How to improve toxicity evaluation in clinical trials? Testing new metrics from irinotecan or oxaliplatin-based treatments in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): A pooled analysis from 2,349 patients in ARCAD database.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 89-89 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christophe Tournigand ◽  
Guilherme Lopes ◽  
Curtis L. Olswold ◽  
Richard Adams ◽  
John Raymond Zalcberg ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Logistic Model ◽  
Onset Time ◽  
Pooled Analysis ◽  
Toxicity Assessment ◽  
Lower Grade ◽  
Persistent Diarrhea ◽  
Toxicity Evaluation ◽  
Entire Treatment

89 Background: Monitoring of adverse events (AE) is crucial in clinical trials. Maximum grade per patient (pt) is commonly used but better metrics are needed to aid describing and comparing AE profiles. Methods: We developed and evaluated 2 longitudinal AE summary metrics. 1) Onset time of max grade refers to whether a pt has max grade within pre-specified timeframes for an AE, e.g. onset can be defined as “early” (max grade before the 6th cy) or “late” (≥ 6th cy). 2) Adverse effect load (AEL) is a longitudinal score of worst grade possible excluding death over the entire treatment for an AE. Higher AEL means worst overall experience of AE. We applied these metrics to real trial data. Pts were from 6 mCRC trials included in ARCAD database and received Irinotecan-based (n = 1,119) or Oxaliplatin-based (n = 1,230) treatments that did not include biologicals. AEs were diarrhea, nausea/vomiting, neutropenia/leukopenia, and neuropathy. We used linear model to AEL and logistic model to the other metrics, adjusting for age, sex, and number of metastases. Results: For nausea/vomiting, pts in Oxali-based chemo showed a higher AEL compared to patients in Iri-based (mean (M) [standard deviation (SD)] = 0.04 [0.06] vs. 0.02 [0.04]; p < 0.001) even though less pts had gr ≥ 3 (10.4% vs. 16.2%, resp.; p < 0.001), suggesting a lower-grade but persistent nausea/vomiting for Oxali-based. Among pts with diarrhea max gr 2, pts in Iri-based had higher AEL than with Oxali-based (M [SD] = 0.11 [0.11] vs. 0.08 [0.09]; p = 0.008), indicating more persistent diarrhea for Iri-based trts even among pts with same max grade. For neutropenia/leukopenia, pts in Oxali-based trts experienced higher AEL (M [SD] = 0.09 [0.13] vs. 0.05 [0.11], p < 0.001), and more pts in Oxali-based trts had gr ≥ 3 (70.1% vs. 64.4%; p = 0.002), suggesting that pts in Oxali-based trts experienced worst overall and max grade neutropenia/leukopenia compared to pts in Iri-based. Conclusions: To improve toxicity assessment in clinical trials, AEL and onset time of max grade are new measures that describe the evolution of adverse events over time. Further validation is warranted.

Evaluating longitudinal toxicity of cetuximab in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): A pooled analysis from 1,302 patients in the ARCAD database.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 3610-3610
Author(s):  
Guilherme Lopes ◽  
Jane Yeojeong So ◽  
Katrin Marie Sjoquist ◽  
Curtis L. Olswold ◽  
Eric Van Cutsem ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Onset Time ◽  
Pooled Analysis ◽  
Lower Grade ◽  
Site Location ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Ecog Ps ◽  
Reporting Method ◽  
Entire Treatment

