Assessing the Justification, Funding, Success, and Survival Outcomes of Randomized Noninferiority Trials of Cancer Drugs: A Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis

Alternative Trastuzumab Dosing Schedules Are Associated With Reductions in Health Care Greenhouse Gas Emissions

PURPOSE

Cancer care-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions harm human health. Many cancer drugs are administered at greater-than-necessary doses, frequencies, and durations. Alternative dosing strategies may enable reductions in cancer care GHG emissions without compromising patient outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We used streamlined life-cycle analysis in a case-control simulation to estimate the relative reductions in GHG emissions that would be expected to result from using each of three alternative dosing strategies of trastuzumab (6-month adjuvant treatment duration, once every 4-week dosing, and both) in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)+ breast cancer. Using primary data and conversion factors from the environmental science literature, we estimated per-patient relative reduction in GHG emissions and, using SEER data, health impacts (in terms of disability-adjusted life-years [DALYs] and excess mortality per kg CO2) on bystanders for each alternative dosing strategy.

RESULTS

Compared with the trastuzumab dosing strategy commonly used at baseline (12-month duration of adjuvant therapy and once every 3-week dosing in all settings), adoption of both 6-month adjuvant trastuzumab and once every 4-week trastuzumab dosing would reduce GHG emissions by 4.5%, 18.7%, and 14.6% in the neoadjuvant, adjuvant, and metastatic settings, respectively. We estimate that US-based adoption of alternative trastuzumab dosing would reduce annual DALYs and excess lives lost due to environmental impact of US-based trastuzumab therapy for HER2+ breast cancer by 1.5 and 0.9, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Alternative dosing strategies may materially reduce the population health impacts of cancer care by reducing environmental impact. Regulatory decision making and health technology assessments should consider a treatment's environmental and population health impacts. Clinical trials of alternative dosing strategies are justified on the basis of environmental and population health impacts.

Evidence for stratified conflicts of interest policies in research contexts: a methodological review

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to conduct a methodological review of research on the effects of conflicts of interest (COIs) in research contexts.

DESIGN

Methodological review.

DATA SOURCES

Ovid.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Studies published between 1986 and 2021 conducting quantitative assessments of relationships between industry funding or COI and four target outcomes: positive study results, methodological biases, reporting quality and results-conclusions concordance.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

We assessed key facets of study design: our primary analysis identified whether studies stratified industry funding or COI variables by magnitude (ie, number of COI or disbursement amount), type (employment, travel fees, speaking fees) or if they assessed dichotomous variables (ie, conflict present or absent). Secondary analyses focused on target outcomes and available effects measures.

RESULTS

Of the 167 articles included in this study, a substantial majority (98.2%) evaluated the effects of industry sponsorship. None evaluated associations between funding magnitude and outcomes of interest. Seven studies (4.3%) stratified industry funding based on the mechanism of disbursement or funder relationship to product (manufacturer or competitor). A fifth of the articles (19.8%) assessed the effects of author COI on target outcomes. None evaluated COI magnitude, and three studies (9.1%) stratified COI by disbursement type and/or reporting practices. Participation of an industry-employed author showed the most consistent effect on favourability of results across studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Substantial evidence demonstrates that industry funding and COI can bias biomedical research. Evidence-based policies are essential for mitigating the risks associated with COI. Although most policies stratify guidelines for managing COI, differentiating COIs based on the type of relationship or monetary value, this review shows that the available research has generally not been designed to assess the differential risks of COI types or magnitudes. Targeted research is necessary to establish an evidence base that can effectively inform policy to manage COI.

Association of Quality-of-Life Outcomes in Cancer Drug Trials With Survival Outcomes and Drug Class

Importance

Although quality of life (QOL) is an important clinical end point, cancer drugs are often approved based on overall survival (OS) or putative surrogate end points such as progression-free survival (PFS) without QOL data.

Objective

To ascertain whether cancer drug trials that show improvement in OS or PFS also improve global QOL of patients with cancer compared with the control treatment, as well as to assess how unchanged or detrimental QOL outcomes are reported in trial publications.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cohort study included all patients with cancer in the advanced setting who were enrolled into phase 3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of cancer drugs reporting QOL data and published in English language in a PubMed-indexed journal in the calendar year 2019. The systematic search of PubMed was conducted in July 2020.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Association of QOL outcomes with OS and PFS, framing of unchanged QOL outcomes in trial publications, and the association of favorable framing with industry funding of the trials.

Results

A total of 45 phase 3 RCTs enrolling 24 806 participants (13 368 in the experimental arm and 11 438 in the control arm) met the inclusion criteria and were included in the study analyses. Improvement in global QOL with the experimental agent was reported in 11 (24%) RCTs. The RCTs with improved QOL were more likely to also show improved OS vs trials with unimproved QOL (7 of 11 [64%] trials vs 10 of 34 [29%] trials; χ2 = 4.13; P = .04); there was no such association observed for PFS (6 of 11 [55%] trials vs 17 of 34 [50%] trials, χ2 = 0.03; P = .87). Six trials reported worsening QOL, of which 3 (50%) were trials of targeted drugs, and 11 trials reported improvement in QOL, of which 6 (55%) were trials of immunotherapy drugs. Of the 34 trials in which QOL was not improved compared with controls, 16 (47%) reported these results in a positive frame, an observation statistically significantly associated with industry funding (χ2 = 6.35; P = .01).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study, a small proportion of RCTs of cancer drugs showed benefit in global QOL with the experimental agent. These results showed an association between QOL benefit and OS benefit but no such association with PFS benefit. Trials that failed to show improved QOL often reported their QOL outcomes more favorably. Non-immunotherapy-targeted drugs led to worse QOL more often than did cytotoxic agents.

