scholarly journals The underreporting of phase III chemo-therapeutic clinical trial data of older patients with cancer: A systematic review

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 369-379 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karlynn BrintzenhofeSzoc ◽  
Jessica L. Krok-Schoen ◽  
Beverly Canin ◽  
Ira Parker ◽  
Amy R. MacKenzie ◽  
...  
2018 ◽  
Vol 53 (4) ◽  
pp. 413-418 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sree S. Kolli ◽  
Sarah D. Gabros ◽  
Adrian Pona ◽  
Abigail Cline ◽  
Steven R. Feldman

Objective: Tildrakizumab, an inhibitor of the p19 subunit of interleukin (IL)-23, was recently Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved for patients with moderate to severe psoriasis. This article will review the phase II and III clinical trial data of tildrakizumab. Data Sources: A PubMed search from January 2000 to September 2018 was done with the search terms tildrakizumab, guselkumab, risankizumab, p19, interleukin-23, and psoriasis. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Articles discussing phase II and III clinical trial data for tildrakizumab were selected. Data Synthesis: In phase II and phase III trials, tildrakizumab was safe and efficacious compared with placebo and etanercept. More patients achieved Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 75 receiving tildrakizumab (200 mg, 62%-74%; 100 mg, 61%-66%; 25 mg, 64%; 5 mg, 33%) compared with placebo (4%-6%, P < 0.0001) and etanercept (48%, P = 0.01). More patients achieved Physician Global Assessment (PGA) response of “clear” or “minimal” receiving tildrakizumab (200 mg, 59%; 100 mg, 55%-58%) than the placebo group (4%-7%, P < 0.0001). 59% of patients who received tildrakizumab 200 mg achieved a PGA response of “clear” or “minimal” compared with etanercept (48%, P = 0.0031). The most common adverse effect was infection. Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice: Tildrakizumab is a new, FDA-approved, physician-administered biological therapy for patients with moderate to severe psoriasis. It appears to be efficacious and safe so far. Conclusion: Tildrakizumab is efficacious and safe for the treatment of patients with moderate to severe psoriasis. IL-23/p19 inhibitors are a promising class of biological therapy.


Author(s):  
Samantha Cruz Rivera ◽  
Derek G. Kyte ◽  
Olalekan Lee Aiyegbusi ◽  
Anita L. Slade ◽  
Christel McMullan ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are commonly collected in clinical trials and should provide impactful evidence on the effect of interventions on patient symptoms and quality of life. However, it is unclear how PRO impact is currently realised in practice. In addition, the different types of impact associated with PRO trial results, their barriers and facilitators, and appropriate impact metrics are not well defined. Therefore, our objectives were: i) to determine the range of potential impacts from PRO clinical trial data, ii) identify potential PRO impact metrics and iii) identify barriers/facilitators to maximising PRO impact; and iv) to examine real-world evidence of PRO trial data impact based on Research Excellence Framework (REF) impact case studies. Methods Two independent investigators searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL+, HMIC databases from inception until December 2018. Articles were eligible if they discussed research impact in the context of PRO clinical trial data. In addition, the REF 2014 database was systematically searched. REF impact case studies were included if they incorporated PRO data in a clinical trial. Results Thirty-nine publications of eleven thousand four hundred eighty screened met the inclusion criteria. Nine types of PRO trial impact were identified; the most frequent of which centred around PRO data informing clinical decision-making. The included publications identified several barriers and facilitators around PRO trial design, conduct, analysis and report that can hinder or promote the impact of PRO trial data. Sixty-nine out of two hundred nine screened REF 2014 case studies were included. 12 (17%) REF case studies led to demonstrable impact including changes to international guidelines; national guidelines; influencing cost-effectiveness analysis; and influencing drug approvals. Conclusions PRO trial data may potentially lead to a range of benefits for patients and society, which can be measured through appropriate impact metrics. However, in practice there is relatively limited evidence demonstrating directly attributable and indirect real world PRO-related research impact. In part, this is due to the wider challenges of measuring the impact of research and PRO-specific issues around design, conduct, analysis and reporting. Adherence to guidelines and multi-stakeholder collaboration is essential to maximise the use of PRO trial data, facilitate impact and minimise research waste. Trial registration Systematic Review registration PROSPERO CRD42017067799.


2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (30_suppl) ◽  
pp. 70-70 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karlynn BrintzenhofeSzoc ◽  
Armin Shahrokni ◽  
Beverly E. Canin ◽  
Ira Russell Parker ◽  
Jessica L. Krok-Schoen ◽  
...  

70 Background: With demographic shifts leading to an aging cancer population, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has recommended that journal editors improve the reporting of clinical trial data specific to older adults. This study aimed to assess the current reporting status of clinical trial data regarding older adults with cancer. Methods: This was a review of oncologic therapeutic phase-3 clinical trial data published from 07/01/2016-06/30/2017. Based on a keyword search of EMBASE and PubMed, 929 manuscripts were identified. Removing duplicates (n = 116) and articles that did not meet this study’s cancer inclusion criteria (n = 589), a total of 224 were identified. In the pilot phase there was 85% agreement among the reviewers. Results: Thus far, 197 papers (88%), have been independently reviewed with 118 evaluated by more than one reviewer. Reviewed papers were published in 57 journals including Journal of Clinical Oncology (28, 14.2%), Lancet Oncology (25, 12.7%), and NEJM (20, 10.2%). Much of the literature focused upon the following cancer sites: Breast (33, 16.7%), Lung (27, 13.7%), Colorectal (18, 9.1%), and Prostate (12, 6.1%). 175 articles included inclusion/exclusion criteria, 32 (16.2%) had upper age exclusion criteria. Age was presented in 184 articles and data was stratified by age in 84 (42.6%). Age stratification of effectiveness and toxicity were presented in the results section in 65 (38.2%) and 21 (14.4%). Effectiveness by age was in the discussion section in 37 (18.8%) and toxicity by age in 16 (8.1%). Reviewers could not determine the proportion of study participants who were older adults in 111 articles (56.2%). In the remainder of the articles, the proportion ranged from 0% to 81%, except one in which all participants were older adults. Conclusions: A slim minority of phase-3 oncologic clinical trials included and discussed age-referenced results regarding the effectiveness and toxicity of treatments in older adults. Clinical investigators and journal editors should consider the ASCO recommendation and increase the reporting of oncologic clinical trial data specific to older adults.


2008 ◽  
Vol 86 (2) ◽  
pp. 148-153 ◽  
Author(s):  
Herman Suit ◽  
Hanne Kooy ◽  
Alexei Trofimov ◽  
Jonathan Farr ◽  
John Munzenrider ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document