3610 Background: Chronic lower grade adverse events (AE) can negatively affect a patient’s quality of life but it is difficult to capture using a traditional toxicity reporting approach. A novel AE reporting method was recently developed to describe, summarize, and present longitudinal AE profiles(Lopes et al, 2021). We leveraged this method to describe and compare the AE profiles of doublet chemotherapy (DC) + Cetuximab and DC alone in mCRC patients. Methods: This AE reporting method utilizes two additional AE metrics to complement the maximum (max) toxicity grade usually reported in clinical trials. Onset time indicates the time period in which max grade for an AE occurred for the first time, defined here as “early” (i.e. within first 42 days) and “late” (i.e. after the 42nd day). AE Load (AEL) indicates the overall severity of an AE in the entire treatment. AEL varies from 0 to 1. Higher AEL indicates a worse overall severity of that AE over time. AEL is the key metric for describing chronic AE. We included patients receiving DC + cetuximab (n = 738) and DC alone (n = 564 [ref group]) from two randomized first-line trials in the ARCAD database. Diarrhea, rash, hand-foot syndrome (HFS), fatigue, anorexia, and mucositis were examined and adjusted for backbone (FOLFOX vs. FOLFIRI), ECOG PS, sex, site location, dose reduction, and treatment length. Results: For rash, DC + cetuximab had a higher risk of G3+ (21% vs. 0.5%; odds ratio {OR} [95% confidence interval {CI}] = 50 [16,157], p < 0.001), increased overall severity over the entire treatment (AEL = 0.257 vs. 0.069; Adjusted difference in means–Mdiff [95% CI] = 0.22 [0.21,0.23], p < 0.001), and increased risk of early onset (67% vs. 33%; OR [95% CI] = 4.3 [2.7,6.7], p < 0.001). DC + cetuximab also had higher AEL for rash across max grades (p < 0.001 within G1, G2, and G3+). For HFS, DC + cetuximab had a higher risk of G3+ (OR [95% CI] = 6.0 [2.5,14], p < 0.001), increased overall severity (AEL = 0.139 vs. 0.087; Mdiff [95% CI] = 0.03 [0.03,0.04], p < 0.001), and slightly earlier onset (12.4 vs. 13.9 weeks; Mdiff, weeks [95% CI] = -4.9 [-0.80,-9.0], p = 0.021). Within each max grade, DC + cetuximab did not have higher AEL of HFS. No associations were found for diarrhea, fatigue, anorexia, or mucositis. Conclusions: The addition of cetuximab is associated with higher grade, more persistent, and more immediate rash. The higher severity in HFS with the addition of cetuximab appears to be related to higher grade but not chronic HFS. This method may be useful to describe different strategies, e.g. intermittent cetuximab. It provided a comprehensive view of acute and chronic toxicity profiles supporting its potential interest as new metrics in clinical trials. Lopes GS, Tournigand C, Olswold CL, et al. Adverse event load, onset, and maximum grade: A novel method of reporting adverse events in cancer clinical trials. Clinical Trials. 2021;18(1):51-60

scholarly journals A pooled analysis of adverse events in 393 adults with Gaucher disease type 1 from four clinical trials of oral eliglustat: Evaluation of frequency, timing, and duration

2018 ◽  
Vol 68 ◽  
pp. 185-191 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Judith Peterschmitt ◽  
Gerald F. Cox ◽  
Jennifer Ibrahim ◽  
James MacDougall ◽  
Lisa H. Underhill ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Gaucher Disease ◽  
Pooled Analysis ◽  
Disease Type ◽  
Gaucher Disease Type 1

scholarly journals Safety and reactogenicity of the adjuvanted recombinant zoster vaccine: experience from clinical trials and post-marketing surveillance

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 251513552110574
Author(s):  
Joseph Fiore ◽  
Maribel Miranda Co-van der Mee ◽  
Andrés Maldonado ◽  
Lisa Glasser ◽  
Phil Watson
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Pooled Analysis ◽  
Cell Transplant ◽  
Zoster Vaccine ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Pivotal Phase ◽  
Post Marketing Surveillance ◽  
Post Marketing ◽  
Recombinant Zoster Vaccine

An adjuvanted recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV) is licensed for the prevention of herpes zoster. This paper reviews its safety and reactogenicity. A pooled analysis of two pivotal randomized Phase-3 trials (NCT01165177, NCT01165229) in adults ⩾50 years found that more solicited adverse events (AEs) were reported with RZV than placebo. Injection site pain was the most common solicited AE (RZV: 78.0% participants; placebo: 10.9%). Grade-3 pain occurred in 6.4% of RZV and 0.3% of placebo recipients. Myalgia, fatigue, and headache were the most commonly reported general solicited AEs (RZV: 44.7%, 44.5%, and 37.7%, respectively; placebo: 11.7%, 16.5%, and 15.5%, respectively). Most symptoms were mild to moderate in intensity with a median duration of 2–3 days. The intensity of reactogenicity symptoms did not differ substantially after the first and second vaccine doses. The pooled analysis of the pivotal Phase-3 trials did not identify any clinically relevant differences in the overall incidence of serious adverse events (SAEs), fatal AEs or potential immune-mediated diseases (pIMDs) between RZV and placebo. Reactogenicity in five studies of immunocompromised patients ⩾18 years (autologous stem cell transplant, human immunodeficiency virus, solid tumors, hematological malignancies, and renal transplant; NCT01610414, NCT01165203, NCT01798056, NCT01767467, and NCT02058589) was consistent with that observed in the pivotal Phase-3 trials. There were no clinically relevant differences between RZV and placebo in the immunocompromised populations with regard to overall incidence of SAEs, fatal AEs, pIMDs, or AEs related to patients’ underlying condition. Post-marketing surveillance found that the most commonly reported AEs were consistent with the reactogenicity profile of the vaccine in clinical trials. Overall, the clinical safety data for RZV are reassuring. [Formula: see text]