Assessing the pricing and benefits of oncology products: an update

Introduction: Oncology expenditure is outperforming all other health care sectors. In particular, the cost of oncology pharmaceuticals is soaring as it is fueled both by incremental costs and the introduction rate of new products. Due to the particularities of cancer as a disease, a significant multilayer of pressure is exerted toward the reimbursement of new treatments. Nevertheless, if the expenditure increase is left unattended, it may hamper the viability of any health care system worldwide.Areas covered: A literature review of the expenditure on oncology pharmaceuticals and the exploration of the root causes for the increase in expenditure was performed.Expert commentary: The surging oncology expenditure demonstrates a multi-layer causality that encompasses prices, the uncertainty of clinical trials, the specificities of cancer as a disease, and the artificial monopoly of oncology modalities. Moreover, laxity in the regulatory approval of new products was noted. In addition, the study design should be adequately justified. Finally, new reimbursement schemes, that explicitly reward and promote clinically meaningful and measurable outcomes, are also imperative.

Biases in study design, implementation, and data analysis that distort the appraisal of clinical benefit and ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) scoring

Background

The European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) is a validated, widely used tool developed to score the clinical benefit from cancer medicines reported in clinical trials. ESMO-MCBS scores assume valid research methodologies and quality trial implementation. Studies incorporating flawed design, implementation, or data analysis may generate outcomes that exaggerate true benefit and are not generalisable. Failure to either indicate or penalise studies with bias undermines the intention and diminishes the integrity of ESMO-MCBS scores. This review aimed to evaluate the adequacy of the ESMO-MCBS to address bias generated by flawed design, implementation, or data analysis and identify shortcomings in need of amendment.

Methods

As part of a refinement of the ESMO-MCBS, we reviewed trial design, implementation, and data analysis issues that could bias the results. For each issue of concern, we reviewed the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 approach against standards derived from Helsinki guidelines for ethical human research and guidelines from the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use, the Food and Drugs Administration, the European Medicines Agency, and European Network for Health Technology Assessment.

Results

Six design, two implementation, and two data analysis and interpretation issues were evaluated and in three, the ESMO-MCBS provided adequate protections. Seven shortcomings in the ability of the ESMO-MCBS to identify and address bias were identified. These related to (i) evaluation of the control arm, (ii) crossover issues, (iii) criteria for non-inferiority, (iv) substandard post-progression treatment, (v) post hoc subgroup findings based on biomarkers, (vi) informative censoring, and (vii) publication bias against quality-of-life data.

Conclusion

Interpretation of the ESMO-MCBS scores requires critical appraisal of trials to understand caveats in trial design, implementation, and data analysis that may have biased results and conclusions. These will be addressed in future iterations of the ESMO-MCBS.

•

We reviewed trial design, implementation, and data analysis issues that could bias the results of trials.

•

These issues could skew the results of ESMO-MCBS scores.

•

Six design, two implementation, and two analysis issues were reviewed, and seven shortcomings were identified.

•

These issues will be addressed in future versions of the MCBS scale.

•

Interpretation of MCBS scores requires critical appraisal of trials.

A systematic review of noninferiority margins in oncology clinical trials

Aim: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify and characterize noninferiority margins for relevant end points in oncology clinical trials. Materials & methods: Randomized, controlled, noninferiority trials of patients with cancer were identified in PubMed and Embase. Results: Of 2284 publications identified, 285 oncology noninferiority clinical trials were analyzed. The median noninferiority margin was a hazard ratio of 1.29 (mean: 1.32; range: 1.05-2.05) for studies that reported time-to-event end points (n = 192). The median noninferiority margin was 13.0% (mean: 12.7%; range: 5.0-20.0%) for studies that reported response end points as absolute rate differences (n = 31). Conclusion: Although there was consistency in the noninferiority margins' scale, variability was evident in noninferiority margins across trials. Increased transparency may improve consistency in noninferiority margin application in oncology clinical trials.

First-Line Maintenance Treatment in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer (mCRC): Quality and Clinical Benefit Overview

Different strategies of maintenance therapy (sequential CT, intermittent CT, intermittent CT and MAbs, or de-escalation MAbs monotherapy) after first-line treatment are undertaken. Many randomized clinical trials (RCT), which evaluated these approaches, suffer from incorrect design, heterogenous primary endpoints, inadequate size, and other methodology flaws. Drawing any conclusions becomes challenging and recommendations are mainly vague. We evaluated those studies from another perspective, focusing on the design quality and the clinical benefit measure with a more objective and accurate methodology. These data allowed a clearer and more exact overview of the statement in maintenance treatment.