Uncontrolled Extensions of Clinical Trials and the Use of External Controls-Scoping Opportunities and Methods.

Increased interest in real-world evidence (RWE) for clinical and regulatory decision making and the need to evaluate long-term benefits and risks of pharmaceutical products raise the importance of understanding the use of external controls (ECs) for uncontrolled extensions of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We searched clinicaltrials.gov from 2009 to 2019 for uncontrolled extensions and assessed the use of ECs in the trial protocol registry and PubMed. We present characteristics of identified uncontrolled extensions, their adoption of ECs, and a qualitative appraisal of published uncontrolled extensions with ECs according to good pharmacoepidemiologic practice. The number of uncontrolled extensions increased slightly across the study period, resulting in a total of 1,115 studies. Most originated from phase III RCTs (62.2%) and specified safety outcomes (61.9% among those with specified outcomes). Most uncontrolled extensions incorporated no control group with only 7 out of 1,115 (0.6%) employing ECs. For those studies with ECs, all involved treatments for rare conditions and assessment of effectiveness. Attempts to balance comparison groups varied from none mentioned to propensity score matching. We noted consistent deficiencies in outcome ascertainment methods and approaches to address attrition bias. The contrast of the large and growing number of uncontrolled extensions with the small number of studies that utilized ECs showed clear opportunities for enhancement in design, measurement, and analysis of uncontrolled extensions to allow causal inferences on long-term treatment effects. As extensions continue to expand within RWE regulatory frameworks, development of guidelines for use of EC with uncontrolled extensions is needed.

Methods for external control groups for single arm trials or long-term uncontrolled extensions to randomized clinical trials.

PURPOSE: Clinical trials compare outcomes among patients receiving study treatment with comparators drawn from the same source. These internal controls are missing in single arm trials and from long-term extensions (LTE) of trials including only the treatment arm. An external control group derived from a different setting is then required to assess safety or effectiveness. METHODS: We present examples of external control groups that demonstrate some of the issues that arise and make recommendations to address them through careful assessment of the data source fitness for use, design, and analysis steps. RESULTS: Inclusion and exclusion criteria and context that produce a trial population may result in trial patients with different clinical characteristics than are present in an external comparison group. If these differences affect the risk of outcomes, then a comparison of outcome occurrence will be confounded. Further, patients who continue into LTE may differ from those initially entering the trial due to treatment effects. Application of appropriate methods is needed to make valid inferences when such treatment or selection effects are present. Outcome measures in a trial may be ascertained and defined differently from what can be obtained in an external comparison group. Differences in sensitivity and specificity for identification or measurement of study outcomes leads to information bias that can also invalidate inferences. CONCLUSION: This review concentrates on threats to the valid use of external control groups both in the scenarios of single arm trials and LTE of randomized controlled trials, along with methodological approaches to mitigate them.

Engaging stakeholders in pharmacoepidemiology research: Current state and recommendations.

PURPOSE: Given current efforts to enhance patient-centered care and shared decision-making, the International Society of Pharmacoepidemiology Workgroup on Patient Engagement assessed patient and other stakeholder engagement in pharmacoepidemiology research and provides recommendations for the field. METHODS: A systematic review used MEDLINE and EMBASE to identify published literature from 2005 to 2016 addressing how stakeholders-patients, caregivers, and others-assisted researchers conducting pharmacoepidemiologic research. Three pairs of Workgroup members screened titles and abstracts to select articles for full-text review and analysis. Two Workgroup members abstracted the following data: research focus, characterization and role of stakeholders, and type(s) of engagement strategy employed. Data were summarized descriptively. RESULTS: We identified 5717 references for abstract screening. Of these, 69 met the criteria for full-text screening, and 11 were selected for data abstraction. Of these 11 studies, seven focused on the development of a research agenda and eight had stakeholders react or advise on an aspect of the study. Although patients were the most commonly identified stakeholders, advocacy groups and health care professionals were also frequently identified. Some studies reported the engagement of other stakeholders, including local government or policy experts. Engagement strategies varied, with five studies using more than one strategy. Studies often did not indicate the involvement of stakeholders in developing the study design or with implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Currently, few pharmacoepidemiology publications mention patient or other stakeholder engagement in the design, analysis, or reporting of research. This suggests that there are opportunities to expand stakeholder engagement and/or increase the transparency of reporting stakeholder engagement.

Qualitative analysis and reproducibility assessment of the Scalp Itch Numeric Rating Scale among patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis of the scalp.

