Improving the Quality of Abstract Reporting for Phase I Cancer Trials

Quality Management Model for Phase I Clinical Drug Trials: A Structural Equation Model

This study aimed to construct a quality management model for phase I clinical drug trials. A cross-sectional survey was conducted and data were collected from 604 respondents at 69 institutions in China engaged in phase I clinical drug trials. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were used to develop the survey tool. Structural equation modeling was used to construct a quality management model for phase I clinical drug trials. The results showed that the final survey tool had good reliability and validity (Cronbach's α=0.938, root mean square error of approximation=0.074, comparative fit index=0.962, and Tucker-Lewis index=0.955). The model included five dimensions: government regulation, industry management, medical institution management, research team management, and contract research organization (CRO) management. In total, 22 measurement items were obtained. The structural equation model indicated government regulation, industry management, medical institution management, and CRO management significantly affected the quality of phase I clinical drug trials (β=0.195, β=0.331, β=0.279, and β=-0.267, respectively; P<0.05). Research team management had no effect on the quality of trials (β=0.041, P=0.610). In conclusion, the model is valuable for identifying factors influencing phase I clinical drug trials and guiding quality management practices.

Quality of phase I clinical drug trials: Influence of organizational management factors

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Focusing on the tolerance and pharmacokinetics of new drugs, phase I clinical drug trials are characterized by high risk, poor compliance and management difficulties. High-quality clinical drug trials ensure subjects' safety while extending new drug research and development. Many studies have examined micro-level concerns of trial design and implementation rather than macro-level factors. Accordingly, we evaluated the quality of phase I clinical drug trials (trial quality) and analysed the influence of organizational management factors from a macro-level perspective.

METHODS

We surveyed staff at clinical trial institutions engaged in phase I clinical drug trials in China using convenience sampling. We employed a five-point Likert-scale questionnaire, comprising five items on phase I clinical drug trial quality and items on organizational management factors. Data from 604 questionnaires were analysed. We utilized a logistic regression model to estimate the influence of organizational management factors on trial quality, using individual demographic factors as controlling variables.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The trial quality score was 3.81, which indicates that substantial improvement is required. Government regulation, industry management and medical institution management had a positive effect on trial quality: β = 0.842, 0.691 and 0.579, respectively; P < .01. Contract research organization management had a negative effect on trial quality: β = -0.476; P = .013. Research team management had no effect on trial quality: β = 0.325; P = .141.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

This study is the first to model the influence of organizational management factors on the quality of phase I drug trials involving different organizations from a macro-perspective. Efforts are needed to help research teams take responsibility for trial quality and to correct the negative impact of contract research organizations on trial quality.

Dose-Finding Studies Among Orphan Drugs Approved in the EU: A Retrospective Analysis

In the development process for new drugs, dose‐finding studies are of major importance. Absence of these studies may lead to failed phase 3 trials and delayed marketing authorization. In our study we investigated to what extent dose‐finding studies are performed in the case of orphan drugs for metabolic and oncologic indications. We identified all orphan drugs that were authorized until August 1, 2017. European Public Assessment Reports were used to extract the final dose used in the summary of product characteristics, involvement of healthy volunteers, study type, end points used, number of patients, number of doses, studies in special populations, and dose used for phase 3 studies. Each drug was checked for major objections and dose changes postmarketing. We included 49 orphan drugs, of which 28 were indicated for metabolic disorders and 21 for oncologic indications. Dose‐finding studies were performed in 32 orphan drugs, and studies in healthy volunteers in 26. The absence of dose‐finding studies was mostly due to the rarity of the disease. In this case the dose was determined based on factors such as animal studies or clinical experience. Dose‐related major objections were raised for 9 orphan drugs. Postmarketing dose‐finding studies were conducted in 18 orphan drugs, but dose changes were applied in only 2 drugs. In conclusion, dose‐finding studies in the case of metabolic and oncologic orphan drugs were conducted in the development programs of two thirds of orphan drugs. Dose‐finding studies performed postmarketing suggest that registered doses are not always optimal. It is thus important to perform more robust dose‐finding studies both pre‐ and postmarketing.

Relation of completeness of reporting of health research to journals' endorsement of reporting guidelines: systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether the completeness of reporting of health research is related to journals' endorsement of reporting guidelines.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

Reporting guidelines from a published systematic review and the EQUATOR Network (October 2011). Studies assessing the completeness of reporting by using an included reporting guideline (termed "evaluations") (1990 to October 2011; addendum searches in January 2012) from searches of either Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Methodology Register or Scopus, depending on reporting guideline name.

STUDY SELECTION

English language reporting guidelines that provided explicit guidance for reporting, described the guidance development process, and indicated use of a consensus development process were included. The CONSORT statement was excluded, as evaluations of adherence to CONSORT had previously been reviewed. English or French language evaluations of included reporting guidelines were eligible if they assessed the completeness of reporting of studies as a primary intent and those included studies enabled the comparisons of interest (that is, after versus before journal endorsement and/or endorsing versus non-endorsing journals).

DATA EXTRACTION

Potentially eligible evaluations of included guidelines were screened initially by title and abstract and then as full text reports. If eligibility was unclear, authors of evaluations were contacted; journals' websites were consulted for endorsement information where needed. The completeness of reporting of reporting guidelines was analyzed in relation to endorsement by item and, where consistent with the authors' analysis, a mean summed score.

RESULTS

101 reporting guidelines were included. Of 15,249 records retrieved from the search for evaluations, 26 evaluations that assessed completeness of reporting in relation to endorsement for nine reporting guidelines were identified. Of those, 13 evaluations assessing seven reporting guidelines (BMJ economic checklist, CONSORT for harms, PRISMA, QUOROM, STARD, STRICTA, and STROBE) could be analyzed. Reporting guideline items were assessed by few evaluations.