scholarly journals Pomalidomide Based Regimens for Treatment of Relapsed Multiple Myeloma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 2022-2022
Author(s):  
Adeela Mushtaq ◽  
Ahmad Iftikhar ◽  
Midhat Lakhani ◽  
Fnu Sagar ◽  
Ahmad Kamal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Random Effect Model ◽  
Pooled Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Significant Heterogeneity ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Stratified Analysis

Abstract Introduction Bortezomib, a proteasome inhibitor and lenalidomide (Len), an immunomodulatory drug are the backbone of established treatment regimens for newly diagnosed MM. Patients with dual-refractory (refractory to both bortezomib and lenalidomide) disease have a poor prognosis with overall survival estimated to be less than one year. Pomalidomide (Pom) has distinct anticancer, antiangiogenic and immunomodulatory properties and has demonstrated synergistic antiproliferative activity in combination regimens. The aim of our study is to compare different Pom based regimens to identify the most effective regimen for relapsed refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) patients. Methods A comprehensive literature search was performed on PubMed, Cochrane library, Web of Science, Embase and AdisInsight databases on 03/29/2018 which identified a total of 1374 studies. We included phase II/III clinical trials on pomalidomide based regimens that have clearly documented efficacy outcomes. All statistical analyses were performed using Comprehensive Meta-analysis (CMA) Version 3. We used the Cochrane Q statistics (p<0.05 considered significant) and I2 index to calculate the degree of heterogeneity of the studies. A random effect model was used if there was significant heterogeneity (p>0.05 or I2 >50%). Studies were classified into subgroups according to the therapeutic regimen: dual and triplet combinations. A separate stratified analysis of triplet regimens based on type of regimen was also performed. Results A total of 35 studies (n = 4623 patients) were included. The most commonly studied regimen was Pom + LoDex (Low dose dexamethasone) with a total of 16 studies on this regimen. All patients included in our study had ≥ 2 prior lines of therapy. Mean number of prior lines of therapy was 6. Most patients were lenalidomide refractory, with 10 patient cohorts of 100% refractoriness and 8 cohorts of ≥ 90% refractoriness. Pooled analysis showed an overall response rate (ORR) of 47.1% across all Pom regimens including both doublet and triplet regimens. An I2 value of 87.3 was found, indicating high heterogeneity across all Pom regimens. With Pom-LoDex, pooled ORR was found to be 35.7% and mean OS 14.37 months. With triplet regimens, pooled ORR was found to be 61.9%. In a separate stratified analysis of triplet regimens based on type of regimen, pooled ORRs with few selected regimens were as follows; Bort-Pom-LoDex (pooled ORR 83.5%, mean PFS 15.7 months [mos]), CFZ-Pom-LoDex (pooled ORR 77.1%, mean PFS 15.3 mos), Pom-LoDex-bendamustine (pooled ORR 74.2%), Pom-Dex-daratumumab (pooled ORR 64.5%), Pom-LoDex-cyclophosphamide (pooled ORR 59.4%, mean PFS 9.5 mos), Pom-LoDex-doxorubicin (pooled ORR 32%). Most frequently reported adverse event with Pom based regimens was myelosuppression. Mean incidences of grade ≥3 hematologic adverse events were neutropenia (47.6%), anemia (26.5%), and thrombocytopenia (20.8%). Mean incidences of grade ≥3 non-hematologic adverse events were infections (29.1%), pneumonia (13.8%) and fatigue (10%). Most of the studies used pomalidomide 4mg daily dosing. Lacy et al. suggested no advantage of 4mg pomalidomide over 2 mg daily dosing. Conclusion From results of pooled analysis, we can infer that triplet combinations of Pom yield almost double response rates (pooled ORR 61.9%) when compared to dual combination of Pom-LoDex (pooled ORR 35.7%). Among three drug combinations, Bort-Pom-LoDex (pooled ORR 83.5%) and CFZ-Pom-LoDex (pooled ORR 77.1%) seem to produce better outcomes. Our study provides useful insight into relative efficacy of various Pom regimens for treatment of RRMM patients. Several trials involving various MoAbs like nivolumab, daratumumab, elotuzumab, isatuximab and pembrolizumab in combination with Pom-LoDex are currently ongoing. Pomalidomide has an acceptable safety profile. Most common treatment emergent adverse events were myelotoxicity and infections that can be effectively managed with supportive care and dose modifications. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract 14248: Efficacy and Safety of Bempedoic Acid in Patients Who Cannot Tolerate Statins: Pooled Analysis of 4 Phase 3 Clinical Trials

