Early access provision: Awareness, educational needs and opportunities to improve oncology patients' access to care.

Background: An unmet medical need exists for many oncology patients who cannot be treated satisfactorily by available therapeutic options. Early access provision (EAP) is endorsed by competent authorities to improve patient access to innovative medicinal products (InMPs). This paper determined awareness and understanding among practicing physicians of integrated EAP protocols, and of the procedures involved in EAP applications for oncology trials prior to marketing authorization. Methods: An on-line, fully anonymous survey reaching out to more than 3,258 physicians (including practicing oncologists) was initiated between November 2020 - January 2021. Participants were questioned about their knowledge and understanding of EAP and the decision processes involved, level of experience, interest for further educational activities and opportunities to improve the process, both in general and specifically during the COVID-19 pandemic. The frequency of EAP protocols for oncology InMPs was identified by a search of ClinicalTrials.gov and EU Clinical Trials registers. Results: Survey results (75% oncologists) indicated 75% of respondents were 'very comfortable' or 'comfortable' with using EAP for their patients, but only 54.5% correctly answered the specific knowledge-based question related to the EAP definition. For 56% of respondents, experience with EAP in daily practice was very limited. Two-thirds indicated an average or lower level of understanding about the application process and regulatory requirements involved (65.2% and 66.0%, respectively). Knowledge on data collection and serious adverse event reporting under EAP was lower at 57.8% and 50.5% of respondents, respectively. Awareness of physician responsibilities was high in 59.7% of respondents, but fewer understood roles and responsibilities of manufacturing companies (31.2%). Most indicated they would consider clinical efficacy and safety data from comparative phase III randomized controlled trials as of high importance to support their decision to apply for EAP (93.4% and 86.8%, respectively). During the COVID-19 pandemic, the majority of respondents highlighted the need to improve and adapt EAP with regard to the application process and documentation (83.8%), InMP supply and logistics (88.4), and safety reporting process (78.0%). Of identified oncology trials with a ClinicalTrials.gov protocol, only 149 (0.4%) included EAP, and 23 used the data to receive a marketing authorization during the period Jan 2015 to December 2020. Of oncology trials with a EudraCT protocol, only 21 (0.23%) included EAP, of which 6 were used to receive a conditional or full marketing authorisation over the same period. Conclusion: Use of EAP in daily practice remains limited. Challenges posed by the EAP process, together with a lack of education on this topic, might contribute to its under-utilization and influence access of oncology patients to care. Continuous educational efforts from different stakeholders are required to better inform and support practicing oncologists during the EAP application process and regulatory framework follow up. Education should also be provided on EAP roles and responsibilities, monitoring, and potential adaptations when faced with specific challenges, such as the current COVID-19 pandemic.

Value of Adaptive Trials and Surrogate Endpoints for Clinical Decision-Making in Rare Cancers.

Despite high-level endorsement, the number of adaptive Phase II/III trials in rare cancers needs to be improved, with better understanding of their value for clinical decisions in daily practice. This paper describes approaches to trial design in rare cancers, which has been supplemented by a search of ClinicalTrials.gov for adaptive trial designs in rare cancer. In addition, an online survey of 3,200 oncologists was conducted. Practicing physicians were questioned on the importance of different evidence levels, types of adaptive trial design, and categories of surrogate endpoints for clinical decision making. The results of the online survey revealed that evidence from Phase II/III trials with an adaptive design and relatively small sample size was considered high value in rare cancer by 97% of responders, similar to the randomized controlled trial rating (82%). Surrogate clinical endpoints were considered valuable alternatives to overall survival by 80% of oncologists. Preferred adaptive designs were futility analysis, interim analysis, adaptive sample size, and adaptive randomization. In conclusion, rare cancer oncologists rate evidence from adaptive clinical trials with as high a value and importance for clinical decision making processes as conventional randomized controlled trials. All stakeholders have a vested interest in advances in clinical trial designs to ensure efficient and timely development of innovative medicinal products to allow more patients faster access to the pivotal treatment.

Too much of a good thing? An observational study of prolific authors.

Introduction. Researchers' productivity is usually measured in terms of their publication output. A minimum number of publications is required for some medical qualifications and professional appointments. However, authoring an unfeasibly large number of publications might indicate disregard of authorship criteria or even fraud. We therefore examined publication patterns of highly prolific authors in 4 medical specialties. Methods. We analysed Medline publications from 2008-12 using bespoke software to disambiguate individual authors focusing on 4 discrete topics (to further reduce the risk of combining publications from authors with the same name and affiliation). This enabled us to assess the number and type of publications per author per year. Results. While 99% of authors were listed on fewer than 20 publications in the 5-year period, 24 authors in the chosen areas were listed on at least 25 publications in a single year (i.e., >1 publication per 10 working days). Types of publication by the prolific authors varied but included substantial numbers of original research papers (not simply editorials or letters). Conclusions. Institutions and funders should be alert to unfeasibly prolific authors when measuring and creating incentives for researcher productivity.