Explore the vast range of titles available.

Common Sense Oncology (CSO) prioritises treatments providing meaningful benefits for people with cancer. Here, we describe CSO principles aimed at improving the design, analysis, and reporting of randomised, controlled, phase 3 clinical trials evaluating cancer treatments. These principles include: (1) control treatment should be the best current standard of care; (2) the preferred primary endpoint is overall survival or a validated surrogate; (3) an absolute measure of benefit should be provided, such as the difference between groups in median overall survival times or the proportion of surviving patients at a prespecified time; (4) health-related quality of life should be at least a secondary endpoint; (5) toxicity should be described objectively without subjective language diminishing its importance; (6) trials should be designed to show or rule out clinically meaningful differences in outcomes, rather than a statistically significant difference alone; (7) censoring should be detailed, and sensitivity analyses done to determine its possible effects; (8) experimental treatments known to improve overall survival at later disease stages should be offered and funded for patients progressing in the control group; and (9) reports of trials should include a lay-language summary. We include checklists to guide compliance with these principles. By encouraging adherence, CSO aims to ensure that clinical trials yield results that are scientifically robust and meaningful to patients.

Background Treatment switching in randomized clinical trials introduces challenges in performing causal inference. Intention To Treat (ITT) analyses often fail to fully capture the causal effect of treatment in the presence of treatment switching. Consequently, decision makers may instead be interested in causal effects of hypothetical treatment strategies that do not allow for treatment switching. For example, the phase 3 ALTA-1L trial showed that brigatinib may have improved Overall Survival (OS) compared to crizotinib if treatment switching had not occurred. Their sensitivity analysis using Inverse Probability of Censoring Weights (IPCW), reported a Hazard Ratio (HR) of 0.50 (95% CI, 0.28-0.87), while their initial ITT analysis estimated an HR of 0.81 (0.53-1.22). Methods We used a directed acyclic graph to depict the clinical setting of the ALTA-1L trial in the presence of treatment switching, illustrating the concept of treatment-confounder feedback and highlighting the need for g-methods. In a re-analysis of the ALTA-1L trial data, we used IPCW and the parametric g-formula to adjust for baseline and time-varying covariates to estimate the effect of two hypothetical treatment strategies on OS: “always treat with brigatinib” versus “always treat with crizotinib”. We conducted various sensitivity analyses using different model specifications and weight truncation approaches. Results Applying the IPCW approach in a series of sensitivity analyses yielded Cumulative HRs (cHRs) ranging between 0.38 (0.12, 0.98) and 0.73 (0.45,1.22) and Risk Ratios (RRs) ranging between 0.52 (0.32, 0.98) and 0.79 (0.54,1.17). Applying the parametric g-formula resulted in cHRs ranging between 0.61 (0.38,0.91) and 0.72 (0.43,1.07) and RRs ranging between 0.71 (0.48,0.94) and 0.79 (0.54,1.05). Conclusion Our results consistently indicated that our estimated ITT effect estimate (cHR: 0.82 (0.51,1.22) may have underestimated brigatinib’s benefit by around 10-45 percentage points (using IPCW) and 10-20 percentage points (using the parametric g-formula) across a wide range of model choices. Our analyses underscore the importance of performing sensitivity analyses, as the result from a single analysis could potentially stand as an outlier in a whole range of sensitivity analyses. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02737501 on April 14, 2016.