Circulation ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 142 (Suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ulrich Laufs ◽  
Maciej Banach ◽  
Harold E Bays ◽  
Alberico L Catapano ◽  
P Barton Duell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Pooled Analysis ◽  
Lipid Lowering ◽  
Drug Discontinuation ◽  
Lipid Lowering Therapy ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Statin Intolerance ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Additional Information

Introduction: Some patients cannot tolerate statins mainly because of statin-associated muscle symptoms (SAMS). Bempedoic acid (BA) is a prodrug activated in the liver and not in skeletal muscle. BA has been shown to significantly lower LDL-C by a mean of ~18% in patients receiving background maximally tolerated statins and a mean of ~25% in patients with statin intolerance. Objective: Determine efficacy and safety of BA in statin-intolerant patients receiving no background statin therapy across 4 phase 3 clinical trials. Methods: Data were pooled from 4 randomized (2:1), placebo-controlled studies evaluating oral BA 180 mg once daily vs placebo for 12 to 52 weeks. Primary efficacy endpoint was LDL-C % change from baseline to week 12. Safety assessments included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), adverse events of special interest (AESI), and laboratory values. For patients who reported SAMs, additional information around etiology and location were collected. Results: Of 3621 patients, 586 (394 BA; 192 placebo) reported intolerance to multiple statins because of SAMS or other AEs and received no statins during the studies. Mean baseline LDL-C was 148.7 mg/dL. After 12 weeks, BA significantly lowered LDL-C vs placebo (placebo-corrected, -26.5%; P < 0.001). Myalgia was the top reason for drug discontinuation, but was less common in the BA arm (17.7%) vs placebo (43.5%). CK > 5 х ULN was uncommon in both groups. Among AESIs (Table) , muscle disorders were reported by 12.7% (BA) vs 14.1% (placebo). Myalgia was less common with BA (4.6%) vs placebo (7.3%). Muscle spasms (4.1% vs 3.6%) and pain in extremity (3.3% vs 2.1%) were comparable between treatment groups. Muscular weakness was rare (0.5% BA, 1% placebo). Conclusion: Among the population of patients unable to use statins, BA significantly lowered LDL-C vs placebo without increasing muscle-related TEAEs. BA may be an appropriate lipid-lowering therapy for patients with hyperlipidemia who are statin intolerant.

scholarly journals Efficacy and Toxicity Profile of Elotuzumab for Multiple Myeloma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 5640-5640
Author(s):  
Faiza Jamil ◽  
Madeeha Shafqat ◽  
Sharoon Samuel ◽  
Zunairah Shah ◽  
Ceren Durer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Random Effect Model ◽  
Drug Regimen ◽  
Pooled Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Control Group

