Homologous Recombination Repair Gene Mutation Characterization by Liquid Biopsy: A Phase II Trial of Olaparib and Abiraterone in Metastatic Castrate-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Phase III randomized trial data have confirmed the activity for olaparib in homologous recombination repair (HRR) mutated metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) post next-generation hormonal agent (NHA) progression. Preclinical data have suggested the potential for a combined effect between olaparib and NHAs irrespective of whether an HRR gene alteration was present. NCT01972217 was a randomised double-blind Phase II study which evaluated olaparib and abiraterone versus placebo and abiraterone in mCRPC patients who had received prior chemotherapy containing docetaxel. The study showed that radiologic progression was significantly delayed by the combination of olaparib and abiraterone regardless of homologous recombination repair mutation (HRRm) status. The study utilized tumour, blood (germline), and circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) analysis to profile patient HRRm status, but tumour tissue provision was not mandated, leading to relatively low tissue acquisition and DNA sequencing success rates not representative of real-world testing. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Further analysis of germline and ctDNA samples has been performed for the trial to characterize HRRm status more fully and robustly analyse patient response to treatment. RESULTS: Germline and plasma testing increased the HRRm characterized population from 27% to 68% of 142 randomized patients. Tumour-derived variants were detectable with high confidence in 78% of patients with a baseline plasma sample (71% of randomized patients). There was high concordance across methodologies (plasma vs. tumour; plasma vs. germline). The HR for the exploratory analysis of radiographic progression-free survival was 0.54 (95% CI: 0.32-0.93) in favour of olaparib and abiraterone in the updated HRR wild type (HRRwt) group (n = 73) and 0.62 (95% CI: 0.23-1.65) in the HRRm group (n = 23). CONCLUSION: Our results confirm the value of plasma testing for HRRm status when there is insufficient high-quality tissue for multi-gene molecular testing. We show that patients with mCRPC benefit from the combination of olaparib and abiraterone treatment regardless of HRRm status. The combination is currently being further investigated in the Phase III PROpel trial.

Global Initiative for Asthma 2016-derived asthma control with fluticasone propionate and salmeterol: A Gaining Optimal Asthma Control (GOAL) study reanalysis.

BACKGROUND: In 2004, the landmark Gaining Optimal Asthma Control (GOAL) study demonstrated that most patients can achieve asthma control through sustained treatment and that adding a long-acting ß2-adrenoreceptor agonist to an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) is more effective than ICS alone in this regard. Definitions of asthma control have since evolved, and the consequent implications for the GOAL study findings are unclear. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of fluticasone propionate and salmeterol and fluticasone propionate alone in achieving and maintaining asthma control, as derived from the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) 2016 report. METHODS: In total, 3416 patients were stratified by prior medication (ICS-naive [stratum 1], low-dose ICS [stratum 2], or medium-dose ICS [stratum 3]) and randomized to receive fluticasone propionate and salmeterol or fluticasone propionate. The primary end point was the proportion of patients achieving well-controlled or partly controlled asthma; secondary end points included the proportion of patients achieving well-controlled asthma. Control was evaluated during the last 4 weeks of each dose titration. RESULTS: In all strata, more patients achieved well-controlled or partly controlled asthma with fluticasone propionate and salmeterol vs fluticasone propionate alone (stratum 1: 91% vs 85%; P = .003; stratum 2: 86% vs 82%; P = .07; and stratum 3: 76% vs 66%; P < .001), as well as patients with well-controlled asthma (stratum 1: 64% vs 56%; P = .005; stratum 2: 59% vs 41%; P < .001; and stratum 3: 40% vs 22%; P < .001). CONCLUSION: A markedly higher proportion of patients with uncontrolled asthma in each stratum achieved control according to GINA 2016 criteria compared with the original study criteria. The proportion of patients achieving control remained greater with fluticasone propionate and salmeterol than with fluticasone propionate alone.

Corrigendum: The RA-MAP Consortium: a working model for academia-industry collaboration.

This corrects the article DOI: 10.1038/nrrheum.2017.200.

The RA-MAP Consortium: a working model for academia-industry collaboration.

