ClinicalTrials.gov for Facilitating Rapid Understanding of Potential Harms of New Drugs: The Case of Checkpoint Inhibitors

Biases in reporting of adverse effects in clinical trials, and potential impact on safety assessments in systematic reviews and therapy guidelines

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials are an important source of adverse effects data, including analyses in systematic reviews and recommendations in therapy guidelines. Trial publication bias may have profound effects on safety perceptions. This MiniReview presents and discusses biases in reporting of safety data in clinical trials and the implications for systematic reviews and guidelines.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this work are to analyse risk of gastrointestinal bleeding in systemic corticosteroid trials and to assess adverse effects reporting in a fluoxetine trial in depression (Treatment for Adolescents With Depression Study [TADS]) and descriptions of adverse effects in adolescent depression therapy guidelines.

METHODS

We performed literature reviews and descriptive analyse of clinical trials with corticosteroids, and publications from the TADS trial. Risk of gastrointestinal bleeding from corticosteroids was analysed by meta-analysis.

FINDINGS

Gastrointestinal bleeding definitions varied considerably between trials. The incidence was significantly increased in hospitalized, but not in ambulant, patients compared to placebo. We identified several biases concerning TADS safety reporting, including severity thresholds and nonpublication of most adverse effects data beyond the initial 12 weeks. Therapy guidelines on adolescent depression mentioned suicidality risk, but many failed to mention other adverse effects.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified several pitfalls in adverse effects reporting in clinical trials. These include heterogeneous disease definitions, reporting thresholds, and incomplete reporting. Trial bias may have great impact on risk assessments in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Clinical trial registration during COVID-19 and beyond in the African context: what have we learned?

Since the outbreak of COVID-19, many lives have been impacted especially on the African continent which is already fighting the burden of multiple diseases of poverty. However, clinical research has offered hope for treatment and prevention options for this infectious disease. Despite many COVID-19 clinical trials conducted globally, three countries in Africa account for more than 80% of all trials from the continent registered trials in clinical trial registries. This indicates geographic disparity among COVID-19 research in Africa. From the perspective of clinical trial registration, transparency in clinical research and the availability of data became important for making informed decisions to manage the pandemic. Registries serve as a source of planned, ongoing, and completed trials while allowing efficient funding allocation for research that would not duplicate efforts. Additionally, research gaps can be identified, which provide opportunities for collaboration among researchers. Therefore, a critical lesson learnt during this pandemic is that clinical trial registration is important in facilitating the process of tracking changes made to protocols and minimizing publication bias, thereby promoting and advocating for clinical research transparency. Moreover, registration in a clinical trial registry is a condition for publication and allows for trial summary results to be publicly available. Adhering to the principle of results sharing is especially important for the rapidly growing clinical research activities racing to find evidence-based interventions to end the COVID-19 pandemic.

Quality of life in long-term survivors of advanced melanoma treated with checkpoint inhibitors

Background

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (CIs) have revolutionized treatment of advanced melanoma, leading to an emerging population of long-term survivors. Survivors’ quality of life (QOL) and symptom burden are poorly understood. We set out to evaluate symptom burden and QOL in patients with advanced melanoma alive more than 1 year after initiating CI therapy.

Methods

Cross-sectional surveys, accompanied by chart review of patients with advanced melanoma treated with CIs at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, completed therapy, and were alive >1 year after treatment initiation. Surveys were administered between February and August 2018. Surveys included: European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30, EuroQOL, items from Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events and Fatigue Severity Scale.

Results

We included 90 patients. The most common CI regimens were ipilimumab plus nivolumab (53%) and pembrolizumab (41%); most patients (71%) were not treated in clinical trials. Median time from CI therapy initiation was 40 months and from last dose was 28 months. Fatigue was reported by 28%, with higher fatigue scores in women than men; 12% reported difficulty sleeping. Aching joints (17%) and muscles (12%) were fairly common. Level of functioning was generally high. Overall QOL was excellent though 40% reported ‘some or moderate’ problems with anxiety/depression and 31% with pain/discomfort.

Conclusions

After CI therapy, long-surviving advanced melanoma patients commonly report fatigue but otherwise have moderate symptom burden and good QOL. Ensuring appropriate symptom management will optimize clinical outcomes for these patients.

The quality of reporting general safety parameters and immune-related adverse events in clinical trials of FDA-approved immune checkpoint inhibitors

BACKGROUND

While immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have transformed the field of oncology for advanced-stage cancers, they can lead to serious immune toxicities. Several systematic reviews have evaluated the risk of immune-related adverse events (irAEs); however, most have focused on published articles without evaluating trial registries. The objective of this methodological review was to compare the quality of reporting of safety information and in particular, serious irAEs (irSAEs), in both publications and ClinicalTrials.gov for all current FDA-approved ICIs.

