Eligibility criteria and enrollment of a diverse racial and ethnic population in multiple myeloma clinical trials.

The narrow eligibility criteria may contribute to the underrepresentation of racial and ethnic subgroups in cancer clinical trials. We conducted a retrospective pooled analysis of multicenter global clinical trials submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration between 2006 and 2019 to support the approval of the use of multiple myeloma (MM) therapies that analyze the rates and reasons for trial ineligibility based on race and ethnicity in MM clinical trials. Race and ethnicity were coded per Office of Management and Budget standards. Patients flagged as having screen failures were identified as ineligible. Ineligibility rates were calculated as the percentage of patients who were ineligible compared with the screened population within the respective racial and ethnic subgroups. Trial eligibility criteria were grouped into specific categories to analyze the reasons for trial ineligibility. Black patients (24%) and other (23%) race subgroups had higher ineligibility rates than White patients (17%). The Asian race had the lowest ineligibility rate (12%) among all racial subgroups. Failure to meet the hematologic laboratory criteria (19%) and treatment-related criteria (17%) were the most common reasons for ineligibility among Black patients and were more common in Black patients than in other races. Failure to meet disease-related criteria was the most common reason for ineligibility among White (28%) and Asian (29%) participants. Our analysis indicates that specific eligibility criteria may contribute to enrollment disparities for racial and ethnic subgroups in MM clinical trials. However, the small number of screened patients in the underrepresented racial and ethnic subgroups limits definitive conclusions.

FDA Analysis of Ineligibility for Acute Myeloid Leukemia Clinical Trials by Race and Ethnicity.

BACKGROUND: Patients of certain racial and ethnic groups have been underrepresented in clinical trials for treatment of malignancy. One potential barrier to participation is entry requirements that lead to patients in various racial and ethnic groups not meeting eligibility criteria for studies (ie, "screen failure"). The objective of this study was to analyze the rates and reasons for trial ineligibility by race and ethnicity in trials of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) between 2016 and 2019. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Multicenter, global clinical trials submitted to the FDA to support AML drugs and biologics. We examined the rate of ineligibility among participants screened for studies of AML therapies submitted to the FDA from 2016 to 2019. Data were extracted from 13 trials used in approval evaluations, including race, screen status, and reason for ineligibility. RESULTS: Overall, patients in historically underrepresented racial and ethnic groups were less likely to meet entry criteria for studies compared to White patients, with 26.7% of White patients, 29.4% of Black patients, and 35.9% of Asian patients not meeting entry criteria. Lack of relevant disease mutation was the reason for ineligibility more frequently among Black and Asian patients. The findings were limited by the small number of underrepresented patients screened for participation. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that entry requirements for studies may put underrepresented patients at a disadvantage, leading to less eligible patients and thus lower participation in clinical trials.

Improving Dose-Optimization Processes Used in Oncology Drug Development to Minimize Toxicity and Maximize Benefit to Patients.

This review highlights strategies to integrate dose optimization into premarketing drug development and discusses the underlying statistical principles. Poor dose optimization can have negative consequences for patients, most commonly because of toxicity, including poor quality of life, reduced effectiveness because of inability of patients to stay on current therapy or receive subsequent therapy because of toxicities, and difficulty in developing combination regimens. We reviewed US Food and Drug Administration initial approvals (2019-2021) of small molecules and antibody-drug conjugates for oncologic indications to determine the proportion with a recommended dosage at the maximum tolerated dose or the maximal administered dose, to characterize the use of randomized evaluations of multiple dosages in dose selection, to describe the frequency of dose modifications at the recommended dosage, and to identify case examples that highlight key principles for premarket dose optimization during drug development. Herein, we highlight major principles for dose optimization and review examples of recent US Food and Drug Administration approvals that illustrate how investigation of dose- and exposure-response relationships and use of randomized dose trials can support dose optimization. Although there has been some progress, dose optimization through randomized dose evaluation in oncology trials is not routinely conducted. Dose optimization is essential to ensure that patients receive therapies which maximize efficacy while minimizing toxicity.

