Metrics, baseline scores, and a tool to improve sponsor performance on clinical trial diversity: retrospective cross sectional study

Treatment Patterns and Outcomes by Age in Metastatic Urinary Tract Cancer: A Retrospective Tertiary Cancer Center Analysis

Metastatic urinary tract cancer (mUTC) is challenging to treat in older adults due to comorbidities. We compared the clinical courses of younger and older (≥70 years) adults with mUTC receiving first-line (1L) systemic therapy in a tertiary cancer center. Baseline clinical characteristics, treatments received, tolerability, and survival outcomes were analyzed. Among 212 patients (103 older vs. 109 younger), the older patients had lower hemoglobin at baseline (84% vs. 71%, p = 0.03), the majority were cisplatin-ineligible (74% vs. 45%, p < 0.001), received more immunotherapy-based treatments in the 1L (52% vs. 36%, p = 0.01), received fewer subsequent lines of treatment (median 0 vs. 1, p = 0.003), and had lower clinical trial participation (30% vs. 18%, p = 0.05) compared to the younger patients. When treated with 1L chemotherapy, older patients required more dose adjustments (53.4% vs. 23%, p = 0.001) and received fewer cycles of chemotherapy (median 4 vs. 5, p= 0.01). Older patients had similar OS (11.2 months vs. 14 months, p = 0.06) and similar rates of treatment-related severe toxicity and healthcare visits, independent of the type of systemic treatment received, compared to younger patients. We conclude that select older adults with mUTC can be safely treated with immunotherapy and risk-adjusted regimens of chemotherapy with tangible survival benefits.

Diversity of US participants in AstraZeneca-sponsored clinical trials

BACKGROUND

To develop medicines that are safe and efficacious to all patients, clinical trials must enroll appropriate target populations, but imbalances related to race, ethnicity and sex have been reported. A comprehensive analysis and improvement in understanding representativeness of patient enrollment in industry-sponsored trials are key public health needs.

METHODS

We assessed race/ethnicity and sex representation in AstraZeneca (AZ)-sponsored clinical trials in the United States (US) from 2010 to 2022, compared with the 2019 US Census.

RESULTS

In total, 246 trials representing 95,372 patients with complete race/ethnicity and sex records were analyzed. The proportions of different race/ethnicity subgroups in AZ-sponsored clinical trials and the US Census were similar (White: 69.5% vs 60.1%, Black or African American: 13.3% vs 12.5%, Asian: 1.8% vs 5.8%, Hispanic: 14.4% vs 18.5%). We also observed parity in the proportions of males and females between AZ clinical trials and US Census (males: 52.4% vs 49.2%, females: 47.6% vs 50.8%). Comparisons of four distinct therapy areas within AZ (Respiratory and Immunology [R&I]; Cardiovascular, Renal, and Metabolism [CVRM]; Solid Tumors; and Hematological Malignancies), including by trial phases, revealed greater variability, with proportions observed above and below US Census levels.

CONCLUSION

This analysis provides the first detailed insights into the representativeness of AZ trials. Overall, the proportions of different race/ethnicity and sex subgroups in AZ-sponsored clinical trials were broadly aligned with the US Census. We outline some of AZ's planned health equity initiatives that are intended to continue to improve equitable patient enrollment.

Reporting of Demographics & Subgroup Analyses in Premarketing Studies of FDA Approved High-Risk Cardiovascular Devices, 2014-2022

Background

Representation of diverse study populations in pivotal clinical trials for medical devices and subgroup analyses for demographic groups to explore differences in safety and effectiveness are essential to understanding the benefits and risks in diverse populations. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has taken many steps to improve transparency and subgroup analyses over the past decade, but there has not been a recent evaluation of demographic reporting and subgroup analyses.

Methods

We reviewed all FDA Premarket Approvals for high-risk cardiovascular devices from 2014 to 2022, focusing on pivotal studies supporting device approval. We abstracted detailed demographic data about the age, sex, race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic position of study participants. We also assessed the presence and results of subgroup analyses to understand the safety and effectiveness of devices across trial populations.

