Landscape of phase 1 clinical trials for minors with cancer in the United States

Abstract Background: Clinical trials are fundamental to advance therapeutics systematically and improve patient outcomes. Despite this, enrollment on clinical trials remains dismal in the United States (US) and is a constant focus of healthcare policy. We studied distribution of clinical trials for B-cell malignancies over time across the US and unique clinical trial opportunities i.e. individual clinical trials for the given diagnosis at a site that patients may have access to participate. Methods: We abstracted data from clinicaltrials.gov for all trials that had non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) or multiple myeloma (MM) as an inclusion indication between 1999-2018. Clinical trial characteristics and distribution over US geographical divisions (West, Midwest, Northeast, and South) were studied, and differences were assessed by Chi-square test. Results: A total of 1930 trials were identified (NHL: 982, MM: 948), of which 483 were recruiting at the time of data abstraction (NHL: 250, MM: 233). Over the past 2 decades, 182691 patients were enrolled on the various trials (NHL: 81592, MM: 101099). Trials by phase of study included phase 1: 629, phase 1/2: 316, phase 2: 813, phase 2/3: 11 and phase 3: 161. Number of trials by phase separated by NHL and MM are shown in Figure 1. Of these, 197 trials were randomized (NHL: 67, MM: 130). Geographical distribution of trials by diagnosis type is shown in Figure 2. A total of 31806 unique trial opportunities were noted for MM and NHL, of which 9,513 were international and 22,293 were in the US, with a geographical distribution of 5080 in West, 8198 in Midwest, 3944 in Northeast, and 5071 in South. 4,883 of the unique trial opportunities were available at NCI/NCCN accredited sites and 17,410 were at non-NCI/NCCN sites in the US. Treatment characteristics of the trials included monoclonal antibodies in 1218, other targeted agents in 2641, stem cell transplant in 526, and other agents in 517 trials with several trials utilizing more than one of these therapeutic options. There was no statistically significant difference in the distribution of clinical trials by phase of study across various US geographical regions for MM (p=0.71), NHL (p=0.98) or combined MM+NHL (p=0.16). On the other hand, unique trial opportunities were significantly different by study phase and geographical distribution for MM, NHL or MM+NHL (all p<0.001) (Figure 3). Conclusions: Widespread access to clinical trials within a cancer diagnosis is imperative for generalizability of trial results. In a comprehensive, national analysis we noted that while it may appear that clinical trials are available across the US, sites where they are open are distributed unevenly, giving rise to a disparity in access to evidence-based therapeutic advancements for patients. Disclosures Ailawadhi: Janssen: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Sher:Affimed: Research Funding.

Download Full-text

A Demographic Analysis of Racial/Ethnic Minority Enrollment Into HVTN Preventive Early Phase HIV Vaccine Clinical Trials Conducted in the United States, 2002-2016

Public Health Reports ◽

10.1177/0033354918814260 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 134 (1) ◽

pp. 72-80 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Katherine Foy Huamani ◽

Barbara Metch ◽

Gail Broder ◽

Michele Andrasik

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Ethnic Minority ◽

Minority Groups ◽

Phase 1 ◽

The United States ◽

Demographic Characteristics ◽

Hiv Vaccine ◽

Ethnic Minority Groups ◽

Racial Ethnic

Objectives: Racial/ethnic minority communities in the United States are overrepresented among new HIV diagnoses, yet their inclusion in preventive HIV vaccine clinical trials is inadequate. An analysis of enrollment demographic characteristics from US preventive HIV vaccine clinical trials from 1988 through 2002 showed that enrollment of racial/ethnic minority groups increased. We analyzed enrollment in preventive HIV vaccine clinical trials from 2002 through 2016 and compared our data with data from the previous study, described demographic characteristics of trial participants, and assessed how well this distribution reflected the racial/ethnic distribution of new HIV diagnoses in the United States. Methods: We examined data on demographic characteristics from 43 Phase 1 and Phase 2A preventive HIV vaccine clinical trials conducted in the United States and compared the results with those of the previous study. We also compared racial/ethnic distributions from 2011 through 2015 with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data on the number of new HIV diagnoses during the same period. Results: Of 3469 participants, 1134 (32.7%) identified as a racial/ethnic minority, a 94% increase from the previous period (634/3731; 17.0%). Percentage annual enrollment of all racial/ethnic minority participants fluctuated from 17% to 53% from mid-2002 to 2016. Percentages of new HIV diagnoses among the general population were 1.9 to 2.9 times the percentage enrollment of black participants and 1.3 to 6.6 times the percentage enrollment of Hispanic/Latino participants in clinical trials for the same period. Conclusions: Although enrollment of racial/ethnic minority groups into HIV vaccine clinical trials has increased, it is not proportional to the number of new HIV diagnoses among these groups. To enhance recruitment of racial/ethnic minority groups, the HIV Vaccine Trials Network has prioritized community partnerships and invested resources into staff training.