Background: Pruritus is a prevalent and bothersome symptom of scalp psoriasis. Validated scales assessing scalp itch are needed to evaluate treatment efficacy. Objective: To evaluate comprehensibility and reproducibility of the Scalp Itch Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), a novel scale being used in a phase 3 study of apremilast. Methods: The Scalp Itch NRS, Modified Whole Body Itch NRS, Global Assessment of Psoriasis Severity-Scalp (GAPS-S), and Global Impression of Change-Scalp Itch (GIC-SI) were assessed among patients with moderate to severe scalp psoriasis. Convergent validity and test-retest reliability between two visits (7 ± 3 days apart) were assessed using intra-class and Spearman's correlations. Results: Patients found the Scalp Itch NRS easy to use and understand. Convergent validity (Modified Whole Body Itch NRS Visit 1: rs = 0.71, Visit 2: rs = 0.92, p< .0001; GAPS-S Visit 1: rs = 0.62, Visit 2: rs = 0.63, p< .0001), and consistency with changes (Modified Whole Body Itch NRS: rs = 0.69, p< .0001; GAPS-S: rs = 0.42, p = .0029) were demonstrated. The Scalp Itch NRS showed strong test-retest reliability (intra-class correlation coefficient = 0.87; rs = 0.89). Change scores on the Scalp Itch NRS were consistent with change scores on the GIC-SI. Conclusions: The Scalp Itch NRS is a valid and reproducible measure of scalp itch in patients with moderate to severe scalp psoriasis. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03123471.

Sensitivity analysis of methods for active surveillance of acute myocardial infarction using electronic databases.

BACKGROUND: The validity of conclusions from observational studies depends on decisions regarding design, analysis, data quality, and implementation. Through sensitivity analyses, we explored the impact of such decisions on balance control and risk estimates. METHODS: Using as a template the Mini-Sentinel protocol for the active surveillance of acute myocardial infarction (MI) in association with use of antidiabetic agents, we defined cohorts of new users of metformin and second-generation sulfonylureas, baseline covariates and acute MI events using three combinations of washout and baseline periods. Using propensity-score matching, we assessed balance control and risk estimates using cumulative data for matching all patients compared with not rematching prior matches in quarterly analyses over the follow-up period. RESULTS: A longer washout period increased the confidence in new-user status, but at the expense of sample size; a longer baseline period improved capture of covariates related to pre-existing chronic conditions. When all patients were matched each quarter, balance was improved and risk estimates were more robust, especially in the later quarters. CONCLUSIONS: Durations of washout and baseline periods influence the likelihood of new-user status and sample size. Matching all patients tends to result in better covariate balance than matching only new patients. Decisions regarding the durations of washout and baseline periods depend on the specific research question and availability of longitudinal patient data within the database. This paper demonstrates the importance and utility of sensitivity analysis of methods for evaluating the robustness of results in observational studies.

Choice of recall period for patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures: criteria for consideration.

PURPOSE: Understand the choice of recall period for PRO measures based on intended use, characteristics of the disease, treatment, and attributes of studies. METHODS: Current practice and considerations were reviewed within several disease areas (overactive bladder, menopausal hot flashes, niacin-induced flushing, osteoarthritis pain, irritable bowel symptoms, benign prostatic hyperplasia, and alopecia). RESULTS: Rationales were identified for using different recall periods, including event-driven (immediate), daily, up to weekly, and longer than weekly. This work demonstrates that (1) recall depends on what the PRO measure captures, its intended use, and attributes of the disease and study; (2) within the same disease area, recall can vary depending on the concept or phenomenon of interest; (3) recall must consider patient burden and their ability to easily and accurately recall the information requested; and (4) recall must be consistent with the duration of the trial and the scheduled clinic visits. CONCLUSIONS: Shorter recall periods may underestimate symptom burden when symptoms have diurnal or day-to-day fluctuation and may place undue burden on patients. On the other hand, recall intervals that are too long may either over- or underestimate the health state. Therefore, appropriate criteria should be considered given attributes of the disease when selecting an adequate recall period.

Recommendations for safety planning, data collection, evaluation and reporting during drug, biologic and vaccine development: a report of the safety planning, evaluation, and reporting team.

