Estimands in CNS trials - A review of strategies for addressing intercurrent events.

Background: The estimands framework represents a significant innovation for the design, conduct, analysis, and interpretation of clinical trials. An aim of the framework is to increase precision and transparency on the handling of intercurrent events (IEs), defined as events occurring after treatment initiation and affecting the endpoint. While the experience in constructing and reporting estimands in the published literature is limited, developers performing confirmatory studies are already making use of the new paradigm, allowing to survey the strategies proposed by applicants and endorsed by regulators. Methods: To identify strategies for handling IEs in confirmatory central nervous system (CNS) trials, we searched scientific advice letters issued by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) between 2017 and 2022. We developed a categorisation of the IEs and classified, according to the strategies defined in the framework, the strategies proposed by the Applicants and recommended by the agency. Strategies proposed and recommended were summarised by category of IEs, and the rationale for the choices was analysed qualitatively. Results: In total, 170 IEs were identified in 52 confirmatory trials. A clear preference for the treatment policy strategy for treatment discontinuation and for the hypothetical strategy for pandemic-related disruptions was identified. For other categories of IEs, there are more mixed patterns. Discussion: This study highlights the multidimensional nature of choosing a strategy for an IE. For different occurring IEs in confirmatory CNS trials different strategies are of regulatory interest, depending on the trial objective, underlying disease properties, rarity of disease, as well as frequency and timing of IEs and their relatedness to the disease.

Clinically Manifest Infections Do Not Increase the Relapse Risk in People with Multiple Sclerosis Treated with Disease-Modifying Therapies: A Prospective Study.

BACKGROUND: Many factors are believed to be positively associated with the incidence of relapses in people with multiple sclerosis (MS), including infections. However, their role is still controversial. We aimed to investigate whether symptomatic infections in people with MS increase the risk of relapse in the short, medium, or long term. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We enrolled consecutive patients with relapsing MS (RMS) from October to December 2018. From enrolment up to September 2020, an online questionnaire investigating the occurrence of infections was sent via WhatsApp® monthly to the enrolled patients, while in-person visits were performed every six months. When patients complained of symptoms compatible with relapses, they attended an extra in-person visit. RESULTS: We enrolled 155 patients with RMS, and 88.38% of patients were treated with disease-modifying therapies. In the dataset, 126,381 total patient days, 78 relapses, and 1202 infections were recorded over a period of about 2 years. No increased risk of relapse after clinically manifest infections was found in the short-, medium-, or long-term period. No correlation was found between all infections and the number of relapses (p = 0.212). The main analyses were repeated considering only those infections that had at least two of the following characteristics: duration of infection ≥ 4 days, body temperature > 37° Celsius, and the use of drugs (antibiotics and/or antivirals), and no significant associations were observed. CONCLUSIONS: No associations between infections and relapses were observed, likely suggesting that disease-modifying therapies may protect against the risk of relapse potentially triggered by infections.

Estimators for handling COVID-19-related intercurrent events with a hypothetical strategy.

The COVID-19 pandemic has affected clinical trials across disease areas, raising the questions how interpretable results can be obtained from impacted studies. Applying the estimands framework, analyses may seek to estimate the treatment effect in the hypothetical absence of such impact. However, no established estimators exist. This simulation study, based on an ongoing clinical trial in patients with Tourette syndrome, compares the performance of candidate estimators for estimands including either a continuous or binary variable and applying a hypothetical strategy for COVID-19-related intercurrent events (IE). The performance is investigated in a wide range of scenarios, under the null and the alternative hypotheses, including different modeling assumptions for the effect of the IE and proportions of affected patients ranging from 10% to 80%. Bias and type I error inflation were minimal or absent for most estimators under most scenarios, with only multiple imputation- and weighting-based methods displaying a type I error inflation in some scenarios. Of more concern, all methods that discarded post-IE data displayed a sharp decrease of power proportional to the proportion of affected patients, corresponding to both a reduced precision of estimation and larger confidence intervals. The simulation study shows that de-mediation via g-estimation is a promising approach. Besides showing the best performance in our simulation study, these approaches allow to estimate the effect of the IE on the outcome and cross-compare between different studies affected by similar IEs. Importantly, the results can be extrapolated to IEs not related to COVID-19 that follow a similar causal structure.

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.

Cross-sectional study to develop and describe psychometric characteristics of a patient-reported instrument (PROFFIT) for measuring financial toxicity of cancer within a public healthcare system.