Download Full-text

Toward a Jurisprudence of Drug Regulation

The Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics ◽

10.1111/jlme.12139 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 42 (2) ◽

pp. 244-262 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Matthew Herder

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Clinical Trial ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Medical Devices ◽

Phase 1 ◽

Clinical Trial Data ◽

The United States ◽

Trial Data ◽

Regulatory Decisions ◽

Clinical Study Reports

Efforts to ensure greater transparency in the regulation of “drugs” (used here as a catch-all for pharmaceuticals, biologics, medical devices, and biomarker-based technologies such as genetic testing paired with a pharmaceutical or biologic) are well underway. For example, laws in the United States and Europe now require registration of most clinical trials beyond phase 1. Yet instances of avoidable harm to patients continue to arise. In response, calls for disclosure of clinical trial data in the form of “clinical study reports,” not just trial designs and basic results, are growing. In this paper, I argue that disclosure of clinical trial data is necessary but insufficient. Rather, the regulatory decisions that flow from those trial data —whether positive (i.e., product approvals) or negative (i.e., abandoned products, product refusals, and withdrawals) —should also be open to outside scrutiny provided they are final in nature.

Download Full-text

Developing a Clinical Trials Infrastructure in the United States

NAM Perspectives ◽

10.31478/201205g ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 2 (5) ◽

Author(s):

Paul Eisenberg ◽

◽

Petra Kaufmann ◽

Ellen Sigal ◽

Janet Woodcock ◽

...

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

The United States

Download Full-text

690 Are participants in obstetrical randomized clinical trials representative of the United States pregnant population?

American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology ◽

10.1016/j.ajog.2020.12.714 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 224 (2) ◽

pp. S433

Author(s):

Cynthia Coots ◽

Stephen Wagner ◽

Matthew J. Bicocca ◽

Megha Gupta ◽

Hector Mendez Figueroa ◽

...

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Randomized Clinical Trials ◽

The United States

Download Full-text

EPID-07. ACCESS TO GLIOBLASTOMA CLINICAL TRIALS FOR RURAL PATIENTS IN THE UNITED STATES FROM 2010–2020

Neuro-Oncology ◽

10.1093/neuonc/noaa215.325 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 22 (Supplement_2) ◽

pp. ii79-ii79

Author(s):

Kathryn Nevel ◽

Samuel Capouch ◽

Lisa Arnold ◽

Katherine Peters ◽

Nimish Mohile ◽

...

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Rural Communities ◽

The United States ◽

Interventional Treatment ◽

Phase Ii Trials ◽

Treatment Trials ◽

Rural Sites ◽

Rural Patients ◽

Urban Sites

Abstract BACKGROUND Patients in rural communities have less access to optimal cancer care and clinical trials. For GBM, access to experimental therapies, and consideration of a clinical trial is embedded in national guidelines. Still, the availability of clinical trials to rural communities, representing 20% of the US population, has not been described. METHODS We queried ClinicalTrials.gov for glioblastoma interventional treatment trials opened between 1/2010 and 1/2020 in the United States. We created a Structured Query Language database and leveraged Google application programming interfaces (API) Places to find name and street addresses for the sites, and Google’s Geocode API to determine the county location. Counties were classified by US Department of Agriculture Rural-Urban Continuum Codes (RUCC 1–3 = urban and RUCC 4–9 = rural). We used z-ratios for rural-urban statistical comparisons. RESULTS We identified 406 interventional treatment trials for GBM at 1491 unique sites. 8.7% of unique sites were in rural settings. Rural sites opened an average of 1.7 trials/site and urban sites 2.8 trials/site from 1/2010–1/2020. Rural sites offered more phase II trials (63% vs 57%, p= 0.03) and fewer phase I trials (22% vs 28%, p= 0.01) than urban sites. Rural locations were more likely to offer federally-sponsored trials (p< 0.002). There were no investigator-initiated or single-institution trials offered at rural locations, and only 1% of industry trials were offered rurally. DISCUSSION Clinical trials for GBM were rarely open in rural areas, and were more dependent on federal funding. Clinical trials are likely difficult to access for rural patients, and this has important implications for the generalizability of research as well as how we engage the field of neuro-oncology and patient advocacy groups in improving patient access to trials. Increasing the number of clinical trials in rural locations may enable more rural patients to access and enroll in GBM studies.