BACKGROUND: The Safety Planning, Evaluation and Reporting Team (SPERT) was formed in 2006 by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. PURPOSE: SPERT's goal was to propose a pharmaceutical industry standard for safety planning, data collection, evaluation, and reporting, beginning with planning first-in-human studies and continuing through the planning of the post-product-approval period. METHODS: SPERT's recommendations are based on our review of relevant literature and on consensus reached in our discussions. RESULTS: An important recommendation is that sponsors create a Program Safety Analysis Plan early in development. We also give recommendations for the planning of repeated, cumulative meta-analyses of the safety data obtained from the studies conducted within the development program. These include clear definitions of adverse events of special interest and standardization of many aspects of data collection and study design. We describe a 3-tier system for signal detection and analysis of adverse events and highlight proposals for reducing "false positive" safety findings. We recommend that sponsors review the aggregated safety data on a regular and ongoing basis throughout the development program, rather than waiting until the time of submission. LIMITATIONS: We recognize that there may be other valid approaches. CONCLUSIONS: The proactive approach we advocate has the potential to benefit patients and health care providers by providing more comprehensive safety information at the time of new product marketing and beyond.

Acute migraine treatment with rizatriptan in real world settings - focusing on treatment strategy, effectiveness, and behavior.

Although randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for assessing efficacy of a drug intervention, because they are conducted in a highly selected group of patients, they do not necessarily reflect normal customary or optimized patient care. Accordingly, information from RCTs must be supplemented by outcomes research and by nonexperimental or quasi-experimental study designs. Herein, we discuss information that supplements the rigorous but sometimes rigid nature of RCTs in an effort to better understand the clinical utility of drug treatment for migraine with patient-centered outcomes in mind. We start by discussing several lessons we learned from RCTs on comparative triptan studies, followed by presenting data on outcomes studies for rizatriptan. We then briefly discuss migraine treatment behavior issues, including early treatment and adherence to treatment.

Analysis and interpretation of results based on patient-reported outcomes.

This article is part of a series of manuscripts dealing with the incorporation of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) into clinical trials. The issues dealt with in this manuscript concern the common pitfalls to avoid in statistical analysis and interpretation of PROs. Specifically, the questions addressed by this manuscript involve the analysis pitfalls with PRO data in clinical trials and how can they be avoided (e.g.,missing data, multiplicity, null results etc.). The manuscript provides key literature for existing resources and proposes new guidelines.

Interpreting and reporting results based on patient-reported outcomes.

This article deals with the incorporation of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) into clinical trials and focuses on issues associated with the interpretation and reporting of PRO data. The primary focus and context of this information relates to the evidentiary support and reporting for a labeling or advertising claim of a PRO benefit for a new or approved pharmaceutical product. This manuscript focuses on issues associated with assessing clinical significance and common pitfalls to avoid in presenting results related to PROs. Specifically, the questions addressed by this manuscript involve: What are the best methods to assess clinical significance for PROs? How should investigators present PRO data most effectively in a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) application? In labeling or in a scientific publication? Guidelines for interpreting clinical significance of PROs and for comprehensively reporting on the methods, measures and results of clinical trials that incorporate PROs are important for clinicians, regulatory agencies, and most of all to patients. Clear specifications for considering a finding on a PRO measure, as clinically meaningful, need to be determined by instrument developers and psychometricians; they need to be reported for all clinical trials involving PRO end points. Clinical trial reports need to be comprehensive, clear, and sufficient to enable any reader to understand the methods, PRO measures, statistical analysis, and results.

Validation of a questionnaire to assess niacin-induced cutaneous flushing.

BACKGROUND: Niacin is currently the most effective approved agent for raising high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. However, niacin-induced cutaneous flushing (redness, warmth, tingling and/or itching) significantly limits patient acceptance. To further characterize flushing, a patient-reported Flushing Symptom Questionnaire (FSQ) was developed and validated. METHODS: The FSQ was validated in an 8-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of extended-release (ER) niacin and placebo. The primary flushing endpoint of the study was based on the single Global Flushing Severity Score (GFSS), an item within the FSQ, which assesses overall flushing severity on a 0-10 discretized analog scale. RESULTS: A total of 175 patients were randomized to one of four treatment groups (sequences of placebo and ER niacin [given as niacin (NIASPAN) 1 g (N1) and 2g (N2)]. Test-retest reliability and reproducibility coefficients for the single-item GFSS were all above 0.75. Construct validity was supported by moderate to strong correlations (r > 0.5) with other FSQ items. All FSQ item scores and specifically the GFSS discriminated between treatment groups and demonstrated expected relationships with predefined known groups. The GFSS demonstrated high responsiveness in patients who switched from ER niacin to placebo. The ability of the GFSS and GFBS to discriminate changes in flushing symptoms in patients who increased drug dose was less than expected possibly due to accommodation to the flushing effects of niacin over time; differential drop-out due to flushing; and/or FSQ items not being sensitive enough to detect a change that was present. CONCLUSIONS: The FSQ items and specifically the Global Flushing Severity Score (GFSS), are reliable and valid measures to assess niacin-induced flushing.

Validation of the nighttime symptoms score as a clinically relevant measure of allergic rhinitis.