Collaboration can be challenging; nevertheless, the emerging successes of large, multi-partner, multi-national cooperatives and research networks in the biomedical sector have sustained the appetite of academics and industry partners for developing and fostering new research consortia. This model has percolated down to national funding agencies across the globe, leading to funding for projects that aim to realise the true potential of genomic medicine in the 21st century and to reap the rewards of 'big data'. In this Perspectives article, the experiences of the RA-MAP consortium, a group of more than 140 individuals affiliated with 21 academic and industry organizations that are focused on making genomic medicine in rheumatoid arthritis a reality are described. The challenges of multi-partner collaboration in the UK are highlighted and wide-ranging solutions are offered that might benefit large research consortia around the world.

Risk of pneumonia with budesonide-containing treatments in COPD: an individual patient-level pooled analysis of interventional studies.

BACKGROUND: Concerns have been raised that treatment of COPD with inhaled corticosteroids may increase pneumonia risk. Responding to a request from the European Medicines Agency Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee, a pooled analysis of interventional studies compared pneumonia risk with inhaled budesonide-containing versus non-budesonide-containing treatments and the impact of other clinically relevant factors. METHODS: AstraZeneca-sponsored, parallel-group, double-blind, randomized controlled trials meeting the following criteria were included: >8 weeks' duration; ≥60 patients with COPD; inhaled budesonide treatment arm (budesonide/formoterol or budesonide); and non-budesonide-containing comparator arm (formoterol or placebo). Primary and secondary outcomes were time to first pneumonia treatment-emergent serious adverse event (TESAE) and treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAEs), respectively, analyzed using Cox regression models stratified by study. RESULTS: Eleven studies were identified; 10,570 out of 10,574 randomized patients receiving ≥1 dose of study treatment were included for safety analysis (budesonide-containing, n=5,750; non-budesonide-containing, n=4,820). Maximum exposure to treatment was 48 months. The overall pooled hazard ratio (HR), comparing budesonide versus non-budesonide-containing treatments, was 1.15 for pneumonia TESAEs (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.83, 1.57) and 1.13 for pneumonia TEAEs (95% CI: 0.94, 1.36). The annual incidence of pneumonia TESAEs was 1.9% and 1.5% for budesonide-containing and non-budesonide-containing treatments, respectively. Comparing budesonide/formoterol with non-budesonide-containing treatment, the HRs for pneumonia TESAEs and TEAEs were 1.00 (95% CI: 0.69, 1.44) and 1.21 (95% CI: 0.93, 1.57), respectively. For budesonide versus placebo, HRs were 1.57 for pneumonia TESAEs (95% CI: 0.90, 2.74) and 1.07 for pneumonia TEAEs (95% CI: 0.83, 1.38). CONCLUSION: This pooled analysis found no statistically significant increase in overall risk for pneumonia TESAEs or TEAEs with budesonide-containing versus non-budesonide-containing treatments. However, a small increase in risk with budesonide-containing treatment cannot be ruled out; there is considerable heterogeneity in study designs and patient characteristics, particularly in the early budesonide studies, and each study contributes <40 pneumonia TESAEs.

Serious Asthma Events with Budesonide plus Formoterol vs. Budesonide Alone.

BACKGROUND: Concerns remain about the safety of adding long-acting ß2-agonists to inhaled glucocorticoids for the treatment of asthma. In a postmarketing safety study mandated by the Food and Drug Administration, we evaluated whether the addition of formoterol to budesonide maintenance therapy increased the risk of serious asthma-related events in patients with asthma. METHODS: In this multicenter, double-blind, 26-week study, we randomly assigned patients, 12 years of age or older, who had persistent asthma, were receiving daily asthma medication, and had had one to four asthma exacerbations in the previous year to receive budesonide-formoterol or budesonide alone. Patients with a history of life-threatening asthma were excluded. The primary end point was the first serious asthma-related event (a composite of adjudicated death, intubation, and hospitalization), as assessed in a time-to-event analysis. The noninferiority of budesonide-formoterol to budesonide was defined as an upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the risk of the primary safety end point of less than 2.0. The primary efficacy end point was the first asthma exacerbation, as assessed in a time-to-event analysis. RESULTS: A total of 11,693 patients underwent randomization, of whom 5846 were assigned to receive budesonide-formoterol and 5847 to receive budesonide. A serious asthma-related event occurred in 43 patients who were receiving budesonide-formoterol and in 40 patients who were receiving budesonide (hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70 to 1.65]); budesonide-formoterol was shown to be noninferior to budesonide alone. There were two asthma-related deaths, both in the budesonide-formoterol group; one of these patients had undergone an asthma-related intubation. The risk of an asthma exacerbation was 16.5% lower with budesonide-formoterol than with budesonide (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.74 to 0.94; P=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Among adolescents and adults with predominantly moderate-to-severe asthma, treatment with budesonide-formoterol was associated with a lower risk of asthma exacerbations than budesonide and a similar risk of serious asthma-related events. (Funded by AstraZeneca; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01444430 .).