Download Full-text

The United States’ Regulatory Environment Is Evolving to Accommodate a Coming Boom in Gene Therapy Research

Applied Biosafety ◽

10.1177/1535676019854866 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 24 (3) ◽

pp. 147-152 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Daniel Eisenman

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Gene Therapy ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

The United States ◽

Regulatory Environment ◽

Evidence Based ◽

Regulatory Structure ◽

Regulatory Changes ◽

Current State ◽

Therapy Field

Introduction: A dramatic increase in the number of clinical trials involving gene-modified cell therapy and gene therapy is taking place. The field is on the verge of a boom, and the regulatory environment is evolving to accommodate the growth. Discussion: This commentary summarizes the current state of the field, including an overview of the growth. The United States (US) regulatory structure for gene therapy will be summarized, and the evolution of the oversight structure will be explained. Conclusion: The gene therapy field has recently produced its first FDA-approved therapeutics and has a pipeline of other investigational products in the final stages of clinical trials before they can be evaluated by the FDA as safe and effective therapeutics. As research continues to evolve, so must the oversight structure. Biosafety professionals and IBCs have always played key roles in contributing to the safe, evidence-based advancement of gene therapy research. With the recent regulatory changes and current surge in gene therapy research, the importance of those roles has increased dramatically.

Download Full-text

Considerations for Tissue-Engineered and Regenerative Medicine Product Development Prior to Clinical Trials in the United States

Tissue Engineering Part B Reviews ◽

10.1089/ten.teb.2009.0449 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 16 (1) ◽

pp. 41-54 ◽

Cited By ~ 91

Author(s):

Mark H. Lee ◽

Judith A. Arcidiacono ◽

Anastacia M. Bilek ◽

Jeremiah J. Wille ◽

Caitilin A. Hamill ◽

...

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Regenerative Medicine ◽

Product Development ◽

The United States ◽

Medicine Product

Download Full-text

Enrollment disparities in cancer clinical trials leading to FDA approvals between 2008 and 2020.

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2021.39.15_suppl.e18501 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽

pp. e18501-e18501

Author(s):

Ryan Huu-Tuan Nguyen ◽

Yomaira Silva ◽

Vijayakrishna K. Gadi

Keyword(s):

Prostate Cancer ◽

United States ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Drug Approval ◽

The United States ◽

Cancer Clinical Trials ◽

Cancer Prevalence ◽

Fda Approval ◽

The Us ◽

Enrollment Data

e18501 Background: Cancer clinical trials based in the United States (US) have lacked adequate representation of racial and ethnic minorities, the elderly, and women. Pivotal clinical trials leading to United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval are often multi-national trials and may also lack generalizability to underrepresented populations in the United States. We determined the racial, ethnic, age, and sex enrollment in pivotal trials relative to the US cancer population. Methods: We reviewed the FDA’s Drug Approvals and Databases for novel and new use drug approvals for breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancer indications from 2008 through 2020. Drugs@FDA was searched for drug approval summaries and FDA labels to identify clinical trials used to justify clinical efficacy that led to FDA approval. For eligible trials, enrollment data were obtained from FDA approval summaries, FDA labels, ClinicalTrials.gov, and corresponding journal manuscripts. Enrollment Fraction (EF) was calculated as enrollment in identified clinical trials divided by 2017 SEER cancer prevalence. All data sources were publicly available. Results: From 2008 through 2020, 60 drugs received novel or new use drug approval for breast, colorectal, lung, or prostate cancer indications based on 66 clinical trials with a total enrollment of 36,830. North America accounted for 9,259 (31%) enrollees of the 73% of trials reporting location of enrollment. Racial demographics were reported in 78% of manuscripts, 66% of ClinicalTrials.gov pages, and 98% of FDA labels or approval summaries. Compared with a 0.4% enrollment fraction among White patients, lower enrollment fractions were noted in Hispanic (0.2%, odds ratio [OR] vs White, 0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43 to 0.49, P< 0.001) and Black (0.1%, OR 0.29; 95% CI 0.28 to 0.31, P< 0.001) patients. Elderly patients (age ≥ 65 years) were less likely than younger patients to be enrollees (EF 0.3% vs 0.9%, OR 0.27; 95% CI 0.26 to 0.27, P< 0.001) despite accounting for 61.3% of cancer prevalence. For colorectal and lung cancer trials, females were less likely than males (EF 0.7% vs 1.1%, OR 0.66; 95% CI 0.63 to 0.68, P< 0.001) to be enrolled. Conclusions: Black, Hispanic, elderly, and female patients were less likely to enroll in cancer clinical trials leading to FDA approvals from 2008 to 2020. Race and geographic enrollment data were inconsistently reported in journal manuscripts and ClinicalTrials.gov. The lack of appropriate representation of specific patient populations in these key clinical trials limits their generalizability. Future efforts must be made to ensure equitable access, representation, and reporting of enrollees that adequately represent the US population of patients with cancer.

Download Full-text