Analysis of adverse events attribution and reporting in cancer clinical trials: A systematic review

Characterization of adverse events in injured patients at risk of hemorrhagic shock: a secondary analysis of three harmonized prehospital randomized clinical trials

Background

The reporting of adverse events (AEs) is required and well defined in the execution of clinical trials, but is poorly characterized particularly in prehospital trials focusing on traumatic injury. In the setting of prehospital traumatic injury trials, no literature currently exists analyzing the clinical implications of AEs and their associations with mortality and morbidity. We sought to analyze AEs from three prehospital hemorrhagic shock trials and characterize their time course, incidence, severity, associated clinical outcomes, and relatedness.

Methods

We performed a secondary analysis of three prehospital randomized clinical trials. We analyzed AEs at both the patient level as well as the individual AE level. We categorized patients who had no AEs, a single documented AE and those with multiple events (>1 AE). We characterized AE timing, severity, relatedness and attributable mortality outcomes.

Results

We included 1490 patients from the three harmonized clinical trials, with 299 (20.1%) individual patients having at least a single AE documented with 529 AEs documented overall as a proportion of patients had multiple events. Over 44% of patients had a death-related misclassified AE. Patients with at least a single documented AE had a significantly higher 28-day mortality (log-rank χ2=81.27, p<0.001) compared with those without an AE documented. Patients with a single AE had a significant higher mortality than those with multiple AEs, potentially due to survival bias (log-rank χ2=11.80, p=0.006). When relatedness of each individual AE was characterized, over 97% of AEs were classified as 'definitely not related' or 'probably not related' to the intervention.

Conclusions

AEs in hemorrhagic shock trials are common, occur early and are associated with mortality and survival bias. The potential for inaccurate reporting exists, and education and training remain essential for appropriate treatment arm comparison. The current results have important relevance to injury-related clinical trials.

Trial registration numbers

NCT01818427, NCT02086500 and NCT03477006.

Level of evidence

II.

CONSORT Harms 2022 statement, explanation, and elaboration: updated guideline for the reporting of harms in randomized trials

Randomized controlled trials remain the reference standard for healthcare research on effects of interventions, and the need to report both benefits and harms is essential. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (the main CONSORT) statement includes one item on reporting harms (i.e., all important harms or unintended effects in each group). In 2004, the CONSORT group developed the CONSORT Harms extension; however, it has not been consistently applied and needs to be updated. Here, we describe CONSORT Harms 2022, which replaces the CONSORT Harms 2004 checklist, and shows how CONSORT Harms 2022 items could be incorporated into the main CONSORT checklist. Thirteen items from the main CONSORT were modified to improve harms reporting. Three new items were added. In this article, we describe CONSORT Harms 2022 and how it was integrated into the main CONSORT checklist and elaborate on each item relevant to complete reporting of harms in randomized controlled trials. Until future work from the CONSORT group produces an updated checklist, authors, journal reviewers, and editors of randomized controlled trials should use the integrated checklist presented in this paper.

Practical suggestions for harms reporting in exercise oncology: the Exercise Harms Reporting Method (ExHaRM)

The volume of high-quality evidence supporting exercise as beneficial to cancer survivors has grown exponentially; however, the potential harms of exercise remain understudied. Consequently, the trade-off between desirable and undesirable outcomes of engaging in exercise remains unclear to clinicians and people with cancer. Practical guidance on collecting and reporting harms in exercise oncology is lacking. We present a harms reporting protocol developed and refined through exercise oncology trials since 2015.Development of the Exercise Harms Reporting Method (ExHaRM) was informed by national and international guidelines for harms reporting in clinical trials involving therapeutic goods or medical devices, with adaptations to enhance applicability to exercise. The protocol has been adjusted via an iterative process of implementation and adjustment through use in multiple exercise oncology trials involving varied cancer diagnoses (types: breast, brain, gynaecological; stages at diagnosis I-IV; primary/recurrent), and heterogeneous exercise intervention characteristics (face to face/telehealth delivery; supervised/unsupervised exercise). It has also involved the development of terms (such as, adverse outcomes, which capture all undesirable physical, psychological, social and economic outcomes) that facilitate the harms assessment process in exercise.ExHaRM involves: step 1: Monitor occurrence of adverse outcomes through systematic and non-systematic surveillance; step 2: Assess and record adverse outcomes, including severity, causality, impact on intervention and type; step 3: Review of causality by harms panel (and revise as necessary); and step 4: Analyse and report frequencies, rates and clinically meaningful details of all-cause and exercise-related adverse outcomes.ExHaRM provides guidance to improve the quality of harms assessment and reporting immediately, while concurrently providing a framework for future refinement. Future directions include, but are not limited to, standardising exercise-specific nomenclature and methods of assessing causality.

Assessing the methodological quality of quality-of-life analyses in first-line non-small cell lung cancer trials: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Non-cytotoxic therapy has changed the treatment paradigm for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. With unique mechanisms of action, these agents have decidedly improved survival and have demonstrated an improved toxicity profile. However, the real-life experience of the patient, which is commonly assessed by health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measurement, is not clearly established with this new generation of lung cancer treatments. The heterogeneity created by specific patient subgroups and different therapeutics calls for a tailored-approach to analyzing patient-reported outcomes. The objective of this systematic review was to assess the methodological quality of HRQoL analysis in Randomized Clinical Trials (RCTs) involving biologic agents to treat NSCLC.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed using Medline, Embase, and Web of Science databases to identify NSCLC RCTs published between January 1st, 2000 and January 1st, 2020 reporting HRQoL measures. Only RCTs that both enrolled previously untreated patients with advanced NSCLC and had HRQoL analysis were included.

RESULTS

4203 abstracts were screened, of which only 85 RCTs met inclusion and exclusion criteria for analysis. The most applied HRQoL assessment tools were the EORTC-QLQ-C30 (47, 55.3 %), and EORTC-QLQ-LC13 (35, 41.2 %). The median number of verified CONSORT-PRO Extension criteria in the included trials was 3, and only in 10 (11.8 %) trials were all criteria well-documented. Notably, only 21 (24.7 %) RCTs performed subgroup analyses to specifically evaluate HRQoL in different patient populations.

CONCLUSION

QoL reporting in clinical trials is inconsistent and the quality of QoL measures adopted in a majority of trials is suboptimal. Considering the fact that NSCLC is a biologically diverse disease and that the treatments differ based on patient and tumor-specifics, efforts should be pursued to tailor QoL measures for different subsets of this patient population in addition to mandating QoL reporting in clinical trials. We believe that this is necessary to understand the real-life experience of lung cancer patients in the era of personalized medicine.