Background Phase-3 clinical trials provide the highest level of evidence on drug safety and effectiveness needed for market approval by implementing large randomized controlled trials (RCTs). However, 30–40% of these trials fail mainly because such studies have inadequate sample sizes, stemming from the inability to obtain accurate initial estimates of average treatment effect parameters. Methods To remove this obstacle from the drug development cycle, we present a new algorithm called Trend-Adaptive Design with a Synthetic-Intervention-Based Estimator (TAD-SIE) that powers a parallel-group trial, a standard RCT design, by leveraging a state-of-the-art hypothesis testing strategy and a novel trend-adaptive design (TAD). Specifically, TAD-SIE uses synthetic intervention (SI) to estimate individual treatment effects and thereby simulate a cross-over design, which makes it easier for a trial to reach target power within trial constraints (e.g., sample size limits). To estimate sample sizes, TAD-SIE implements a new TAD tailored to SI given that using it violates assumptions under standard TADs. In addition, our TAD overcomes the ineffectiveness of standard TADs by allowing sample sizes to be increased across iterations without any condition while controlling significance level with futility stopping. Our TAD also introduces a hyperparameter that enables trial designers to trade off between accuracy and efficiency (sample size and number of iterations) of the solution. Results On a real-world Phase-3 clinical RCT (i.e., a two-arm parallel-group superiority trial with an equal number of subjects per arm), TAD-SIE obtains operating points ranging between 63% to 84% power and 3% to 6% significance level in contrast to baseline algorithms that get at best 49% power and 6% significance level. Conclusion TAD-SIE is a superior TAD that can be used to reach typical target operating points but only for trials with rapidly measurable primary outcomes due to its sequential nature. The framework is useful to practitioners interested in leveraging the SI algorithm for their study design.

Background Secukinumab, a fully human immunoglobulin G1-kappa monoclonal antibody that directly inhibits interleukin (IL)-17A, has been shown to have robust efficacy in the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis (PsO), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and ankylosing spondylitis (AS) demonstrating a rapid onset of action and sustained long-term clinical responses with a consistently favorable safety profile in multiple Phase 2 and 3 trials. Here, we report longer-term pooled safety and tolerability data for secukinumab across three indications (up to 5 years of treatment in PsO and PsA; up to 4 years in AS). Methods The integrated clinical trial safety dataset included data pooled from 21 randomized controlled clinical trials of secukinumab 300 or 150 or 75 mg in PsO (14 Phase 3 trials and 1 Phase 4 trial), PsA (3 Phase 3 trials), and AS (3 Phase 3 trials), along with post-marketing safety surveillance data with a cut-off date of June 25, 2017. Adverse events (AEs) were reported as exposure-adjusted incident rates (EAIRs) per 100 patient-years. Analyses included all patients who received ≥ 1 dose of secukinumab. Results A total of 5181, 1380, and 794 patients from PsO, PsA, and AS clinical trials representing secukinumab exposures of 10,416.9, 3866.9, and 1943.1 patient-years, respectively, and post-marketing data from patients with a cumulative exposure to secukinumab of ~ 96,054 patient-years were included in the analysis. The most frequent AE was upper respiratory tract infection. EAIRs across PsO, PsA, and AS indications were generally low for serious infections (1.4, 1.9, and 1.2, respectively), Candida infections (2.2, 1.5, and 0.7, respectively), inflammatory bowel disease (0.01, 0.05, and 0.1, respectively), and major adverse cardiac events (0.3, 0.4, and 0.6, respectively). No cases of tuberculosis reactivation were reported. The incidence of treatment-emergent anti-drug antibodies was low with secukinumab across all studies, with no discernible loss of efficacy, unexpected alterations in pharmacokinetics, or association with immunogenicity-related AEs. Conclusions Secukinumab demonstrated a favorable safety profile over long-term treatment in patients with PsO, PsA, and AS. This comprehensive assessment demonstrated that the safety profile of secukinumab was consistent with previous reports in patients with PsO, PsA, and AS, supporting its long-term use in these chronic conditions.