Results

Analysis of 92 pivotal studies revealed that age and sex were reported in 96.7% of the studies, while race and ethnicity were reported in 71.7% and 58.7%, respectively. However, only 7.9% of studies explicitly detailed the participation of older adults (≥65 years) and no studies reported patients' socioeconomic position. Subgroup analyses by sex were conducted in 70.7% of studies, with 12.3% reporting significant differences. In contrast, analyses by race and ethnicity were performed in only 12.0% of the studies, with 9.1% reporting significant differences.

Conclusion

Approximately one-third of pivotal studies for high-risk cardiovascular devices approved by the FDA from 2014 to 2022 did not report the race of study participants, nearly 40% did not report ethnicity, and more than 90% did not report the participation of older adults (≥65 years). Subgroup analyses were infrequently conducted by age or race and ethnicity. There is a need for better trial demographic reporting and conduct of subgroup analyses in premarketing studies to ensure the safety and effectiveness of medical devices for all patients.

Diversity in randomized clinical trials for peripheral artery disease: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Significant race and sex disparities exist in the prevalence, diagnosis, and outcomes of peripheral artery disease (PAD). However, clinical trials evaluating treatments for PAD often lack representative patient populations. This systematic review aims to summarize the demographic representation and enrollment strategies in clinical trials of lower-extremity endovascular interventions for PAD.

METHODS

Following the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we searched multiple sources (Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane, Clinicaltrials.gov, WHO clinical trial registry) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), RCT protocols, and peer-reviewed journal publications of RCTs conducted between January 2012 and December 2022. Descriptive analysis was used to summarize trial characteristics, publication or study protocol characteristics, and the reporting of demographic characteristics. Meta-regression was used to explore associations between demographic characteristics and certain trial characteristics.

RESULTS

A total of 2,374 records were identified. Of these, 59 met the inclusion criteria, consisting of 35 trials, 14 publications, and 10 protocols. Information regarding demographic representation was frequently missing. While all 14 trial publications reported age and sex, only 4 reported race/ethnicity, and none reported socioeconomic or marital status. Additionally, only 4 publications reported clinical outcomes by demographic characteristics. Meta-regression analysis revealed that 6% more women were enrolled in non-European trials (36%) than in European trials (30%).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this review highlight potential issues that may compromise the reliability and external validity of study findings in lower-extremity PAD RCTs when applied to the real-world population. Addressing these issues is crucial to enhance the generalizability and impact of clinical trial results in the field of PAD, ultimately leading to improved clinical outcomes for patients in underrepresented populations.

REGISTRATION

The systematic review methodology was published in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO: CRD42022378304).

Heterogeneity of platelets and their responses

There has been increasing recognition of heterogeneity in blood platelets and their responses, particularly in recent years, where next-generation technologies and advanced bioinformatic tools that interrogate "big data" have enabled large-scale studies of RNA and protein expression across a growing list of disease states. However, pioneering platelet biologists and clinicians were already hypothesizing upon and investigating heterogeneity in platelet (and megakaryocyte) activity and platelet metabolism and aggregation over half a century ago. Building on their foundational hypotheses, in particular Professor Marian A. Packham's pioneering work and a State of the Art lecture in her memoriam at the 2023 International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis Congress by Anandi Krishnan, this review outlines the key features that contribute to the heterogeneity of platelets between and within individuals. Starting with important epidemiologic factors, we move stepwise through successively smaller scales down to heterogeneity revealed by single-cell technologies in health and disease. We hope that this overview will urge future scientific and clinical studies to recognize and account for heterogeneity of platelets and aim to apply methods that capture that heterogeneity. Finally, we summarize other exciting new data presented on this topic at the 2023 International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis Congress.

Disentangling the reasons why older adults do not readily participate in cancer trials: a socio-epidemiological mixed methods approach

BACKGROUND

Few studies of the under-representation of older adults in cancer clinical trials (CTs) have encompassed the entire pathway from a trial being available in a cancer centre to the patient's invitation to participate and then agreement or refusal to participate.

OBJECTIVES

The study's primary objective was to evaluate CT non-invitation and refusal rates. The secondary objectives were to identify factors associated with non-invitation and refusal and to assess experiences of CT participation from the patients' and professionals' perspectives.

METHODS

Here, we used mixed methods and a socio-epidemiological approach to analyse reasons for the non-participation of eligible older patients with a solid cancer in cancer CTs in France.

