Data-driven strategies for increasing patient diversity in Bristol Myers Squibb-sponsored US oncology clinical trials.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Determining whether clinical trial findings are applicable to diverse, real-world patient populations can be challenging when the full demographic characteristics of enrolled patients are not consistently reported. Here, we present the results of a descriptive analysis of racial and ethnic demographic information for patients in Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS)-sponsored oncology trials in the United States (US) and describe factors associated with increased patient diversity. METHODS: BMS-sponsored oncology trials conducted at US sites with study enrollment dates between 1 January 2013 and 31 May 2021 were analyzed. Patient race/ethnicity information was self-reported in case report forms. As principal investigators (PIs) did not report their own race/ethnicity, a deep-learning algorithm (ethnicolr) was used to predict PI race/ethnicity. Trial sites were linked to counties to understand the role of county-level demographics. The impact of working with patient advocacy and community-based organizations to increase diversity in prostate cancer trials was analyzed. The magnitude of associations between patient diversity and PI diversity, US county demographics, and recruitment interventions in prostate cancer trials were assessed by bootstrapping. RESULTS: A total of 108 trials for solid tumors were analyzed, including 15,763 patients with race/ethnicity information and 834 unique PIs. Of the 15,763 patients, 13,968 (89%) self-reported as White, 956 (6%) Black, 466 (3%) Asian, and 373 (2%) Hispanic. Among 834 PIs, 607 (73%) were predicted to be White, 17 (2%) Black, 161 (19%) Asian, and 49 (6%) Hispanic. A positive concordance was observed between Hispanic patients and PIs (mean = 5.9%; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.4, 8.9), a less positive concordance between Black patients and PIs (mean = 1.0%; 95% CI = -2.7, 5.5), and no concordance between Asian patients and PIs. Geographic analyses showed that more non-White patients enrolled in study sites in counties with higher proportions of non-White residents (e.g. a county population that was 5%-30% Black had 7%-14% more Black patients enrolled in study sites). Following purposeful recruitment efforts in prostate cancer trials, 11% (95% CI = 7.7, 15.3) more Black men enrolled in prostate cancer trials. CONCLUSION: Most patients in these clinical trials were White. PI diversity, geographic diversity, and recruitment efforts were related to greater patient diversity. This report constitutes an essential step in benchmarking patient diversity in BMS US oncology trials and enables BMS to understand which initiatives may increase patient diversity. While complete reporting of patient characteristics such as race/ethnicity is critical, identifying diversity improvement tactics with the highest impact is essential. Strategies with the greatest concordance to clinical trial patient diversity should be implemented to make meaningful improvements to the diversity of clinical trial populations.

Abatacept plus methotrexate provides incremental clinical benefits versus methotrexate alone in methotrexate-naive patients with early rheumatoid arthritis who achieve radiographic nonprogression.

OBJECTIVE: This article reports 1-year clinical outcomes in the subgroup of patients with rheumatoid arthritis in the Abatacept study to Gauge Remission and joint damage progression in methotrexate-naive patients with Early Erosive rheumatoid arthritis (AGREE) who achieved radiographic nonprogression at the end of the double-blind phase. METHODS: Patients who achieved radiographic nonprogression (change from baseline in total Sharp score ≤ 0 at 12 months) with abatacept plus methotrexate (MTX) or MTX alone were eligible for this analysis. Clinical outcomes were remission, defined by 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28) using C-reactive protein (CRP), low Disease Activity Score (LDAS), American College of Rheumatology (ACR) scores, physical function (Health Assessment Questionnaire), and tender and swollen joint counts. Safety was assessed at each visit. RESULTS: Patients in the abatacept plus MTX and MTX monotherapy groups had similar baseline characteristics and were similar to the overall study population. The proportion of patients who achieved DAS28 (CRP) remission or LDAS was greater with abatacept plus MTX vs MTX alone [43.2% vs 22.7% (p < 0.001) and 57.4% vs 40.6% (p = 0.008), respectively]. More patients receiving abatacept plus MTX achieved key ACR responses, including major clinical response (27.3% vs 11.9%; p < 0.001). Safety profiles were similar in both treatment groups. CONCLUSION: More MTX-naive patients with early RA who achieved radiographic nonprogression taking abatacept plus MTX also achieved DAS28 (CRP)-defined remission and LDAS compared with patients who received MTX alone, supporting the use of abatacept as a first-line biologic in combination with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

Clinical response and tolerability to abatacept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis previously treated with infliximab or abatacept: open-label extension of the ATTEST Study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of abatacept in biological-naive patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to methotrexate treated in the long-term extension (LTE) of the ATTEST trial. METHODS: Patients randomly assigned to abatacept, placebo or infliximab completing the 1-year double-blind period were eligible to receive abatacept ∼10 mg/kg in the open-label LTE. Efficacy to year 2 is presented for patients randomly assigned to abatacept or infliximab who switched to open-label abatacept. Safety data are presented for all patients entering LTE regardless of double-blind treatment. RESULTS: Of 431 patients randomly assigned, 79.8% remained on abatacept at year 2. At years 1 and 2, 19.7% and 26.1% of abatacept and 13.3% and 28.6% of infliximab-to-abatacept patients achieved disease activity score 28-defined remission (<2.6). Safety with abatacept during the cumulative study period was consistent with the double-blind experience, with no increase in adverse event incidence following the switch to abatacept. CONCLUSION: In methotrexate-inadequate responders, abatacept efficacy was maintained over 2 years. For infliximab-to-abatacept patients, efficacy improvements were seen in year 2 after patients switched to abatacept. Switching directly from infliximab to abatacept was well tolerated. These data demonstrate that abatacept provides sustained responses and consistent safety, suggesting that switching from infliximab to abatacept is a viable treatment option.