Exploring racial disparities in treatment patterns and outcomes for patients with multiple myeloma using real world data.

This retrospective observational study evaluated racial disparities among Black and White patients with multiple myeloma (MM). We included patients from a longitudinal de-identified EHR-derived database who had ≥2 visits recorded on or after 1/1/2011, documented treatment, and race listed as White or Black. Black patients (n = 1172) were more likely female (54.8%/42.9%) and younger (<65 years, 40.8%/30.8%) than White patients (n = 4637). Unadjusted median real-world overall survival (rwOS) indexed to first-line of therapy (LOT) was 64.6 months (95% CI: 57.8-74.0) for Blacks and 54.5 months (95% CI: 50.9-56.2) for Whites. Adjusted rwOS estimates (for sex, age at index date, and practice type) to either first- (aHR = 0.94; 95% CI: 0.84-1.06) or second-LOT (aHR = 0.90; 95% CI: 0.77-1.05) were similar. Unadjusted derived response rate (dRR) during first-LOT was 84.8% (95% CI: 80.7-88.1) for Blacks and 86.9% (95% CI: 85.0-88.5) for Whites (odds ratio [OR] = 0.78 [95% CI: 0.57-1.10]); in second-LOT, 67.2% (95% CI: 58.4-75.0) for Blacks and 72.4% (95% CI: 68.1-76.3) for Whites (OR = 0.72 [95% CI: 0.46-1.13]). High representation of Black patients enabled this robust analysis, albeit with limitations inherent to the observational data source, the retrospective design, and the analytic use of newly derived endpoints requiring further validation.

Analysis of racial and ethnic disparities in multiple myeloma US FDA drug approval trials.

African Americans (AAs) have a higher incidence of multiple myeloma (MM) than White patients. Mortality is also higher in AAs compared with White patients. AAs more commonly have immunoglobulin H translocations t(11;14) and t(14;16) compared with White patients. We sought to characterize the demographic representation in MM clinical trials and evaluate outcomes based on race and ethnicity. We conducted a pooled analysis of all trials submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to support approval of a MM therapeutic between 2006 and 2019. Demographic characteristics were analyzed descriptively. An age-adjusted stratified Cox regression model was used to evaluate the relationship between time-to-event outcomes and race and ethnicity. Nineteen global trials comprising 10 157 patients were pooled. White, Asian, and Black patients comprised 84%, 7%, and 4% of the dataset, respectively; Hispanic patients comprised 4%. The age-adjusted overall survival hazard ratio (HR) for Black compared with White patients was 0.89 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75-1.05). The age-adjusted HR for US Black vs US White patients was 0.82 (95% CI, 0.66-1.02). For rest-of-world (RoW) Black vs RoW White patients, the HR was 1.31 (95% CI, 0.97-1.77). Black and Hispanic patients were underrepresented in the trials supporting FDA approval of MM drugs. Black patients were primarily enrolled in the United States. Outcomes in US patients were more favorable compared with those in patients in the RoW. Given the higher incidence of MM in AAs and the different disease characteristics, efforts should be made to improve representation of AAs in MM clinical trials.

Response Rate, Event-Free Survival, and Overall Survival in Newly Diagnosed Acute Myeloid Leukemia: US Food and Drug Administration Trial-Level and Patient-Level Analyses.