Protecting patient privacy when sharing patient-level data from clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Greater transparency and, in particular, sharing of patient-level data for further scientific research is an increasingly important topic for the pharmaceutical industry and other organisations who sponsor and conduct clinical trials as well as generally in the interests of patients participating in studies. A concern remains, however, over how to appropriately prepare and share clinical trial data with third party researchers, whilst maintaining patient confidentiality. Clinical trial datasets contain very detailed information on each participant. Risk to patient privacy can be mitigated by data reduction techniques. However, retention of data utility is important in order to allow meaningful scientific research. In addition, for clinical trial data, an excessive application of such techniques may pose a public health risk if misleading results are produced. After considering existing guidance, this article makes recommendations with the aim of promoting an approach that balances data utility and privacy risk and is applicable across clinical trial data holders. DISCUSSION: Our key recommendations are as follows: 1. Data anonymisation/de-identification: Data holders are responsible for generating de-identified datasets which are intended to offer increased protection for patient privacy through masking or generalisation of direct and some indirect identifiers. 2. Controlled access to data, including use of a data sharing agreement: A legally binding data sharing agreement should be in place, including agreements not to download or further share data and not to attempt to seek to identify patients. Appropriate levels of security should be used for transferring data or providing access; one solution is use of a secure 'locked box' system which provides additional safeguards. This article provides recommendations on best practices to de-identify/anonymise clinical trial data for sharing with third-party researchers, as well as controlled access to data and data sharing agreements. The recommendations are applicable to all clinical trial data holders. Further work will be needed to identify and evaluate competing possibilities as regulations, attitudes to risk and technologies evolve.

Best practice for analysis of shared clinical trial data.

BACKGROUND: Greater transparency, including sharing of patient-level data for further research, is an increasingly important topic for organisations who sponsor, fund and conduct clinical trials. This is a major paradigm shift with the aim of maximising the value of patient-level data from clinical trials for the benefit of future patients and society. We consider the analysis of shared clinical trial data in three broad categories: (1) reanalysis - further investigation of the efficacy and safety of the randomized intervention, (2) meta-analysis, and (3) supplemental analysis for a research question that is not directly assessing the randomized intervention. DISCUSSION: In order to support appropriate interpretation and limit the risk of misleading findings, analysis of shared clinical trial data should have a pre-specified analysis plan. However, it is not generally possible to limit bias and control multiplicity to the extent that is possible in the original trial design, conduct and analysis, and this should be acknowledged and taken into account when interpreting results. We highlight a number of areas where specific considerations arise in planning, conducting, interpreting and reporting analyses of shared clinical trial data. A key issue is that that these analyses essentially share many of the limitations of any post hoc analyses beyond the original specified analyses. The use of individual patient data in meta-analysis can provide increased precision and reduce bias. Supplemental analyses are subject to many of the same issues that arise in broader epidemiological analyses. Specific discussion topics are addressed within each of these areas. Increased provision of patient-level data from industry and academic-led clinical trials for secondary research can benefit future patients and society. Responsible data sharing, including transparency of the research objectives, analysis plans and of the results will support appropriate interpretation and help to address the risk of misleading results and avoid unfounded health scares.

Data sharing and the evolving role of statisticians.