The aim of this study was to validate the nighttime symptoms score (NSS), which incorporates individual scores for difficulty going to sleep and nighttime awakening caused by nasal symptoms and nasal congestion on awakening, as a clinically relevant measure of allergic rhinitis (AR). Fifty-five general season AR (SAR) symptom items were generated by interviews with 14 patients with symptomatic SAR without concomitant asthma for use in an Importance Rating Questionnaire (IRQ). A second group of patients (n = 83) with symptomatic AR without asthma rated the importance of each item on the IRQ. Correlation coefficients were calculated to examine the relationships between the six sleep quality questions on the IRQ and the other AR symptoms and between the symptom questions of the NSS, the Daytime Nasal Symptoms Score (DNSS), and the individual domains of the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (RQLQ). The majority (94%) of patients with active AR reported some degree of symptoms relating to sleep quality. The six sleep quality items on the IRQ were selected by 71-84% of patients. The sleep quality items were more highly correlated with each other (r = 0.48-0.85) than with the four items of the DNSS (r = 0.01-0.42). There was a moderate-to-strong correlation of the RQLQ sleep domain with the two sleep questions of the NSS (r = 0.44-0.57). The individual symptom questions of the NSS and the DNSS were only moderately correlated with each other. Sleep quality questions measure aspects of SAR that are not captured by daytime SAR symptoms. The results show that the NSS is a valid and relevant clinical measure of the impact of nighttime sleep disturbance on AR patients.

Validation of a pediatric caregiver diary to measure symptoms of postacute respiratory syncytial virus bronchiolitis.

Acute respiratory syncytial virus (RSV)-induced bronchiolitis is often associated with continuing respiratory symptoms following hospitalization. To date, there is no validated objective measure to evaluate symptoms of RSV-induced bronchiolitis. We report on the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the bronchiolitis caregiver diary (BCD) of symptoms and healthcare utilization associated with postacute RSV. The BCD measures four symptoms (daytime cough, wheeze, trouble breathing, and nighttime cough), healthcare utilization, and rescue medication for worsening of lung symptoms. Data from the 4-week treatment period of the reported prospective, placebo-controlled trial of montelukast for treatment of postacute RSV were used to assess reliability (internal consistency and test-retest), construct validity (cross-sectional and longitudinal correlations), discriminant validity (known-groups analyses), and responsiveness. The primary outcome of this study was the percentage of symptom-free days (SFD). The secondary outcome was a composite symptom score (CSS; average of daytime cough, wheezing, and trouble breathing). Cronbach's alpha of 0.85 indicated that the four symptoms were internally consistent, supporting a unidimensional scale structure. Test-retest reliabilities for the percentage of SFD and CSS were above the recommended cut point of 0.70. Cross-sectional and longitudinal correlations were sizeable and statistically significant, demonstrating construct validity. Hypothesized known-group differences were statistically significant in the appropriate direction. Responsiveness analyses indicated moderate effect sizes for percentage of SFD. In conclusion, the BCD provides a valid, reliable, and responsive tool for the assessment of symptoms of postacute RSV-induced bronchiolitis, capable of measuring moderate effect sizes, and demonstrating responsiveness to therapy.

Montelukast effectively treats the nighttime impact of seasonal allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Nighttime problems constitute a significant burden on the quality of life of patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of montelukast on nighttime AR symptoms. METHODS: In seven multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group trials, nighttime problems were assessed as the nighttime symptoms score (NSS), an average of three individual symptom scores: difficulty going to sleep, nighttime awakening, and nasal congestion on awakening (each rated 0 = none to 3 = severe). Patients (aged 15-82 years) were randomized to receive montelukast, 10 mg (n = 1751), placebo (n = 1557), or the positive control loratadine, 10 mg (n = 1616). RESULTS: In a combined analysis, changes from baseline (mean +/- SE) in NSS were -0.28 +/- 0.01, -0.16 +/- 0.01, and -0.24 +/- 0.01 for the montelukast, placebo, and loratadine groups, respectively. Difference versus placebo in least-squares mean change from baseline were -0.11 (95% confidence interval, -0.14, -0.08; p < or = 0.001) for montelukast and -0.09 (-0.12, -0.06; p < or = 0.001) for loratadine. Strong baseline correlations (R > 0.70; p < 0.001) of NSS and two of its individual symptoms with the sleep domain of the validated Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire support the validity and importance of measuring nighttime morbidity in SAR. Furthermore, a clinically important benefit of montelukast on the nighttime impact of SAR was shown using an analysis anchored on the Patient's Global Evaluation. CONCLUSION: These data underscore the importance of nighttime problems in patients with SAR and the need to treat nighttime symptoms. In these studies, montelukast significantly improved the NSS, a clinically relevant and valid measure in patients with SAR.

