Safety analysis of new medications in clinical trials: a simulation study to assess the differences between cause-specific and subdistribution frameworks in the presence of competing events.

Safety is an essential part of the evaluation of new medications and competing risks that occur in most clinical trials are a well identified challenge in the analysis of adverse events. Two statistical frameworks exist to consider competing risks: the cause-specific and the subdistribution framework. To date, the application of the cause-specific framework is the standard practice in safety analyses. Here we analyze how the safety analysis results of new medications would be affected if instead of the cause-specific the subdistribution framework was chosen. We conducted a simulation study with 600 participants, equally allocated to verum and control groups and a 30 months follow-up period. Simulated trials were analyzed for safety in a competing risk (death) setting using both the cause-specific and subdistribution frameworks. Results show that comparing safety profiles in a subdistribution setting is always more pessimistic than in a cause-specific setting. For the group with the longest survival and a safety advantage in a cause-specific setting, the advantage either disappeared or a disadvantage was found in the subdistribution analysis setting. These observations are not contradictory but show different perspectives. To evaluate the safety of a new medication over its comparator, one needs to understand the origin of both the risks and the benefits associated with each therapy. These requirements are best met with a cause-specific framework. The subdistribution framework seems better suited for clinical prediction, and therefore more relevant for providers or payers, for example.

Shaping a suitable EU HTA dossier template: why the German template is not fit for purpose.

From 2025, Health Technology Developers (HTDs) have to submit EU HTA dossiers. The joint clinical assessment (JCA) aims to streamline HTA processes and access to medicinal products across Europe. Currently, German HTA bodies IQWiG and G-BA actively shape the JCA methodology. Here we examine if German HTA dossier requirements are suitable for the JCA. We compare the number of safety endpoint and subgroup analyses in German dossiers with analyses considered in IQWIG's benefit assessment and evaluate if these analyses were considered by the G-BA. We further investigated how the number of analyses was affected by the latest change in the German dossier template. With the current template, HTDs report in median 2.6 times more analyses on adverse events (AE) and 1.1 times more subgroup categories than in the previous template. IQWiG does not consider 33% of AE analyses and 73% of the subgroup categories presented by the HTD under the current template. G-BA considered the same AE as IQWiG in 76% of cases. Subgroups were uncommented by G-BA in most cases, independent of the template (previous: 93%, current 85%) and unconsidered in the conclusion on additional benefit (previous: 77%, current 69%). Thus, changes in the dossier template drastically increased HTD workload, but additional analyses seem unconsidered by the HTA bodies. With a broader scope in JCA, this effect could be amplified. To mitigate duplicative efforts and ensure prompt availability of medicinal products as envisioned by the HTAR, we suggest well-chosen and precise dossier requirements, early consultations, and early HTD engagement.

Fosdagrocorat (PF-04171327) versus prednisone or placebo in rheumatoid arthritis: a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase IIb study.

Objectives: Glucocorticoids have anti-inflammatory, transrepression-mediated effects, although adverse events (AEs; transactivation-mediated effects) limit long-term use in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We evaluated the efficacy and safety of fosdagrocorat (PF-04171327), a dissociated agonist of the glucocorticoid receptor, versus prednisone or placebo. Methods: In this 12-week, phase II, randomised controlled trial, 323 patients with moderate to severe RA were randomised 1:1:1:1:1:1:1 to fosdagrocorat (1 mg, 5 mg, 10 mg or 15 mg), prednisone (5 mg or 10 mg) or placebo, once daily. The primary endpoints (week 8) were American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (ACR20) responses, and percentage changes from baseline in biomarkers of bone formation (procollagen type 1 N-terminal peptide [P1NP]) and resorption (urinary N-telopeptide to urinary creatinine ratio [uNTx:uCr]). Safety was assessed. Results: ACR20 responses with fosdagrocorat 10 mg and 15 mg were superior to placebo, and fosdagrocorat 15 mg was non-inferior to prednisone 10 mg (week 8 model-predicted ACR20 responses: 47%, 61%, 69% and 73% vs 51%, 71% and 37% with fosdagrocorat 1 mg, 5 mg, 10 mg and 15 mg vs prednisone 5 mg, 10 mg and placebo, respectively). Percentage changes from baseline in P1NP with fosdagrocorat 1 mg, 5 mg and 10 mg met non-inferiority criteria to prednisone 5 mg. Corresponding changes in uNTx:uCr varied considerably. All fosdagrocorat doses reduced glycosylated haemoglobin levels. AEs were similar between groups; 63 (19.5%) patients reported treatment-related AEs; 9 (2.8%) patients reported serious AEs. No patients had adrenal insufficiency, treatment-related significant infections or laboratory abnormalities. No deaths were reported. Conclusion: In patients with RA, fosdagrocorat 10 mg and 15 mg demonstrated efficacy similar to prednisone 10 mg and safety similar to prednisone 5 mg. Trial registration number: NCT01393639.