scholarly journals The quality of reporting general safety parameters and immune-related adverse events in clinical trials of FDA-approved immune checkpoint inhibitors

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zahra Karimian ◽  
Sandra Mavoungou ◽  
Joe-Elie Salem ◽  
Florence Tubach ◽  
Agnes Dechartres
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Immune Checkpoint ◽  
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Safety Information ◽  
Safety Data ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Safety Parameters

Abstract Background – While immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have transformed the field of oncology for advanced-stage cancers, they can lead to serious immune toxicities. Several systematic reviews have evaluated the risk of immune-related adverse events (irAEs); however, most have focused on published articles without evaluating trial registries. The objective of this methodological review was to compare the quality of reporting of safety information and in particular, serious irAEs (irSAEs), in both publications and ClinicalTrials.gov for all current FDA-approved ICIs. Methods – PubMed was searched to retrieve all published phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating ICIs. For each eligible trial, we searched for corresponding registration on ClinicalTrials.gov and extracted relevant safety data from both the publication and results posted on registry. We then compared the quality of reporting and the value of safety data between both sources. Results – Of 42 eligible published trials, 34 had results posted on ClinicalTrials.gov. Considerable variability was noted in the reporting of safety in both sources. SAEs were reported for all trial results in ClinicalTrials.gov compared to 23.5% of publications. An overall incidence for irAEs and irSAEs was reported in 58.8% and 8.8% of publications respectively, compared to 11.8% and 5.9% in registry results. Comparing the value of specific irSAEs was not possible between the two sources in 32/34 trials either due to different reporting formats (61.8%) or data not being reported in one or both sources (32.4%). From the 2 studies with compatible irSAE format, only 1 had matching data in both sources. Conclusions – The reporting of irAEs / irSAEs varies considerably in publications and registries, which outlines the importance of standardizing the terminologies and methodologies for reporting safety information relevant to ICIs.

scholarly journals The quality of reporting general safety parameters and immune-related adverse events in clinical trials of FDA-approved immune checkpoint inhibitors

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zahra Karimian ◽  
Sandra Mavoungou ◽  
Joe-Elie Salem ◽  
Florence Tubach ◽  
Agnes Dechartres
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Immune Checkpoint ◽  
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Safety Information ◽  
Safety Data ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Safety Parameters

Abstract Background – While immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have transformed the field of oncology for advanced-stage cancers, they can lead to serious immune toxicities. Several systematic reviews have evaluated the risk of immune-related adverse events (irAEs); however, most have focused on published articles without evaluating trial registries. The objective of this methodological review was to compare the quality of reporting of safety information and in particular, serious irAEs (irSAEs), in both publications and ClinicalTrials.gov for all current FDA-approved ICIs.Methods – PubMed was searched to retrieve all published phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating ICIs. For each eligible trial, we searched for corresponding registration on ClinicalTrials.gov and extracted relevant safety data from both the publication and results posted on registry. We then compared the quality of reporting and the value of safety data between both sources.Results – Of 42 eligible published trials, 34 had results posted on ClinicalTrials.gov. Considerable variability was noted in the reporting of safety in both sources. SAEs were reported for all trial results in ClinicalTrials.gov compared to 23.5% of publications. An overall incidence for irAEs and irSAEs was reported in 58.8% and 8.8% of publications respectively, compared to 11.8% and 5.9% in registry results. Comparing the value of specific irSAEs was not possible between the two sources in 32/34 trials either due to different reporting formats (61.8%) or data not being reported in one or both sources (32.4%). From the 2 studies with compatible irSAE format, only 1 had matching data in both sources.Conclusions – The reporting of irAEs / irSAEs varies considerably in publications and registries, which outlines the importance of standardizing the terminologies and methodologies for reporting safety information relevant to ICIs.

scholarly journals The quality of reporting general safety parameters and immune-related adverse events in clinical trials of FDA-approved immune checkpoint inhibitors

BMC Cancer ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Zahra Karimian ◽  
Sandra Mavoungou ◽  
Joe-Elie Salem ◽  
Florence Tubach ◽  
Agnès Dechartres
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Immune Checkpoint ◽  
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Safety Information ◽  
Safety Data ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Link Type

Abstract Background While immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have transformed the field of oncology for advanced-stage cancers, they can lead to serious immune toxicities. Several systematic reviews have evaluated the risk of immune-related adverse events (irAEs); however, most have focused on published articles without evaluating trial registries. The objective of this methodological review was to compare the quality of reporting of safety information and in particular, serious irAEs (irSAEs), in both publications and ClinicalTrials.gov for all current FDA-approved ICIs. Methods PubMed was searched to retrieve all published phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating ICIs. For each eligible trial, we searched for corresponding registration on ClinicalTrials.gov and extracted relevant safety data from both the publication and results posted on registry. We then compared the quality of reporting and the value of safety data between both sources. Results Of 42 eligible published trials, 34 had results posted on ClinicalTrials.gov. Considerable variability was noted in the reporting of safety in both sources. SAEs were reported for all trial results in ClinicalTrials.gov compared to 23.5% of publications. An overall incidence for irAEs and irSAEs was reported in 58.8 and 8.8% of publications respectively, compared to 11.8 and 5.9% in registry results. Comparing the value of specific irSAEs was not possible between the two sources in 32/34 trials either due to different reporting formats (61.8%) or data not being reported in one or both sources (32.4%). From the 2 studies with compatible irSAE format, only 1 had matching data in both sources. Conclusions The reporting of irAEs / irSAEs varies considerably in publications and registries, which outlines the importance of standardizing the terminologies and methodologies for reporting safety information relevant to ICIs.

