Evidence-based sizing of non-inferiority trials using decision models

Variability of quality-of-life measurements and reporting in randomised controlled trials of pancreatic cancer: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review aims to evaluate the methodology used in pancreatic cancer (PC) randomised controlled trials (RCTs) measuring quality of life (QOL) and focuses on the type, frequency, survey compliance and duration of these assessments.

DESIGN

Systematic review of PC RCTs measuring QOL.

DATA SOURCES

A search of PubMed.gov and ClinicalTrials.gov was conducted for PC RCTs measuring QOL from inception to 21 March 2023. Only phase III RCTs were included. Studies were excluded if QOL was not measured, the study was phase I/II, in the second-line setting or unavailable in English. Data were independently extracted by two reviewers in a standardised fashion.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcomes included the type of QOL instrument used, the timing and frequency of assessments, methods of analysis and survey completion rates (SCRs) over time. Secondary outcomes included patient demographics, significant QOL improvements and the frequency of trials measuring QOL.

RESULTS

Out of 269 studies screened, 54 RCTs were identified, and 24 measured QOL (involving 11 229 patients). Instruments used included the EORTC QLQ-C30 (n=15), FACT-HEP (n=3), Spitzer-QOL-Index (n=2), EQ-5D (n=2), LASA (n=1) and FACT-PA (n=1). Most trials assessed QOL until disease progression or death (10/24), with 4-week intervals being the most common (7/24). SCRs were reported in 15/24 trials, with disease stage influencing SCRs over time. In trials with metastatic, locally advanced/metastatic, and resectable disease, the median times to reach a 50% response rate-defined as the point where the number of surveys completed was half of the enrolled participants-were 12.41 weeks (n=2), 14.14 weeks (n=10), and 54.2 weeks (n=3), respectively." Only 2/24 trials reported significant QOL improvements between treatment arms. Patient age was reported in all trials, while race/ethnicity was only reported in 4/24 trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant variability exists in the timing, methods and reporting of QOL assessments in PC trials. There is a need for further research to assess the implications of missing data and consider the temporality of QOL assessment in patients with advanced cancers and poor prognosis.

Optimizing the doses of cancer drugs after usual dose finding

Since the middle of the 20th century, oncology's dose-finding paradigm has been oriented toward identifying a drug's maximum tolerated dose, which is then carried forward into phase 2 and 3 trials and clinical practice. For most modern precision medicines, however, maximum tolerated dose is far greater than the minimum dose needed to achieve maximal benefit, leading to unnecessary side effects. Regulatory change may decrease maximum tolerated dose's predominance by enforcing dose optimization of new drugs. Dozens of already approved cancer drugs require re-evaluation, however, introducing a new methodologic and ethical challenge in cancer clinical trials. In this article, we assess the history and current landscape of cancer drug dose finding. We provide a set of strategic priorities for postapproval dose optimization trials of the future. We discuss ethical considerations for postapproval dose optimization trial design and review three major design strategies for these unique trials that would both adhere to ethical standards and benefit patients and funders. We close with a discussion of financial and reporting considerations in the realm of dose optimization. Taken together, we provide a comprehensive, bird's eye view of the postapproval dose optimization trial landscape and offer our thoughts on the next steps required of methodologies and regulatory and funding regimes.

Projected environmental and public health benefits of extended-interval dosing: an analysis of pembrolizumab use in a US national health system

BACKGROUND

Health care is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions, leading to climate change and public health harms. Changes are needed to improve the environmental sustainability of health-care practices, but such changes should not sacrifice patient outcomes or financial sustainability. Alternative dosing strategies that reduce the frequency with which specialty drugs are administered, without sacrificing patient outcomes, are an attractive possibility for improving environmental sustainability. We sought to inform environmentally sustainable cancer care by estimating and comparing the environmental and financial effects of alternative, clinically equivalent strategies for pembrolizumab administration.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis using a cohort of patients from the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) in the USA who received one or more pembrolizumab doses between May 1, 2020, and Sept 30, 2022. Using baseline, real-world administration of pembrolizumab, we generated simulated pembrolizumab use data under three near-equivalent counterfactual pembrolizumab administration strategies defined by combinations of weight-based dosing, pharmacy-level vial sharing and dose rounding, and extended-interval dosing (ie, every 6 weeks). For each counterfactual dosing strategy, we estimated greenhouse gas emissions related to pembrolizumab use across the VHA cohort using a deterministic environmental impact model that estimated greenhouse gas emissions due to patient travel, drug manufacture, and medical waste as the primary outcome measure.

FINDINGS

We identified 7813 veterans who received at least one dose of pembrolizumab-containing therapy in the VHA during the study period. 59 140 pembrolizumab administrations occurred in the study period, of which 46 255 (78·2%) were dosed at 200 mg every 3 weeks, 12 885 (21·8%) at 400 mg every 6 weeks, and 14 955 (25·3%) were coadministered with infusional chemotherapies. Adoption of weight-based, extended-interval pembrolizumab dosing (4 mg/kg every 6 weeks) and pharmacy-level stewardship strategies (ie, dose rounding and vial sharing) for all pembrolizumab infusions would have resulted in 24·7% fewer administration events than baseline dosing (44 533 events vs 59 140 events) and an estimated 200 metric tons less CO2 emitted per year as a result of pembrolizumab use within the VHA (650 tons vs 850 tons of CO2, a relative reduction of 24%), largely due to reductions in distance travelled by patients to receive treatment. Similar results were observed when weight-based and extended-interval dosing were applied only to pembrolizumab monotherapy and pembrolizumab in combination with oral therapies.

INTERPRETATION

Alternative pembrolizumab administration strategies might have environmental advantages over the current dosing and compounding paradigms. Specialty medication dosing can be optimised for health-care spending and environmental sustainability without sacrificing clinical outcomes.

FUNDING

None.

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.