scholarly journals Reporting of Cardiovascular Events in Clinical Trials Supporting FDA Approval of Contemporary Cancer Therapies

2020 ◽  
Vol 75 (6) ◽  
pp. 620-628 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janice M. Bonsu ◽  
Avirup Guha ◽  
Lawrence Charles ◽  
Vedat O. Yildiz ◽  
Lai Wei ◽  
...  
2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18202-e18202
Author(s):  
Surbhi Singhal ◽  
Evan Thomas Hall ◽  
Brooke Peterson Gabster ◽  
James Dickerson ◽  
Lidia Schapira

e18202 Background: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly valued as a key tool in patient-focused treatment decisions. However, a lack of standardization leads to significant variability in PRO collection and reporting in ground-breaking clinical trials of novel agents. We sought to characterize the mechanisms of assessment and variability by which PROs are reported for newly approved anti-cancer therapies. Methods: We reviewed the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals between 2011 and 2017 for anti-cancer new molecular entities (NMEs) and new biologic approvals (BLAs). For each therapy, the pivotal clinical trial leading to FDA approval was identified using the national clinical trial (NCT) number and assessed for inclusion of PROs. A separate PubMed search was conducted to evaluate for PRO publication distinct from the original trial based on national clinical trial registry number. Results: From 2011 to 2017, the FDA approved 66 NMEs/BLAs based on 74 clinical trials for cancer treatment. Of the 74 clinical trial publications, 21 (28%) of the trials published PRO data in their original clinical publication, 18 (24%) published a separate PRO analysis, and 35 (47%) did not publish PRO data in either format. Among the 32 clinical trials (43%) that listed PROs as pre-specified outcomes, 72% published PROs (23/32). The separate PRO analyses (N = 18) were published considerably later following FDA approval (mean 605 days) than the original clinical trials (mean 20 days, N = 74, P < 0.001). Conclusions: As cancer treatment options expand, therapy decisions become increasingly nuanced. PROs assist decision-making by providing detailed information on important aspects of quality of life and tolerability. Our research has identified a significant lag in the publication of companion studies of PRO data associated with pivotal clinical trials, representing a meaningful gap in information critical to patients and oncologists in the process of making informed decisions.


2019 ◽  
Vol 73 (9) ◽  
pp. 1879
Author(s):  
Daniel Addison ◽  
Janice Bonsu ◽  
Lawrence Charles ◽  
Avirup Guha ◽  
Brandee Baker ◽  
...  

2011 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 24-35 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aruni S. Arachchige Don ◽  
X. F. Steven Zheng

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18501-e18501
Author(s):  
Ryan Huu-Tuan Nguyen ◽  
Yomaira Silva ◽  
Vijayakrishna K. Gadi

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.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Onyee Chan ◽  
Rami S Komrokji

Transforming growth factor beta (TGF-β) signaling pathway is key to hematopoiesis regulation. Increased activation of this pathway contributes to ineffective terminal erythroid differentiation in myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). Luspatercept is a novel fusion protein that traps TGF-β ligands preventing them from binding to Type II TGF-β receptors, thereby decreasing phosphorylated SMAD2/3 resulting in the downstream effect of promoting erythropoiesis. Seminal clinical trials using luspatercept, PACE-MD and MEDALIST, demonstrated impressive efficacy in the treatment of transfusion-dependent anemia in intermediate risk or lower MDS had led to the US FDA approval for this indication. This review summarizes luspatercept mechanisms of action, efficacy/safety data supporting its use and ongoing clinical trials in MDS.


Author(s):  
Bente Lomholt Langdahl ◽  
Lorenz Christian Hofbauer ◽  
John Colin Forfar

Abstract Sclerostin is primarily produced by the osteocytes, inhibits the canonical Wnt pathway and thereby the osteoblasts, and stimulates RANKL release by the osteocytes and thereby osteoclast recruitment. Inhibition of sclerostin therefore causes stimulation of bone formation and inhibition of resorption. In clinical trials romosozumab, an antibody against sclerostin, increases BMD and reduces the risk of fractures compared to placebo and alendronate. The cardiovascular safety of romosozumab was adjudicated in 2 large clinical osteoporosis trials in postmenopausal women. Compared with placebo, the incidence of cardiovascular events was similar in the two treatment groups. Compared to alendronate, the incidence of serious cardiovascular events was higher in women treated with romosozumab. The incidence of serious cardiovascular adverse events was low and posthoc analyses should therefore be interpreted with caution, however, the relative risk seemed unaffected by preexisting cardiovascular disease or risk factors. Sclerostin is expressed in the vasculature, predominantly in vascular smooth muscle cells in the media. However, preclinical and genetic studies have not demonstrated any increased cardiovascular risk with continuously low sclerostin levels or inhibition of sclerostin. Furthermore, no potential mechanisms for such an effect have been identified. In conclusion, while there is no preclinical or genetic evidence of a harmful effect of sclerostin inhibition on cardiovascular safety, the evidence from the large clinical trials in postmenopausal women is conflicting. Romosozumab should therefore be used for the treatment of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis at high risk of fracture after careful consideration of the cardiovascular risk and the balance between benefits and risks.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document