PURPOSE: To explore trial-level and patient-level associations between response (complete remission [CR] and CR + CR with incomplete hematologic [CRi] or platelet [CRp] recovery), event-free survival (EFS), and overall survival (OS) in newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML) trials of intensive chemotherapy. METHODS: We identified data from eight randomized, active-controlled trials of intensive chemotherapy submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration for treatment of newly diagnosed AML (N = 4,482). Associations between trial-level odds ratios (ORs) for CR and CR + CRi or CRp, and hazard ratios (HRs) for EFS and OS were analyzed using weighted linear regression models. We performed patient-level responder analyses to compare OS by response using pooled data from all studies. RESULTS: In trial-level analyses, association between HR for OS and OR for CR was moderate (R2 = 0.49; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.86), as was the association with OR for CR + CRi or CRp (R2 = 0.48; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.99). For OS versus EFS, a strong association was observed (R2 = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.98) when EFS definitions were harmonized across trials using raw data. In the patient-level responder analyses, patients who achieved CR had better OS compared with CRi or CRp responders (0.73; 95% CI, 0.64 to 0.84) and nonresponders (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.37). CONCLUSION: On a trial level, there is a moderate association between OS and CR rate. A strong association between EFS and OS was observed. However, CIs were wide, and results became moderate using alternative definitions for EFS. Patient-level analyses showed CR responders have better OS compared with CRi or CRp responders and nonresponders. A therapy in newly diagnosed AML with benefit in EFS or substantial benefit in CR rate would be likely to have an OS effect.

Review of patient-reported outcomes in multiple myeloma registrational trials: highlighting areas for improvement.

Over the past 13 years, there have been advances in characterizing the patient experience in oncology trials, primarily using patient-reported outcomes (PROs). This review aims to provide details on the PRO measures and analyses used in multiple myeloma (MM) registrational trials. We identified registrational trials supporting MM indications from 2007 to 2020 from FDA databases. Trial protocols, statistical analysis plans, and clinical study reports were reviewed for PRO measures used, collection methods, statistical analyses, baseline and instrument completion definitions, and thresholds for clinical meaningfulness. Twenty-five trials supporting 20 MM indications were identified; 17 (68%) contained submitted PRO data. Of the 17 trials, 14 were randomized controlled trials and the remainder were single-arm trials. All but one trial were open label trials. Seven trials collected data electronically and five in paper format. The majority of trials evaluated at least two PRO measures (82%) with two trials (12%) utilizing four measures. Nine unique PRO measures were used, most commonly the EORTC QLQ-30 (87%), EQ-5D (65%), and QLQ-MY20 (47%). All 17 (100%) trials provided descriptive summaries, 10 (59%) carried out longitudinal mixed model analysis, 9 (53%) conducted responder analysis, and 2 (12%) did a basic inferential test. We noted substantial heterogeneity in terms of PRO collection methods, measures, definitions, and analyses, which may hinder the ability to effectively capture and interpret patient experience in future MM clinical trials. Further research is needed to determine the most appropriate approaches for statistical and analytical methodologies for PRO data in MM trials.

FDA review summary of patient-reported outcome results for ibrutinib in the treatment of chronic graft versus host disease.

PURPOSE: On August 2, 2017, the Food and Drug Administration approved ibrutinib (IMBRUVICA) for the treatment of patients with chronic graft versus host disease (cGVHD) after the failure of one or more lines of systemic therapy. The approval was based on results from a single-arm, multicenter trial that enrolled patients with refractory cGVHD. This paper describes the FDA review of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) data from Study PCYC-1129-CA and the decision to incorporate descriptive PRO data in the FDA label to support the primary clinician-reported outcome results. METHODS: In this trial, the Lee Chronic GVHD Symptom Scale (LSS) was used to capture patient-reported symptom bother. The 42 patients who received treatment were included in the analysis and completed the PRO tool. Post hoc descriptive analyses were conducted to further understand the measurement properties of the LSS. RESULTS: The analysis submitted to FDA reported that 18 patients had a ≥ 7-point improvement on the LSS overall summary score at any point during the assessment period. For 10 patients, the ≥ 7-point improvement was sustained for ≥ 2 consecutive PRO assessments. An assessment of the responder threshold suggested the threshold submitted to the FDA was reasonable and in line with clinical findings. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, study PCYC-1129-CA demonstrated favorable clinician-reported cGVHD efficacy results that were complemented by results from PRO data, supporting the FDA's positive benefit-risk assessment leading to regular approval. Limitations included the single-arm trial design, responder definition, and instrument shortcomings. These limitations were thoroughly explored through additional FDA post hoc analyses.

Determination of Similarity Margin in Comparative Clinical Studies to Support the Development of Biosimilar Products of Neupogen® (Filgrastim, Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor [G-CSF]).