OBJECTIVES: To measure and explain financial toxicity (FT) of cancer in Italy, where a public healthcare system exists and patients with cancer are not expected (or only marginally) to pay out-of-pocket for healthcare. SETTING: Ten clinical oncological centres, distributed across Italian macroregions (North, Centre, South and Islands), including hospitals, university hospitals and national research institutes. PARTICIPANTS: From 8 October 2019 to 11 December 2019, 184 patients, aged 18 or more, who were receiving or had received within the previous 3 months active anticancer treatment were enrolled, 108 (59%) females and 76 (41%) males. INTERVENTION: A 30-item prefinal questionnaire, previously developed within the qualitative tasks of the project, was administered, either electronically (n=115) or by paper sheet (n=69). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: According to the protocol and the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research methodology, the final questionnaire was developed by mean of explanatory factor analysis and tested for reliability, internal consistency (Cronbach's α test and item-total correlation) and stability of measurements over time (test-retest reliability by intraclass correlation coefficient and weighted Cohen's kappa coefficient). RESULTS: After exploratory factor analysis, a score measuring FT (FT score) was identified, made by seven items dealing with outcomes of FT. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the FT score was 0.87 and the item-total correlation coefficients ranged from 0.53 to 0.74. Further, nine single items representing possible determinants of FT were also retained in the final instrument. Test-retest analysis revealed a good internal validity of the FT score and of the 16 items retained in the final questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: The Patient-Reported Outcome for Fighting FInancial Toxicity (PROFFIT) instrument consists of 16 items and is the first reported instrument to assess FT of cancer developed in a country with a fully public healthcare system. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03473379.

The opportunity of patient-journey studies for academic clinical research in oncology.

A wave of new treatments and treatment combinations are becoming available for solid tumours. Trials performed to obtain registration establish a positive benefit-risk but unavoidably leave many questions unanswered on place-in-therapy and the relative efficacy of different treatment sequences. Such limitations create problems in terms of strength of treatment guidelines and reimbursement (in countries where a public payer exists). Data on new drugs arriving during the last 10 years for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma and renal cancer are reported as an example of how the fortunate condition of having new effective treatments may translate into uncertainty regarding the optimal treatment plan. We suggest that academic research should react to such limitations and propose a model of patient-journey study (PJS), where patients are followed from the initial diagnosis across subsequent lines of treatment. A PJS master protocol might include at each node of clinical decision either the possibility of choosing treatment according to guidelines (generating prospective real-world evidence) or the possibility to randomise where uncertainty exists (generating comparative effectiveness data). PJS protocols might be adaptively modified every time a new drug arrives on the market. Overall, methodologically sound analyses of PJS will produce knowledge on the efficacy and the effectiveness of different treatment pathways and might significantly optimise treatment of patients in clinical practice. PJS would represent a jump from a few snapshots (trials performed to get regulatory approval) to a full movie (evidence on the relative value of treatment pathways).

Ethical Aspects of Regulating Oncology Products.

Medicines, including those intended for the treatment of cancer, are tightly regulated. Such regulation, historically linked to disasters due to unsafe medicines, evolved to cover all aspects of research around the quality, safety and efficacy of candidate medicines. This chapter intends to give an introduction on what regulators do and where the ethical foundations for regulating medicines might be searched. Some specific dilemmas will be explored, such as (i) whether at all, and if so subject to which conditions, research on animals is justified; (ii) what to do when potentially useful data on a medicine were collected unethically; (iii) which additional ethical challenges are posed by the fact that regulators have to make decisions on a medicine under uncertainty; and (iv) how to account for patients' preferences (and their heterogeneity) in regulatory decision-making. An overview of emerging topics such as use of healthcare data and open science is also proposed. While not intending to cover all arguments in the complex conversation around the regulation of medicines for cancer (let alone, around the regulation of medicines in general), this chapter aims to give a basis for further reading.

Potential impact of COVID-19 on ongoing clinical trials: a simulation study with the neurological Yale Global Tic Severity Scale based on the CANNA-TICS study.

The COVID-19 pandemic has manifold impacts on clinical trials. In response, drug regulatory agencies and public health bodies have issued guidance on how to assess potential impacts on ongoing clinical trials and stress the importance of a risk-assessment as a pre-requisite for modifications to the clinical trial conduct. This article presents a simulation study to assess the impact on the power of an ongoing clinical trial without the need to unblind trial data and compromise trial integrity. In the context of the CANNA-TICS trial, investigating the effect of nabiximols on reducing the total tic score of the Yale Global Tic Severity Scale (YGTSS-TTS) in patients with chronic tic disorders and Tourette syndrome, the impact of the two COVID-19 related intercurrent events handled by a treatment policy strategy is investigated using a multiplicative and additive data generating model. The empirical power is examined for the analysis of the YGTSS-TTS as a continuous and dichotomized endpoint using analysis techniques adjusted and unadjusted for the occurrence of the intercurrent event. In the investigated scenarios, the simulation studies showed that substantial power losses are possible, potentially making sample size increases necessary to retain sufficient power. However, we were also able to identify scenarios with only limited loss of power. By adjusting for the occurrence of the intercurrent event, the power loss could be diminished to different degrees in most scenarios. In summary, the presented risk assessment approach may support decisions on trial modifications like sample size increases, while maintaining trial integrity.