BACKGROUND: Greater transparency and, in particular, sharing of clinical study reports and patient level data for further research is an increasingly important topic for the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry and other organisations who sponsor and conduct clinical research as well as academic researchers and patient advocacy groups. Statisticians are ambassadors for data sharing and are central to its success. They play an integral role in data sharing discussions within their companies and also externally helping to shape policy and processes while providing input into practical solutions to aid data sharing. Data sharing is generating changes in the required profile for statisticians in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry, as well as academic institutions and patient advocacy groups. DISCUSSION: Successful statisticians need to possess many qualities required in today's pharmaceutical environment such as collaboration, diplomacy, written and oral skills and an ability to be responsive; they are also knowledgeable when debating strategy and analytical techniques. However, increasing data transparency will require statisticians to evolve and learn new skills and behaviours during their career which may not have been an accepted part of the traditional role. Statisticians will move from being the gate-keepers of data to be data facilitators. To adapt successfully to this new environment, the role of the statistician is likely to be broader, including defining new responsibilities that lie beyond the boundaries of the traditional role. Statisticians should understand how data transparency can benefit them and the potential strategic advantage it can bring and be fully aware of the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry commitments to data transparency and the policies within their company or research institute in addition to focusing on reviewing requests and provisioning data. Data transparency will evolve the role of statisticians within the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry, academia and research bodies to a level which may not have been an accepted part of their traditional role or career. In the future, skills will be required to manage challenges arising from data sharing; statisticians will need strong scientific and statistical guiding principles for reanalysis and supplementary analyses based on researchers' requests, have enhanced consultancy skills, in particular the ability to defend good statistical practice in the face of criticism and the ability to critique methods of analysis. Statisticians will also require expertise in data privacy regulations, data redaction and anonymisation and be able to assess the probability of re-identification, an ability to understand analyses conducted by researchers and recognise why such analyses may propose different results compared to the original analyses. Bringing these skills to the implementation of data sharing and interpretation of the results will help to maximise the value of shared data while guarding against misleading conclusions.

Health Care Utilization and Costs After Initiating Budesonide/Formoterol Combination or Fluticasone/Salmeterol Combination Among COPD Patients New to ICS/LABA Treatment.

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) affects approximately 15 million people in the United States and accounts for approximately $36 billion in economic burden, primarily due to medical costs. To address the increasing clinical and economic burden, the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease emphasizes the use of therapies that help prevent COPD exacerbations, including inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting beta2-agonist (ICS/LABA). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate health care costs and utilization among COPD patients newly initiating ICS/LABA combination therapy with budesonide/formoterol (BFC) or fluticasone/salmeterol (FSC) in a managed care system. METHODS: COPD patients aged 40 years and older who initiated BFC (160/4.5 µg) or FSC (250/50 µg) treatment between March 1, 2009, and March 31, 2012, were identified using claims data from major U.S. health plans. BFC and FSC patients were propensity score matched (1:1) on age, sex, prior asthma diagnosis, prior COPD-related health care utilization, and respiratory medication use. COPD-related, pneumonia-related, and all-cause costs and utilization were analyzed during the 12-month follow-up period. Post-index costs were assessed with generalized linear models (GLMs) with gamma distribution. Health care utilization data were analyzed via logistic regression (any event vs. none) and GLMs with negative binomial distribution (number of visits) and were adjusted for the analogous pre-index variable as well as pre-index characteristics that remained imbalanced after matching. RESULTS: After matching, each cohort had 3,697 patients balanced on age (mean 64 years), sex (female 52% BFC and 54% FSC), asthma and other comorbid conditions, prior COPD-related health care utilization, and respiratory medication use. During the 12-month follow-up, COPD-related costs averaged $316 less for BFC versus FSC patients ($4,326 vs. $4,846; P = 0.003), reflecting lower inpatient ($966 vs. $1,202; P < 0.001), pharmacy ($1,482 vs. $1,609; P = 0.002), and outpatient/office ($1,378 vs. $1,436; P = 0.048) costs, but higher emergency department ($257 vs. $252; P = 0.033) costs. Pneumonia-related health care costs were also lower on average for BFC patients ($2,855 vs. $3,605; P < 0.001). Similarly, initiating BFC was associated with lower all-use health care costs versus initiating FSC ($21,580 vs. $24,483; P < 0.001, respectively). No differences in health care utilization were found between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, although no difference was observed in rates of health care utilization, COPD patients initiating BFC treatment incurred lower average COPD-related, pneumonia-related, and all-cause costs versus FSC initiators, which was driven by cumulative differences in inpatient, outpatient, and pharmacy costs.