Abstract Background: Elotuzumab (elo) is a humanized monoclonal antibody, which has been approved by the FDA for use in combination with lenalidomide (lena) and dexamethasone (dexa) in patients (pts) with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Elotuzumab is effective as a single agent, as well as in combination for multiple myeloma treatments, supporting the use of elo in pts with RRMM and newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) pts. Method: After review of literature using database searches was done on 6/27/18 (Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Clinical Trials.gov), 9 prospective and 1 retrospective study with 1128 enrolled pts met the inclusion criteria to date in RRMM and 2 clinical trials including 123 pts in NDMM (Table 1). CMA software v.3 was used for meta-analysis. A random-effect model was applied. Result: Regimens used in RRMM: Based on pooled analysis (95% CI), an overall response rate (ORR) of 66% (54-76.2) was calculated in 685 evaluable pts treated with elo based regimens in RRMM (Figure 1). Most common grade (G) ≥ 3 hematological adverse events (HAE) and non-hematological adverse events (NHAE) based on regimen were calculated using pooled analysis in RRMM pts (Table 2). Anemia was noted in 12.1% ( 7.7-18.6) in 559 pts, while neutropenia in 14.5% (7.5-26.4) out of 591 pts and thrombocytopenia (tcp) in 11.9% (7.9-17.4) in 198 evaluable pts. Diarrhea 5.5% (3.6-8.3), pyrexia 2.4% (1.5-4), peripheral neuropathy (PN) 8.4% (3.8-17.8) were measured in 626, 668 and 143 pts respectively. Elotuzumab as monotherapy: 1 study (n=34) evaluated the efficacy of elo as single agent in RRMM. The median age, time from diagnosis and number of prior therapies were 64.5 years (y) (46-87), 4.4 y (0.9-12.8) and 4.5 y (2-10) respectively. It produced an ORR of 1.4% (0.1-19.1 95% CI) in 34 evaluable pts. Adverse events recorded were pyrexia and fatigue in 17.6% and 8.8% pts respectively. Elotuzumab in two drug regimen: In RRMM, 2 clinical trials (n=49) evaluated the efficacy (95% CI) of elo, ORR of 25% (4.1-72.3) was calculated. The best PFS (progression free survival) produced was in combination of elo 20 mg with bortezumib (bort) 1.3mg/m2 of 9.46 months as compared to 1.8 months when elo10mg/kg + dexamethasone (dexa) 28mg was used. In our analysis for safety, common G≥ 3 HAE calculated were, thrombocytopenia 8.7% (3.3-21.1) n=49, neutropenia 10.7 % (3.5-28.4) n=28 pts and anemia 7.1% (1.8-24.5) n=28 pts. NHAE included diarrhea 1.7% (0.1-22.3), PN 10.7% (3.5-28.4), pyrexia 1.7% (0.1-22.3) in 28 evaluable pts each. Elotuzumab in three drug regimen: In RRMM, 10 clinical trials including 602 pts evaluated the efficacy of elo as a part of triple drug regimen, producing an ORR of 72.2% (54-76.2). The best results were produced with the combination of elo 10-20mg/kg + lenalidomide (lena) 25mg + dexa 40mg producing a PFS of 32.2 mo and 28.62 mo in its phase I and II cohorts respectively. Based on pooled analysis (95% CI) common HAE calculated were neutropenia 17.5% (7.6-35.4) in n=563, thrombocytopenia 12.7% (8.2-19.4) in n=149 and anemia 13% (8-20.5) in n=531 pts. Common G ≥ 3 NHAE estimated were diarrhea 5.7% (3.7-8.6), PN 6.6% (2-19.2), pyrexia 2.5% (1.5-4.1) in 598, 115 and 640 pts respectively. Elotuzumab based regimen in NDMM: A currently ongoing clinical trial NCT02272803 has produced promising results in NDMM pts. As a part of three drug regimen with dose of elo 10mg/kg-20mg/kg, lena 25mg, dexa 20mg in 40 pts produced an ORR of 87.5% (73.2-95.8) versus control group of lena 25mg plus dexa 40mg in 42 pts with an ORR of 73.8% (58-86.1). The PFS rate recorded at 1 year was 93% (79-98%) and 91% (73-97%) respectively. The HAE G ≥ 3 included, neutropenia 18% and leukopenia 15%. In another study with 41 pts, elo was used in combination with lena, bort and dexa producing an ORR of 100% and greater than grade 3 adverse events including Tcp 15%, PN 2%. Conclusion: Results produced in our study suggest that elotuzumab is highly effective when used in pts with RRMM and NDMM. Combination regimens for elo produces an ORR ranging from 79-83% with elo + lena+ dexa, proving that the best results were produced by three drug regimens. Large prospective studies are required to evaluate efficacy and safety of elotuzumab in combination therapies. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document