To demonstrate a biological product is biosimilar to a reference product, the applicant needs to show that the product is highly similar and has no clinically meaningful differences. Comparative clinical studies are often conducted to support the conclusion of no clinically meaningful differences, as a part of totality of evidence. The FDA has published several guidance documents to facilitate the development of biosimilar products. While the guidance documents define the role and objective of comparative clinical studies, they do not provide details about the determination of the similarity margin. In this paper, we illustrate a similarity margin derivation for a surrogate endpoint in comparative clinical studies conducted to assess whether clinically meaningful differences exist between Neupogen® (Filgrastim, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor) and products proposed to be biosimilar to Neupogen®.

FDA's Approval of the First Biosimilar to Bevacizumab.

Passage of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 created an abbreviated licensure pathway for biosimilar products. The FDA approved ABP215 (MVASI, bevacizumab-awwb; Amgen) as a biosimilar to U.S.-licensed Avastin (bevacizumab; Genentech) based on an extensive comparative analytic characterization, data obtained in a pharmacokinetic similarity study in healthy subjects, and a comparative clinical study in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. The totality of the evidence for biosimilarity supported extrapolation of the data to support licensure as a biosimilar for other approved indications of U.S.-licensed Avastin, without the need of additional clinical studies. Clin Cancer Res; 24(18); 4365-70. ©2018 AACR.

Statistical Considerations in Evaluating a Biosimilar Product in an Oncology Clinical Study.

The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCI Act) established an abbreviated approval pathway for biosimilar and interchangeable biological products that was intended to balance innovation and consumer interests. The FDA has published several guidance documents to facilitate implementation of the BPCI Act. Here we discuss the role of comparative clinical studies in the assessment of clinically meaningful differences and illustrate the underlying scientific concepts with a hypothetical example of a clinical study comparing a product to US-licensed bevacizumab. Clin Cancer Res; 22(21); 5167-70. ©2016 AACR.

FDA Approval Summary: Olaparib Monotherapy in Patients with Deleterious Germline BRCA-Mutated Advanced Ovarian Cancer Treated with Three or More Lines of Chemotherapy.

On December 19, 2014, the FDA approved olaparib capsules (Lynparza; AstraZeneca) for the treatment of patients with deleterious or suspected deleterious germline BRCA-mutated (gBRCAm) advanced ovarian cancer who have been treated with three or more prior lines of chemotherapy. The BRACAnalysis CDx (Myriad Genetic Laboratories, Inc.) was approved concurrently. An international multicenter, single-arm trial enrolled 137 patients with measurable gBRCAm-associated ovarian cancer treated with three or more prior lines of chemotherapy. Patients received olaparib at a dose of 400 mg by mouth twice daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The objective response rate (ORR) was 34% with median response duration of 7.9 months in this cohort. The most common adverse reactions (≥20%) in patients treated with olaparib were anemia, nausea, fatigue (including asthenia), vomiting, diarrhea, dysgeusia, dyspepsia, headache, decreased appetite, nasopharyngitis/pharyngitis/upper respiratory infection, cough, arthralgia/musculoskeletal pain, myalgia, back pain, dermatitis/rash, and abdominal pain/discomfort. Myelodysplatic syndrome and/or acute myeloid leukemia occurred in 2% of the patients enrolled on this trial.

Evaluation of heart failure biomarker tests: a survey of statistical considerations.

Biomarkers assessing cardiovascular function can encompass a wide range of biochemical or physiological measurements. Medical tests that measure biomarkers are typically evaluated for measurement validation and clinical performance in the context of their intended use. General statistical principles for the evaluation of medical tests are discussed in this paper in the context of heart failure. Statistical aspects of study design and analysis to be considered while assessing the quality of measurements and the clinical performance of tests are highlighted. A discussion of statistical considerations for specific clinical uses is also provided. The remarks in this paper mainly focus on methods and considerations for statistical evaluation of medical tests from the perspective of bias and precision. With such an evaluation of performance, healthcare professionals could have information that leads to a better understanding on the strengths and limitations of tests related to heart failure.