Validation of an administrative claims-based diagnostic code for pneumonia in a US-based commercially insured COPD population.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the accuracy of claims-based pneumonia diagnoses in COPD patients using clinical information in medical records as the reference standard. METHODS: Selecting from a repository containing members' data from 14 regional United States health plans, this validation study identified pneumonia diagnoses within a group of patients initiating treatment for COPD between March 1, 2009 and March 31, 2012. Patients with ≥1 claim for pneumonia (International Classification of Diseases Version 9-CM code 480.xx-486.xx) were identified during the 12 months following treatment initiation. A subset of 800 patients was randomly selected to abstract medical record data (paper based and electronic) for a target sample of 400 patients, to estimate validity within 5% margin of error. Positive predictive value (PPV) was calculated for the claims diagnosis of pneumonia relative to the reference standard, defined as a documented diagnosis in the medical record. RESULTS: A total of 388 records were reviewed; 311 included a documented pneumonia diagnosis, indicating 80.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 75.8% to 84.0%) of claims-identified pneumonia diagnoses were validated by the medical charts. Claims-based diagnoses in inpatient or emergency departments (n=185) had greater PPV versus outpatient settings (n=203), 87.6% (95% CI: 81.9%-92.0%) versus 73.4% (95% CI: 66.8%-79.3%), respectively. Claims-diagnoses verified with paper-based charts had similar PPV as the overall study sample, 80.2% (95% CI: 71.1%-87.5%), and higher PPV than those linked to electronic medical records, 73.3% (95% CI: 65.5%-80.2%). Combined paper-based and electronic records had a higher PPV, 87.6% (95% CI: 80.9%-92.6%). CONCLUSION: Administrative claims data indicating a diagnosis of pneumonia in COPD patients are supported by medical records. The accuracy of a medical record diagnosis of pneumonia remains unknown. With increased use of claims data in medical research, COPD researchers can study pneumonia with confidence that claims data are a valid tool when studying the safety of COPD therapies that could potentially lead to increased pneumonia susceptibility or severity.

Data Science Solution to Event Prediction in Outsourced Clinical Trial Models.

Late phase clinical trials are regularly outsourced to a Contract Research Organisation (CRO) while the risk and accountability remain within the sponsor company. Many statistical tasks are delivered by the CRO and later revalidated by the sponsor. Here, we report a technological approach to standardised event prediction. We have built a dynamic web application around an R-package with the aim of delivering reliable event predictions, simplifying communication and increasing trust between the CRO and the in-house statisticians via transparency. Short learning curve, interactivity, reproducibility and data diagnostics are key here. The current implementation is motivated by time-to-event prediction in oncology. We demonstrate a clear benefit of standardisation for both parties. The tool can be used for exploration, communication, sensitivity analysis and generating standard reports. At this point we wish to present this tool and share some of the insights we have gained during the development.

Comparative effectiveness of budesonide/formoterol combination and fluticasone/salmeterol combination among chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients new to controller treatment: a US administrative claims database study.

