Hop, Skip, and Jump

Bypassing phase 2 in cancer drug development erodes the risk/benefit balance in phase 3 trials

OBJECTIVES

Drug developers sometimes launch phase 3 (P3) trials without supporting evidence from phase 2 (P2) trials. We call this practice "P2 bypass." The aims of this study were to estimate the prevalence of P2 bypass and to compare the safety and efficacy results for P3 trials that bypassed with those that did not.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We created a sample of P3 solid tumor trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov with primary completion dates between 2013 and 2019. We then attempted to match each with a supporting P2 trial using strict and broad criteria. P3 outcomes were meta-analyzed using a random effects model with subgroup contrast between trials that bypassed and those that did not.

RESULTS

129 P3 trial arms met eligibility and nearly half involved P2 bypass. P3 trials involving P2 bypass produced significantly and nonsignificantly worse pooled efficacy estimates using broad and strict matching criteria, respectively. We did not observe significant differences in safety outcomes between P3 trials that bypassed P2 and those that did not.

CONCLUSION

The risk/benefit balance of P3 trials that bypassed P2 is less favourable than for trials supported by P2.

Trends in Utilization of Surrogate Endpoints in Contemporary Cardiovascular Clinical Trials

Surrogate endpoints facilitate trial efficiency but are variably linked to clinical outcomes, and limited data are available exploring their utilization in cardiovascular clinical trials over time. We abstracted data regarding primary clinical, intermediate, and surrogate endpoints from all phase II to IV cardiovascular clinical trials from 2001 to 2012 published in the 8 highest Web of Science impact factor journals. Two investigators independently classified the type of primary endpoint. Of the 1,224 trials evaluated, 677 (55.3%) primary endpoints were clinical, 165 (13.5%) intermediate, and 382 (31.2%) surrogate. The relative proportions of these endpoints remained constant over time (p = 0.98). Trials using surrogate endpoints were smaller (187 vs 1,028 patients) and enrolled patients more expeditiously (1.4 vs 0.9 patients per site per month) compared with trials using clinical endpoints (p <0.001 for both comparisons). Surrogate endpoint trials were independently more likely to meet their primary endpoint compared to trials with clinical endpoints (adjusted odds ratio 1.56, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.34; p = 0.03). Rates of positive results in clinical endpoint trials have decreased over time from 66.1% in 2001 to 2003 to 47.2% in 2010 to 2012 (p = 0.001), whereas these rates have remained stable over the same period for surrogate (72.0% to 69.3%, p = 0.27) and intermediate endpoints (74.4% to 71.4%, p = 0.98). In conclusion, approximately a third of contemporary cardiovascular trials use surrogate endpoints. These trials are completed more expeditiously and are more likely to meet their primary outcomes. The overall scientific contribution of these surrogate endpoint trials requires further attention given their variable association with definitive outcomes.