METHODS

PubMed was searched to retrieve all published phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating ICIs. For each eligible trial, we searched for corresponding registration on ClinicalTrials.gov and extracted relevant safety data from both the publication and results posted on registry. We then compared the quality of reporting and the value of safety data between both sources.

RESULTS

Of 42 eligible published trials, 34 had results posted on ClinicalTrials.gov . Considerable variability was noted in the reporting of safety in both sources. SAEs were reported for all trial results in ClinicalTrials.gov compared to 23.5% of publications. An overall incidence for irAEs and irSAEs was reported in 58.8 and 8.8% of publications respectively, compared to 11.8 and 5.9% in registry results. Comparing the value of specific irSAEs was not possible between the two sources in 32/34 trials either due to different reporting formats (61.8%) or data not being reported in one or both sources (32.4%). From the 2 studies with compatible irSAE format, only 1 had matching data in both sources.

CONCLUSIONS

The reporting of irAEs / irSAEs varies considerably in publications and registries, which outlines the importance of standardizing the terminologies and methodologies for reporting safety information relevant to ICIs.

Small Interfering RNAs and RNA Therapeutics in Cardiovascular Diseases

Ribonucleic acid (RNA) is being exploited and understood in its many aspects of function and structure for development of valuable tools in the therapeutics of various diseases such as cardiovascular etc. The expanded knowledge regarding function of RNA in the genomics and inside the cell has dramatically changed the therapeutic strategies in the past few years. RNA has become a spotlight of attention for developing novel therapeutic schemes and hence variety of therapeutic strategies is being coming into the picture that includes RNA interference, use of aptamers, role of microRNA (miRNA) that can alter the complex gene expression patterns. It is due to the fact that RNA offers various advantages in disease management as it can be edited and modified in its various forms such as secondary and tertiary structures. Although scientists are in process of manufacturing RNA-targeting therapies using variety of endogenous gene silencing regulators, Small interfering RNAs (Si RNAs), aptamers and microRNA for cardiovascular diseases yet the development of a novel, risk free therapeutic strategy is a major challenge and need of the hour in cardiovascular medicine. In this regard these agents are required to overcome pleothra of barriers such as stability of drug targets, immunogenicity, adequate binding, targeted delivery etc. to become effective drugs. Recent years have witnessed the progress of RNA therapeutic strategies in cardiovascular diseases that are likely to significantly expand the cardiovascular therapeutic repertoire within the next decade. The present manuscript has been compiled to summarize various approaches of siRNA based therapies in cardiovascular diseases along with the advantages, outcomes and limitations if any in this regard. In addition, the future prospects of RNA therapeutic modalities in cardiovascular diseases are summarized.

Trial Reporting in Immuno-Oncology (TRIO): An American Society of Clinical Oncology-Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer Statement

PURPOSE

To develop recommendations for clinical trial reporting that address the unique efficacy, toxicity, and combination and sequencing aspects of immuno-oncology (IO) treatments.

METHODS

ASCO and the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) convened a working group that consisted of practicing medical oncologists, immunologists, clinical researchers, biostatisticians, and representatives from industry and government to develop Trial Reporting in Immuno-Oncology (TRIO) recommendations. These recommendations are based on expert consensus, given that existing data to support evidence-based recommendations are limited.

CONCLUSION

The TRIO recommendations are intended to improve the reporting of IO clinical trials and thus provide more complete evidence on the relative benefits and risks of an IO therapeutic approach. Given the rapid expansion of the number of IO clinical trials and ongoing improvements to the evidence base supporting the use of IO treatments in clinical care, these recommendations will likely need regular revision as the IO field develops.

Trial Reporting in Immuno-Oncology (TRIO): an American society of clinical oncology-society for immunotherapy of cancer statement

Purpose

To develop recommendations for clinical trial reporting that address the unique efficacy, toxicity, and combination and sequencing aspects of immuno-oncology (IO) treatments.

Methods

ASCO and the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) convened a working group that consisted of practicing medical oncologists, immunologists, clinical researchers, biostatisticians, and representatives from industry and government to develop Trial Reporting in Immuno-Oncology (TRIO) recommendations. These recommendations are based on expert consensus, given that existing data to support evidence-based recommendations are limited.

Conclusion

The TRIO recommendations are intended to improve the reporting of IO clinical trials and thus provide more complete evidence on the relative benefits and risks of an IO therapeutic approach. Given the rapid expansion of the number of IO clinical trials and ongoing improvements to the evidence base supporting the use of IO treatments in clinical care, these recommendations will likely need regular revision as the IO field develops.