CONCLUSIONS

The completeness of reporting of only nine of 101 health research reporting guidelines (excluding CONSORT) has been evaluated in relation to journals' endorsement. Items from seven reporting guidelines were quantitatively analyzed, by few evaluations each. Insufficient evidence exists to determine the relation between journals' endorsement of reporting guidelines and the completeness of reporting of published health research reports. Journal editors and researchers should consider collaborative prospectively designed, controlled studies to provide more robust evidence.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

Not registered; no known register currently accepts protocols for methodology systematic reviews.

Improving the quality of abstract reporting for economic analyses in oncology

BACKGROUND

The increasing cost of cancer drugs underscores the importance of economic analyses. Although guidelines for abstract reporting of randomized controlled studies and phase i trials are available, similar recommendations for conference abstracts of economic analyses are lacking. Our objectives were to identify items considered to be essential in abstracts of economic analyses;to evaluate the quality of abstracts submitted to the American Society of Clinical Oncology (asco), the American Society of Hematology (ash), and the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ispor) meetings; andto propose guidelines for future abstract reporting at conferences.

METHODS

Health economic experts were surveyed and asked to rate each of 24 possible abstract elements on a 5-point Likert scale. A scoring system for abstract quality was devised based on elements with an average expert rating of 3.5 or greater. Abstracts for economic analyses from asco, ash, and ispor meetings were reviewed and assigned a quality score.

RESULTS

Of 99 experts, 50 (51%) responded to the survey (average age: 53 years; 78% men; 54% from the United States, 28% from Europe, 18% from Canada). In total, 216 abstracts were reviewed: asco, 53%; ash, 14%; and ispor, 33%. The median quality score was 75, but notable deficiencies were observed. Cost perspective was reported in only 61% of abstracts, and time horizon was described in only 47%. Abstracts from recent years demonstrated better quality scores. We also observed disparities in quality scores for various cancer sites (p = 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

The quality of conference abstracts for economic analyses in oncology has room for improvement. Abstracts may be enhanced using the guidelines derived from our survey of experts.

A survey of the way pharmacokinetics are reported in published phase I clinical trials, with an emphasis on oncology

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

During the drug development process, phase I trials are the first occasion to study the pharmacokinetics of a drug. They are performed in healthy subjects, or in patients in oncology, and are designed to determine a safe and acceptable dose for the later phases of clinical trials. We performed a bibliographic survey to investigate the way pharmacokinetics are described and reported in phase I clinical trials.

METHODS

We performed a MEDLINE search to retrieve the list of papers published between 2005 and 2006 and reporting phase I clinical trials with a pharmacokinetic study. We used a spreadsheet to record general information concerning the study and specific information regarding the pharmacokinetics, such as the sampling times, number of subjects and method of analysis.

RESULTS

The search yielded 349 papers, of which 37 were excluded for various reasons. Nearly all of the papers in our review concerned cancer studies, although this was not a requirement in the search. Consistent with the selection process, 84% papers explicitly stated pharmacokinetics as an objective of the study. The methods section usually included a description of the pharmacokinetics (88%), but 10% of the papers provided no information concerning the methods used for the pharmacokinetics and in 2% the description was only partial. The analytical method was usually basic, with non-compartmental or purely descriptive methods. Observed concentrations and areas under the concentration-time curves were the pharmacokinetic variables most often reported. The results of the pharmacokinetic study were frequently reported in a separate paragraph of the results section, and only 22% of the studies related the pharmacokinetic findings to other results from the study, such as toxicity or efficacy. In addition, important information such as the number of subjects included in the pharmacokinetic study or the pharmacokinetic sampling scheme was sometimes not reported explicitly.

CONCLUSION

Concerns about the decreasing cost-effectiveness of the drug development process prompted the regulatory authorities to recently recommend better integration of all available information - including, in particular, pharmacokinetics - in this process. In our review, we found that this information was often either missing or incomplete, which hinders that objective. We suggest several improvements in the design and the reporting of the methods and results of these studies, to ensure that all relevant information has been included. Pharmacokinetic findings should also be integrated into the broader perspective of drug development, through the study of their relationship with toxicity and/or efficacy, even in the early phase I stages.

Quality assessment of phase I dose-finding cancer trials: proposal of a checklist

BACKGROUND

Qualitative checklists for phase III trials have been proposed, to improve the reporting of such trials and to assess the validity of their results.

PURPOSE

Our objective was to develop such a scale for phase I cancer trials.

METHODS

From a review of existing guidelines and checklists for phase III clinical trials, a staff team was responsible for the first selection of items and the construction of the questionnaire. The proposed quality assessment measures were rated by the survey respondents comprised of phase I research clinicians and statisticians on a 4-point Likert scale. Selected items from the quantitative analysis of the questionnaires were reviewed by an expert team who was responsible for providing the final items list. This was then applied to 103 recently published cancer phase I trials.

RESULTS

Of the 48 initial items proposed by the staff team, 17 were selected from the quantitative analysis of the 99 participants' ratings. After qualitative analysis by the expert team, a 15-item checklist was derived, with 5 items related to trial objective, 5 to design, and 5 to analysis. The application to 103 recent journal articles on phase I cancer trials evaluating cytotoxic drugs showed on average the report of 10 items (range: 6-13) with 4 items reported in more than 95% of papers, while 2 were poorly reported.

LIMITATIONS

The response rate of participants was 20.7%.

CONCLUSIONS

A quality assessment checklist was developed for improved critical appraisal of the reporting of cytotoxic, dose-finding phase I oncology trials. This may be a first step toward a minimum standard of quality measures for all phase I clinical trial reports.