The effect of montelukast versus usual care on health care resource utilization in children aged 2 to 5 years with asthma.

BACKGROUND: Limited clinical data are available on the long-term effects of asthma controller therapy on the utilization of health care resources in pediatric patients with asthma. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the effects of long-term treatment with montelukast and usual care on health care resource use in children with asthma. METHODS: Pediatric patients aged 2 to 5 years with asthma who had completed a 3-month, double-blind, double-dummy clinical trial comparing montelukast 4 mg and placebo were asked to participate in an open-label, controlled extension study comparing montelukast 4 mg and usual care. Usual care was defined as cromolyn or inhaled corticosteroid therapy Health care resource utilization was measured in terms of oral corticosteroid use and numbers of physician visits, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations. RESULTS: Of 618 patients who completed the primary phase of the study, 516 (83.5%) participated in the extension study Data from 506 patients (302 without previous asthma maintenance therapy, 204 with) were included in the analysis. During the extension phase, patients who received montelukast and had not used previous asthma maintenance therapy were followed for a mean of 329.5 days; those who received usual care and CONCLUSION: In this open-label study, pediatric patients aged 2 to 5 years with mild to moderate persistent asthma receiving long-term therapy with montelukast had similar rates of asthma-related health care resource utilization compared with those receiving usual care with cromolyn or inhaled corticosteroids.

Response to montelukast among subgroups of children aged 2 to 14 years with asthma.

BACKGROUND: Determining who responds to asthma therapies, particularly leukotriene modifiers, continues to be explored. OBJECTIVE: We sought to identify patient characteristics predictive of response to montelukast. METHODS: We used data from 2 clinical trials in which children with asthma received either montelukast or placebo. Symptoms, beta-agonist use, and unanticipated health resource use caused by asthma were recorded in validated daily diaries for children 2 to 5 (n = 689) and 6 to 14 (n = 336) years old. We defined primary end points of days without asthma in 2- to 5-year-old patients (24 hours without symptoms, beta-agonist use, or asthma attack) and change in percent predicted FEV(1) in 6- to 14-year-old children. Asthma attack was defined by the use of rescue oral corticosteroids or by an unscheduled visit to a medical provider. Patients were grouped according to baseline characteristics, such as family history of asthma, personal history of allergy, frequency of asthma symptoms, eosinophilia, and concomitant use of inhaled corticosteroids or cromolyn. We examined the stratum-specific effects of montelukast on the percentage of days without asthma, change in percent predicted FEV(1), asthma attack, and a variety of secondary symptom and FEV(1) end points. RESULTS: We did not identify characteristics that predicted response to montelukast in either preschool or 6- to 14-year-old children. These findings were consistent across all symptom and FEV(1) outcomes. There was also no differential response to montelukast in either age group when asthma attack was the outcome. CONCLUSION: The patient characteristics studied do not appear to provide an indication of who will benefit most from treatment with montelukast.

Adherence to prescribed treatment for asthma: evidence from pharmacy benefits data.

BACKGROUND: Failure to use asthma controller medications as prescribed is associated with more asthma-related adverse events. Medication utilization may vary with ease of drug administration, efficacy, and tolerability as well as other factors. We hypothesized that in usual-care clinical practice settings, there would be greater adherence to oral controller than to inhaled controller asthma medications. METHODS: We compared adherence to newly initiated asthma controller therapy among patients initiating monotherapy with leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs), inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), or inhaled long-acting beta-agonists (ILBA) from March 1998 to July 1999. We measured adherence as the sum of drug supply days between first and last fill dates divided by length of drug therapy. Analyses were stratified by the number of short-acting beta-agonists (SBA) prescriptions per year to control for disease severity. RESULTS: Pharmacy claims data from 48,751 subjects (6 to 55 years) were analyzed (mean age 30.4 years; 56% female). Mean adherence to new start monotherapy on LTRA was 67.7%, to ICS was 33.8%, and to ILBA was 40.0%. Adherence to all three controller agents increased with increasing SBA use. The percent of patients persistent to asthma controller monotherapy at both 6 and 9 months was significantly greater among those on LTRA monotherapy than on either ICS or ILBA. CONCLUSIONS: In clinical practice settings, patients initiating LTRA monotherapy have about twice the adherence as patients initiating ICS or ILBA monotherapy. Because adherence to treatment is a critical component of treatment response, it is important to consider this factor in the prescription of oral vs. inhaled asthma medications.