RESULTS

We found that non-invitation and low CT participation are mainly related to the patients' sociodemographic characteristics and living conditions (such as social isolation, being single, divorced or widowed, not having children and the absence of close family members) and the healthcare professionals' perceptions of insufficient informal support or a high homecare requirement.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that efforts to increase fair inclusion and the participation of older adults in CTs should target the physician-patient relationship, the medical profession and hospital funding, rather than the patient alone.

Quantifying Clinical Trial Diversity in Pivotal Registration Trials of FDA Novel Drug Approvals

BACKGROUND

Health care inequity includes the lack of adequate representation of various populations in clinical trials. Government, academic and industry organizations have highlighted these issues and committed to actions to improve. In order to assess the current status and future success of these initiatives a quantitative objective measure to assess the state of clinical trial diversity is needed.

METHODS

FDA review documents for all novel drug approvals from January 2022 through March 2023 were assessed using a scorecard that considers diversity across different demographic subgroups including age (≥ 65 years old), sex (female), race (Black and Asian) and ethnicity (Hispanic/Latino). The scorecard assigns each drug a letter grade, between A and F, for each subgroup (and overall) based on (1) the percent of each sub-population included in the trials and grades relative to the percent of the US population per the 2020 Census, (2) the number of participants from each subpopulation that received the novel new drug in the trials, (3) the incidence or prevalence of the disease/condition in each of the sub-populations.

RESULTS

The FDA approved 49 novel new drugs for 50 indications (one drug was simultaneously approved for two indications). There was good representation of elderly and females with only two drugs receiving a D grade in either of these sub-populations. In contrast, Black (5 F grades) and Hispanic (4 F grades) representation was often inadequate. There were 10 drugs (20.0%) where there were no Black participants receiving the novel new drug and 16 (32.0%) approvals where there were 1-9 Black participants receiving the novel drug. In the Hispanic/Latino population there were 4 (8.0%) approvals with no Hispanic participants receiving the novel drug and 15 (30.0%) approvals where there were 1-9 Hispanic participants receiving the drug.

CONCLUSIONS

This scorecard provides an objective quantitative approach to assess the current state of diversity in clinical trials supporting new drug approvals. Substantial improvement in racial and ethnic representation is needed. Meaningful change will require actions and cooperation among all stakeholders to address this multifaceted issue and will take commitment, perseverance, and appropriate incentives.

Pivotal Trial Demographic Representation and Clinical Development Times for Oncology Therapeutics

This study evaluates whether FDA-approved novel cancer therapeutics supported by pivotal trials with adequate representation of minoritized groups were associated with slower clinical development times than those with inadequate representation.

Diversity and Representation Among United States Participants in Amgen Clinical Trials

OBJECTIVE

Describe the demographic profile of US participants in Amgen clinical trials over a 10-year period and variations across therapeutic areas, indications, and geographies.

METHODS

Cross-sectional retrospective study including participants enrolled (2005-2020) in phase 1-3 trials completed between January 1, 2012 and June 30, 2021.

RESULTS

Among 31,619 participants enrolled across 258 trials, one-fifth represented racial minority populations (Asian, 3%; Black or African American, 17%; American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, multiracial, each < 1%); fewer than one-fifth (16%) represented an ethnic minority population (Hispanic or Latino). Compared with census data, representation of racial and ethnic groups varied across US states. Across most therapeutic areas (bone, cardiovascular, hematology/oncology, inflammation, metabolic disorders, neuroscience) except nephrology, participants were predominantly White (72-81%). A similar proportion of males and females were enrolled between 2005 and 2016; male representation was disproportionately higher than female between 2016 and 2020. Across most medical indications, the majority of participants were 18-65 years of age.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

While the clinical research community is striving to achieve diversity and proportional representation across clinical trials, certain populations remain underrepresented. Our data provide a baseline assessment of the diversity and representation of US participants in Amgen-sponsored clinical trials and add to a growing body of evidence on the importance of diversity in clinical research. These data provide a foundation for strategies aimed at supporting more equitable and representative research, and a baseline from which to assess the impact of future strategies to advance health equity.

Clinical Trial Diversity-Will We Know It When We See It?

This Editorial discusses the existing policy efforts in the US for ensuring adequate racial and ethnic diversity in clinical trials, identifies barriers to consistency and acceptable representation, and suggests measures to address them.