A qualitative analysis and development of a conceptual model assessing financial toxicity in cancer patients accessing the universal healthcare system.

PURPOSE: This paper illustrates a conceptual model for a new patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) aimed at measuring financial toxicity (FT) in oncological setting in Italy, where citizens are provided universal healthcare coverage. METHODS: Focus groups with overall 34 patients/caregivers in three different Italian centers (from Northern, Centre, and Southern Italy) and an open-ended survey with 97 medical oncologists were undertaken. Transcripts from focus groups and the open-ended survey were analyzed to identify themes and links between themes. Themes from the qualitative research were supplemented with those reported in the literature; concepts identified formed the basis for item development that were then tested through the importance analysis (with 45 patients) and the cognitive debriefing (with other 45 patients) to test relevance and comprehension of the first draft PRO instrument. RESULTS: Ten domains were extracted by analyzing 156 concepts generated from focus groups and the open-ended survey. After controlling for redundancy, 55 items were generated and tested through the importance analysis. After controlling comprehension and feasibility through cognitive debriefing interviews, a first version of the questionnaire consisting of 30 items was devised. CONCLUSIONS: This qualitative study represents the first part of a study conducted to develop a new PROM to assess FT in Italy, by using a bottom-up approach that makes the most of patients' experiences and the health system analysis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov NCT03473379 first posted on March 22, 2018.

Hamilton scale and MADRS are interchangeable in meta-analyses but can disagree at trial level.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Major depressive disorder is a multidimensional disease, in which demonstrating the efficacy of treatments is difficult. The Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD) and the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) cover different domains but are used interchangeably as primary measures of the outcome in trials and-with standardized measures-in meta-analyses. We aimed at understanding (i) whether the choice of the outcome measurement tool can influence the outcome of a trial, and if so, (ii) whether one systematically outperforms the other, and (iii) whether using standardized measures of the effect in meta-analysis is justified. METHODS: Short-term randomized trials in patients with major depressive disorder that used both the scales were systematically searched and the results were collected. To quantify the differences in the results-both in terms of the standardized mean difference (SMD) and odds ratio (OR) for response-and their range, data were analyzed and plotted with the Bland-Altman method. RESULTS: 161 comparisons from 80 studies were included, involving a total of 18,189 patients. Neither of the two scales appears systematically more sensitive to the treatment effect than the other in terms of SMDs (P-value = 0.06, 95% CI -0.044 to 0.001) or ORs (P-value = 0.15, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.04). However, the variability of differences between the HRSD and MADRS largely depends on the number of patients included in the comparison. CONCLUSION: No systematic differences between the two scales were found supporting the use of standardized measures in meta-analyses. However, the same trial may give very different results with either scale, especially in small trials. Further research is needed to understand the causes of this variability.

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.

Prognostic role of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in first-line treatment of advanced ovarian cancer. A pooled analysis of MITO2 and MITO7 trials.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN) has been associated with improved prognosis in several cancer conditions. Contrasting data have been produced in ovarian cancer.

"Social dangerousness and incurability in schizophrenia": results of an educational intervention for medical and psychology students.

This study explored the influence of an educational intervention addressing common prejudices and scientific evidence about schizophrenia on medical and psychology students' views of this disorder. The intervention--consisting in two three-hour lessons with an interval of a week between--was run at first for medical students and then for psychology students. Participants' views of schizophrenia were assessed at baseline vs. at post intervention by matched questionnaires. At medical school, participation was voluntary and also included a six-month online re-assessment, while at psychology school, participation was mandatory. A total of 211 students attended the educational initiative. At post intervention assessment, students more frequently mentioned psychosocial causes of schizophrenia, and more firmly believed that recovery in schizophrenia is possible and that persons with this disorder are not unpredictable and dangerous vs. their baseline assessment. The online six-month assessment confirmed favourable changes in medical students' views found at post intervention. These results confirm that an educational intervention including personal experiences and scientific evidence can be successful in reducing students' prejudices toward persons with schizophrenia.