BACKGROUND: Inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting ß2-agonist combinations (ICS/LABA) have emerged as first line therapies for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients with exacerbation history. No randomized clinical trial has compared exacerbation rates among COPD patients receiving budesonide/formoterol combination (BFC) and fluticasone/salmeterol combination (FSC) to date, and only limited comparative data are available. This study compared the real-world effectiveness of approved BFC and FSC treatments among matched cohorts of COPD patients in a large US managed care setting. METHODS: COPD patients (≥40 years) naive to ICS/LABA who initiated BFC or FSC treatments between 03/01/2009-03/31/2012 were identified in a geographically diverse US managed care database and followed for 12 months; index date was defined as first prescription fill date. Patients with a cancer diagnosis or chronic (≥180 days) oral corticosteroid (OCS) use within 12 months prior to index were excluded. Patients were matched 1-to-1 on demographic and pre-initiation clinical characteristics using propensity scores from a random forest model. The primary efficacy outcome was COPD exacerbation rate, and secondary efficacy outcomes included exacerbation rates by event type and healthcare resource utilization. Pneumonia objectives included rates of any diagnosis of pneumonia and pneumonia-related healthcare resource utilization. RESULTS: Matching of the identified 3,788 BFC and 6,439 FSC patients resulted in 3,697 patients in each group. Matched patients were well balanced on age (mean=64 years), gender (BFC: 52% female; FSC: 54%), prior COPD-related medication use, healthcare utilization, and comorbid conditions. During follow-up, no significant difference was seen between BFC and FSC patients for number of COPD-related exacerbations overall (rate ratio [RR]=1.02, 95% CI=[0.96,1.09], p=0.56) or by event type: COPD-related hospitalizations (RR=0.96), COPD-related ED visits (RR=1.11), and COPD-related office/outpatient visits with OCS and/or antibiotic use (RR=1.01). The proportion of patients diagnosed with pneumonia during the post-index period was similar for patients in each group (BFC =17.3%, FSC =19.0%, odds ratio=0.92 [0.81,1.04], p=0.19), and no difference was detected for pneumonia-related healthcare utilization by place of service. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated no difference in COPD-related exacerbations or pneumonia events between BFC and FSC treatment groups for patients new to ICS/LABA treatment in a real-world setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01921127 .

Effects of fostamatinib, an oral spleen tyrosine kinase inhibitor, in rheumatoid arthritis patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate: results from a phase III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study.

OBJECTIVE: This phase III, 52-week study compared fostamatinib with placebo (for 24 weeks) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and an inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX) therapy. METHODS: Patients taking MTX were randomized (1:1:1) to receive fostamatinib 100 mg twice daily for 52 weeks (group A), fostamatinib 100 mg twice daily for 4 weeks and then 150 mg once daily (group B), or placebo for 24 weeks and then fostamatinib 100 mg twice daily (group C). At week 24, the co-primary end points were change from baseline in the American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) improvement response rates and change in the modified total Sharp/van der Heijde score of radiographic damage (SHS). RESULTS: In this study, 918 patients were randomized and received ≥1 dose of study drug (fostamatinib or placebo); the demographic and baseline clinical characteristics were well balanced. Following treatment with both fostamatinib regimens, a statistically significant difference in the ACR20 improvement response was achieved at week 24 as compared with that in patients receiving placebo (49.0% [group A] and 44.4%, [group B] versus 34.2%; P < 0.001 and P = 0.006, respectively), but there was no statistically significant difference in the SHS between either fostamatinib group and placebo (P = 0.25 and P = 0.17, respectively). The most common adverse events in patients in groups A, B, and C were hypertension (15.8%, 15.1%, and 3.9%, respectively) and diarrhea (13.9%, 15.1%, and 3.9%, respectively). Elevated blood pressure (≥140/90 mm Hg) occurred at ≥1 visit in 44.2%, 41.6%, and 19.3% of patients in each respective group. CONCLUSION: With the use of either fostamatinib regimen in patients with RA, statistically significant, but not clinically significant, improvements in the ACR20 improvement response over placebo were achieved at 24 weeks, whereas a significant difference in the SHS was not seen. The overall level of response to treatment with fostamatinib was lower than had been observed in the phase II program, but similar adverse events were reported.

Methodological quality of meta-analyses: matched-pairs comparison over time and between industry-sponsored and academic-sponsored reports.