Randomized controlled clinical trials require management effort, involving huge organizational, economic and informatics investments. Information technology offers opportunities to approach clinical trial methodology in new ways. However, there are only a few reports of computerized data and drug management systems. This paper describes a novel software created specifically for the management of a randomized trial of diet and metformin in people with metabolic syndrome (the Me.Me.Me. trial). Me.Me.Me. is an ongoing phase III randomized controlled trial in healthy people with metabolic syndrome to test the hypothesis that comprehensive lifestyle changes and/or metformin can prevent age-related chronic non-communicable diseases. To manage all the phases of the trial, we created a software which is a state pattern machine, user friendly, web-based, able to maintain the correct balance between randomization groups, and structured in various levels of security in order to guarantee the participant's privacy and compliance with the study protocol. The software achieves budget savings: drug management is not based on patients' packs, but on the actual need for drugs according to each participant's \"state\", with strict guidelines for the handling and supply of medication. The trial is ongoing and recruitment will close on August 31, 2018. To date, 11737 bottles of metformin/placebo have been dispensed to 1054 randomized participants, with drug savings of 29.5%. A software which takes into account the \"state\" of participant might be a powerful resource for developing and managing clinical trials, helping avoid poor treatment allocation, and wastage of drugs and money. EUDRACT no. 2012-005427-32. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02960711.

The role of drotrecogin alfa (activated) (DAA) in severe sepsis remains controversial and clinicians are unsure whether or not to treat their patients with DAA. In response to a request from the European Medicines Agency, Eli Lilly will sponsor a new placebo-controlled trial and history suggests the results will be subject to great scrutiny. An academic steering committee will oversee the conduct of the study and will write the study manuscripts. The steering committee intends that the study will be conducted with the maximum possible transparency; this includes publication of the study protocol and a memorandum of understanding which delineates the role of the sponsor. The trial has the potential to provide clinicians with valuable data but patients will only benefit if clinicians have confidence in the conduct, analysis and reporting of the trial. This special article describes the process by which the trial was developed, major decisions regarding trial design, and plans for independent analysis, interpretation and reporting of the data.

Background Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) plus surgery is a standard treatment for locally advanced oesophageal cancer. With this treatment, 29% of patients have a pathologically complete response in the resection specimen. This provides the rationale for investigating an active surveillance approach. The aim of this study is to assess the (cost-)effectiveness of active surveillance vs. standard oesophagectomy after nCRT for oesophageal cancer. Methods This is a phase-III multi-centre, stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial. A total of 300 patients with clinically complete response (cCR, i.e. no local or disseminated disease proven by histology) after nCRT will be randomised to show non-inferiority of active surveillance to standard oesophagectomy (non-inferiority margin 15%, intra-correlation coefficient 0.02, power 80%, 2-sided α 0.05, 12% drop-out). Patients will undergo a first clinical response evaluation (CRE-I) 4–6 weeks after nCRT, consisting of endoscopy with bite-on-bite biopsies of the primary tumour site and other suspected lesions. Clinically complete responders will undergo a second CRE (CRE-II), 6–8 weeks after CRE-I. CRE-II will include 18F–FDG-PET-CT, followed by endoscopy with bite-on-bite biopsies and ultra-endosonography plus fine needle aspiration of suspected lymph nodes and/or PET- positive lesions. Patients with cCR at CRE-II will be assigned to oesophagectomy (first phase) or active surveillance (second phase of the study). The duration of the first phase is determined randomly over the 12 centres, i.e., stepped-wedge cluster design. Patients in the active surveillance arm will undergo diagnostic evaluations similar to CRE-II at 6/9/12/16/20/24/30/36/48 and 60 months after nCRT. In this arm, oesophagectomy will be offered only to patients in whom locoregional regrowth is highly suspected or proven, without distant dissemination. The main study parameter is overall survival; secondary endpoints include percentage of patients who do not undergo surgery, quality of life, clinical irresectability (cT4b) rate, radical resection rate, postoperative complications, progression-free survival, distant dissemination rate, and cost-effectiveness. We hypothesise that active surveillance leads to non-inferior survival, improved quality of life and a reduction in costs, compared to standard oesophagectomy. Discussion If active surveillance and surgery as needed after nCRT leads to non-inferior survival compared to standard oesophagectomy, this organ-sparing approach can be implemented as a standard of care.

