized in particular the submission of the corresponding medicines for a marketing authorisation application (MAA). We also discuss the current regulatory perspective as regards the implementation of adaptive designs in confirmatory clinical trials. METHODS: Using the internal EMA MAA database, the AdisInsight database and related trial registries, we analysed how many of these 59 trials actually started, the completion status, results, the time to trial start, the adaptive elements finally implemented after SA, their possible influence on the success of the trial and corresponding product approval. RESULTS: Overall 31 trials out of 59 (53%) were retrieved. Thirty of them (97%) have been started and 23 (74%) concluded. Nine of these trials (39% out of 23) demonstrated a significant treatment effect on their primary endpoint and 4 (17% out of 23) supported a marketing authorisation (MA). An additional two trials were stopped using pre-defined criteria for futility, efficiently identifying trials on which further resources should not be spent. Median time to trial start after SA letter was given by EMA was 5 months. In the investigated trial registries, at least 18 trial (58% of 31 retrieved trials) designs were implemented with adaptive elements, which were predominantly dose selection, sample size reassessment (SSR) and stopping for futility (SFF). Among the 11 completed trials including adaptive elements, 6 demonstrated a significant treatment effect on their primary endpoint (55%). CONCLUSIONS: Adaptive designs are now well established in the drug development landscape. If properly pre-planned, adaptations can play a key role in the success of some of these trials, for example to help successfully select the most promising dose regimens for phase II/III trials. Interim analyses can also enable stopping of trials for futility when they do not hold their promises. Type I error rate control, trial integrity and results consistency between the different stages of the analyses are fundamental aspects to be discussed thoroughly. Engaging early dialogue with regulators and implementing the scientific advice received is strongly recommended, since much experience in discussing adaptive designs and assessing their results has been accumulated.

Does access to clinical study reports from the European Medicines Agency reduce reporting biases? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on the effect of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in cancer patients.

Since 2010, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has provided access to clinical study reports (CSRs). We requested CSRs for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) in cancer patients from EMA and identified RCT publications with literature searches. We assessed CSR availability and completeness, the impact of unreported and unpublished data obtained from CSRs on the effects of ESAs on quality of life (QoL) of cancer patients, and discrepancies between data reported in the public domain and in CSRs. We used random-effects meta-analyses to evaluate the effect of ESAs on QoL measured with Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Anemia (FACT-An), FACT-Fatigue (FACT-F) and FACT-Anemia Total (FACT-An Total) stratified by data source and the impact of discrepancies on QoL, mortality, adverse events, and clinical effectiveness outcomes. We identified 94 eligible RCTs; CSRs or other study documentation were available for 17 (18%) RCTs at EMA. Median report length was 1,825 pages (range 72-14,569). Of 180 outcomes of interest reported in the EMA documentation, 127 (71%) were publicly available. For 80 of those (63%) we noted discrepancies, but these had little impact on the pooled effect estimates. Of 27 QoL outcomes reported in the CSRs, 17 (63%) were unpublished. Including six unpublished comparisons (pooled mean difference [MD] 0.20; 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.93, 2.33) reduced the pooled effect of ESAs for FACT-An from MD 5.51 (95% CI 4.20, 6.82) in published data to MD 3.21 (95% CI 1.38, 5.03), which is below a clinically important difference (defined as MD ≥4). Effects were similar for FACT-F and FACT-An Total. Access to CSRs from EMA reduced reporting biases for QoL outcomes. However, EMA received documentation for a fraction of all RCTs on effects of ESAs in cancer patients. Additional efforts by other agencies and institutions are needed to make CSRs universally available for all RCTs.

Control of mild to moderate asthma over 1-year with the combination of salmeterol and fluticasone propionate.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess asthma control using salmeterol plus fluticasone propionate (FP) in combination (SFC) versus salmeterol or FP as monotherapy in patients with mild to moderate asthma. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, parallel-group study, 322 symptomatic patients were recruited, of which 282 were randomised to receive either salmeterol (50 microg), FP (250 microg), or SFC (50 microg/250 microg), via a single Diskus inhaler twice daily for 12 months. Outcome variables included the number of patients requiring an increase in study medication and the number experiencing 2 exacerbations during the 12-month treatment period. Airway hyper-responsiveness (AHR) and lung function tests were performed at clinic visits. Peak expiratory flow, rescue medication use, symptom scores and adverse events were recorded in diary cards. RESULTS: Fewer patients required an increase in study medication with SFC (10.5%) than with either FP (34.8%) or salmeterol (61.1%) (P<0.001). Significantly fewer patients experienced 2 exacerbations with SFC (4.2%), compared with FP (17.4%; P<0.01) or salmeterol (40%; P<0.001). SFC improved AHR to a significantly greater extent than FP (methacholine PC20=1.8 mg/ml vs. 1.1 mg/ml; P<0.05) or salmeterol (methacholine PC20=1.8 mg/ml vs. 0.7 mg/ml; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The protection against exacerbations may be attributed to better control of inflammation, AHR and lung function parameters achieved with salmeterol and FP in combination, compared with either treatment alone.