CONTEXT: Meta-analyses are regularly used to inform healthcare decisions. Concerns have been expressed about the quality of meta-analyses and, in particular, about those supported by the pharmaceutical industry. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to compare the quality of pharmaceutical-industry-supported meta-analyses with academic meta-analyses and of meta-analyses published before and after companies started to disclose their data. DATA SOURCES: We identified industry-supported meta-analyses by searching the Scopus bibliographic database, using author affiliations. We matched each industry-supported meta-analysis with an academic meta-analysis using high-level MeSH terms in PubMed. STUDY SELECTION: We included meta-analyses of randomized trials assessing the efficacy or safety of any pharmaceutical intervention in humans, published in 2002-2004 or 2008-2009. Cochrane reviews were excluded. Two individuals independently selected papers, with discrepancies resolved by two further individuals. ASSESSMENT: We developed and piloted a quality-assessment tool, consisting of 43 questions in four domains, with a key summary question covering each domain. Two individuals independently assessed each meta-analysis. RESULTS: We examined 126 meta-analysis publications in 63 matched pairs. The average quality was low, with fewer than 50% adequate in three of the four domains. Industry-supported meta-analyses less often demonstrated adequate methods for locating studies and assessing their quality (odds ratio 0.44, 95% confidence interval 0.21 to 0.92), for analysing the included studies (0.52, 0.25 to 1.06), for undertaking meta-analyses (0.82, 0.40 to 1.68) and in reaching sound conclusions (0.62, 0.30 to 1.28). Quality generally improved over time, particularly for some aspects of industry reports. CONCLUSIONS: Academic meta-analysis papers are generally of higher quality than industry-supported ones. This is largely due to less detailed reporting in industry-supported meta-analyses and a tendency for them to take the included studies at face value, probably arising from the implicit assumption that these studies already have high methodological standards to meet licensing requirements. The improved quality over time does not appear to be due to the use of data disclosed by industry. The main limitations of this study are the small sample of papers and the subjective nature of some of the assessment processes.

A tool to assess the quality of a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Because meta-analyses are increasingly prevalent and cited in the medical literature, it is important that tools are available to assess their methodological quality. When performing an empirical study of the quality of published meta-analyses, we found that existing tools did not place a strong emphasis on statistical and interpretational issues. METHODS: We developed a quality-assessment tool using existing materials and expert judgment as a starting point, followed by multiple iterations of input from our working group, piloting, and discussion. After having used the tool for our empirical study, agreement for four key items in the tool was measured using weighted kappa coefficients. RESULTS: Our tool contained 43 items divided into four key areas (data sources, analysis of individual studies, meta-analysis methods, and interpretation), and each area ended with a summary question. We also produced guidance for completing the tool. Agreement between raters was fair to moderate. CONCLUSIONS: The tool should usefully inform subsequent initiatives to develop quality-assessment tools for meta-analysis. We advocate use of consensus between independent raters when assessing statistical appropriateness and adequacy of interpretation in meta-analyses.

Clinical evaluation of the efficacy of the P2X7 purinergic receptor antagonist AZD9056 on the signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis in patients with active disease despite treatment with methotrexate or sulphasalazine.

OBJECTIVES: The P2X(7) purinergic receptor antagonist AZD9056 was evaluated in a phase IIa study and subsequently in a phase IIb study to assess the effects of orally administered AZD9056 on the signs/symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), with American College of Rheumatology 20% response criteria (ACR20) as the primary outcome. METHODS: Both studies were randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group studies in patients with RA receiving methotrexate or sulphasalazine. Phase IIa was an ascending-dose trial in two cohorts (n=75) using AZD9056 administered daily over 4 weeks. Phase IIb included an open-label etanercept treatment group. Patients were randomised to receive treatment for 6 months with 50, 100, 200 or 400 mg AZD9056 (oral, once a day) or matching placebo (oral, once a day), or subcutaneous etanercept (50 mg once a week). RESULTS: In phase IIa, 65% of AZD9056 recipients at 400 mg/day responded at the ACR20 level compared with 27% of placebo-treated patients. A significant reduction in swollen and tender joint count was observed in the actively treated group compared with placebo, whereas no effect on acute-phase response was observed. Of 385 randomised patients in the phase IIb study, 383 received treatment. AZD9056 (all doses) had no clinically or statistically significant effect on RA relative to placebo as measured by the proportion of patients meeting the ACR20 criteria at 6 months and further supported by secondary end points. In both studies AZD9056 was well tolerated up to 400 mg/day. CONCLUSIONS: AZD9056 does not have significant efficacy in the treatment of RA, and the P2X(7) receptor does not appear to be a therapeutically useful target in RA. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00520572.