Pilot studies for phase III trials - which are comparative randomized trials designed to provide preliminary evidence on the clinical efficacy of a drug or intervention - are routinely performed in many clinical areas. Also commonly know as \"feasibility\" or \"vanguard\" studies, they are designed to assess the safety of treatment or interventions; to assess recruitment potential; to assess the feasibility of international collaboration or coordination for multicentre trials; to increase clinical experience with the study medication or intervention for the phase III trials. They are the best way to assess feasibility of a large, expensive full-scale study, and in fact are an almost essential pre-requisite. Conducting a pilot prior to the main study can enhance the likelihood of success of the main study and potentially help to avoid doomed main studies. The objective of this paper is to provide a detailed examination of the key aspects of pilot studies for phase III trials including: 1) the general reasons for conducting a pilot study; 2) the relationships between pilot studies, proof-of-concept studies, and adaptive designs; 3) the challenges of and misconceptions about pilot studies; 4) the criteria for evaluating the success of a pilot study; 5) frequently asked questions about pilot studies; 7) some ethical aspects related to pilot studies; and 8) some suggestions on how to report the results of pilot investigations using the CONSORT format.

Background News stories represent an important source of information. We aimed to evaluate the impact of “spin” (i.e., misrepresentation of study results) in health news stories reporting studies of pharmacologic treatments on patients’/caregivers’ interpretation of treatment benefit. Methods We conducted three two-arm, parallel-group, Internet-based randomized trials (RCTs) comparing the interpretation of news stories reported with or without spin. Each RCT considered news stories reporting a different type of study: (1) pre-clinical study, (2) phase I/II non-RCT, and (3) phase III/IV RCT. For each type of study, we identified news stories reported with spin that had earned mention in the press. Two versions of the news stories were used: the version with spin and a version rewritten without spin. Participants were patients/caregivers involved in Inspire, a large online community of more than one million patients/caregivers. The primary outcome was participants’ interpretation assessed by one specific question “What do you think is the probability that ‘treatment X’ would be beneficial to patients?” (scale, 0 [very unlikely] to 10 [very likely]). Results For each RCT, 300 participants were randomly assigned to assess a news story with spin ( n  = 150) or without spin ( n  = 150), and 900 participants assessed a news story. Participants were more likely to consider that the treatment would be beneficial to patients when the news story was reported with spin. The mean (SD) score for the primary outcome for abstracts reported with and without spin for pre-clinical studies was 7.5 (2.2) versus 5.8 (2.8) (mean difference [95% CI] 1.7 [1.0–2.3], p  < 0.001); for phase I/II non-randomized trials, 7.6 (2.2) versus 5.8 (2.7) (mean difference 1.8 [1.0–2.5], p  < 0.001); and for phase III/IV RCTs, 7.2 (2.3) versus 4.9 (2.8) (mean difference 2.3 [1.4–3.2], p  < 0.001). Conclusions Spin in health news stories reporting studies of pharmacologic treatments affects patients’/caregivers’ interpretation. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03094078 , NCT03094104 , NCT03095586

Nivolumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that inhibits programmed death‐1 activation. The clinical pharmacology profile of nivolumab was analyzed by a population pharmacokinetics model that assessed covariate effects on nivolumab concentrations in 1,895 patients who received 0.3–10.0 mg/kg nivolumab in 11 clinical trials. Nivolumab pharmacokinetics is linear with a time‐varying clearance. A full covariate model was developed to assess covariate effects on pharmacokinetic parameters. Nivolumab clearance and volume of distribution increase with body weight. The final model included the effects of baseline performance status (PS), baseline body weight, and baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), sex, and race on clearance, and effects of baseline body weight and sex on volume of distribution in the central compartment. Sex, PS, baseline eGFR, age, race, baseline lactate dehydrogenase, mild hepatic impairment, tumor type, tumor burden, and programmed death ligand‐1 expression had a significant but not clinically relevant (<20%) effect on nivolumab clearance.