scholarly journals Evaluation of the Reporting of Safety and Immune-Related Adverse Events in Clinical Trials of FDA-Approved Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Oncology

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zahra Karimian ◽  
Sandra Mavoungou ◽  
Joe-Elie Salem ◽  
Florence Tubach ◽  
Agnes Dechartres
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Immune Checkpoint ◽  
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Safety Information ◽  
Safety Data ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Considerable Variability ◽  
Methodological Review ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Abstract Background – While immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have transformed the field of oncology for advanced stage cancers, they can lead to serious immune toxicities. Several systematic reviews have evaluated the risk of immune-related adverse events (irAEs); however, most have focused on published articles without evaluating trial registries. The objective of this methodological review was to compare the reporting of safety information and in particular, serious irAEs (irSAEs), in both publications and ClinicalTrials.gov for all current FDA-approved ICIs. Methods – MEDLINE was searched via PubMed to retrieve all published phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating ICIs. For each eligible trial, we searched for corresponding registration on ClinicalTrials.gov and extracted relevant safety data from both the publication and results posted on registry. We then compared reporting and evaluated concordance in reported safety data between both sources. Results – Of 42 eligible published trials, 34 had results posted on ClinicalTrials.gov. Considerable variability was noted in the reporting of safety in both sources. SAEs were reported for all trial results in ClinicalTrials.gov compared to 23.5% of publications. An overall incidence for irAEs and irSAEs was reported in 58.8% and 8.8% of published trials respectively, compared to 11.8% and 5.9% of registry results. Evaluating the concordance of specific irSAEs was not possible between the two sources in 32/34 trials either due to different reporting formats (61.8%) or data not being reported in one or both sources (32.4%). From the 2 studies with compatible irSAE format, only 1 had concordant data between both sources.Conclusions – The reporting of irAEs / irSAEs varies considerably in publications and registries, which outlines the importance of standardizing the terminologies and methodologies for reporting safety information relevant to ICIs.

scholarly journals Pulmonary adverse events due to immune checkpoint inhibitors: A literature review

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vasiliki Epameinondas Georgakopoulou ◽  
Nikolaos Garmpis ◽  
Dimitrios Mermigkis ◽  
Christos Damaskos ◽  
Serafeim Chlapoutakis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Immune System ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Cancer Immunotherapy ◽  
Immune Checkpoint ◽  
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Allergic Bronchopulmonary Aspergillosis ◽  
Pulmonary Nodules ◽  
Airway Disease

Cancer immunotherapy aims to stimulate the immune system to fight against tumors, utilizing the presentation of molecules on the surface of the malignant cells that can be recognized by the antibodies of the immune system. Immune checkpoint inhibitors, a type of cancer immunotherapy, are broadly used in different types of cancer, improving patients’ survival and quality of life. However, treatment with these agents causes immune-related toxicities affecting many organs. The most frequent pulmonary adverse event is pneumonitis representing a non-infective inflammation localized to the interstitium and alveoli. Other lung toxicities include airway disease, pulmonary vasculitis, sarcoid-like reactions, infections, pleural effusions, pulmonary nodules, diaphragm myositis and allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis. This review aims to summarize these pulmonary adverse events, underlining the significance of an optimal expeditious diagnosis and management.   

scholarly journals IMMU-04. IMMUNE-RELATED ADVERSE EVENTS STRONGLY PREDICT SUPERIOR OUTCOMES IN BRAIN METASTASES PATIENTS RECEIVING LOCAL TREATMENT AND IMMUNE CHECKPOINT INHIBITORS

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. ii105-ii105
Author(s):  
Alexander Hulsbergen ◽  
Asad Lak ◽  
Yu Tung Lo ◽  
Nayan Lamba ◽  
Steven Nagtegaal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Brain Metastases ◽  
Immune Checkpoint ◽  
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Local Treatment ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Immortal Time Bias ◽  
The Brain

Abstract INTRODUCTION In several cancers treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), a remarkable association between the occurrence of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) and superior oncological outcomes has been reported. This effect has hitherto not been reported in the brain. This study aimed to investigate the relation between irAEs and outcomes in brain metastases (BM) patients treated with both local treatment to the brain (LT; i.e. surgery and/or radiation) and ICIs. METHODS This study is a retrospective cohort analysis of patients treated for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) BMs in a tertiary institution in Boston, MA. Outcomes of interest were overall survival (OS) and intracranial progression-free survival (IC-PFS), measured from the time of LT. Sensitivity analyses were performed to account for immortal time bias (i.e., patients who live longer receive more cycles of ICIs and thus have more opportunity to develop an irAE). RESULTS A total of 184 patients were included; 62 (33.7%) were treated with neurosurgical resection and 122 (66.3%) with upfront brain radiation. irAEs occurred in 62 patients (33.7%). After adjusting for lung-Graded Prognostic Assessment, type of LT, type of ICI, newly diagnosed vs. recurrent BM, BM size and number, targetable mutations, and smoking status, irAEs were strongly associated with better OS (HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.19 – 0.58, p < 0.0001) and IC-PFS (HR 0.41; 95% CI 0.26 – 0.65; p = 0.0001). Landmark analysis including only patients who received more than 3 cycles of ICI (n = 133) demonstrated similar results for OS and IC-PFS, as did sensitivity analysis adjusting for the number of cycles administered (HR range 0.36 – 0.51, all p-values < 0.02). CONCLUSIONS After adjusting for known prognostic factors, irAEs strongly predict superior outcomes after LT in NSCLC BM patients. Sensitivity analysis suggests that this is unlikely due to immortal time bias.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document