Dataset Information

Meta-analysis of randomized phase II trials to inform subsequent phase III decisions.

ABSTRACT:

Background

If multiple Phase II randomized trials exist then meta-analysis is favorable to increase statistical power and summarize the existing evidence about an intervention's effect in order to help inform Phase III decisions. We consider some statistical issues for meta-analysis of Phase II trials for this purpose, as motivated by a real example involving nine Phase II trials of bolus thrombolytic therapy in acute myocardial infarction with binary outcomes.

Methods

We propose that a Bayesian random effects logistic regression model is most suitable as it models the binomial distribution of the data, helps avoid continuity corrections, accounts for between-trial heterogeneity, and incorporates parameter uncertainty when making inferences. The model also allows predictions that inform Phase III decisions, and we show how to derive: (i) the probability that the intervention will be truly beneficial in a new trial, and (ii) the probability that, in a new trial with a given sample size, the 95% credible interval for the odds ratio will be entirely in favor of the intervention. As Phase II trials are potentially optimistic due to bias in design and reporting, we also discuss how skeptical prior distributions can reduce this optimism to make more realistic predictions.

Results

In the example, the model identifies heterogeneity in intervention effect missed by an I-squared of 0%. Prediction intervals accounting for this heterogeneity are shown to support subsequent Phase III trials. The probability of success in Phase III trials increases as the sample size increases, up to 0.82 for intracranial hemorrhage and 0.79 for reinfarction outcomes.

Conclusions

The choice of meta-analysis methods can influence the decision about whether a trial should proceed to Phase III and thus need to be clearly documented and investigated whenever a Phase II meta-analysis is performed.

SUBMITTER: Burke DL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4162965 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPoly ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitors (PARPis) are an important class of therapeutics for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Unlike hormone-based treatments for mCRPC, PARPis are not without drug-related hematological adverse events.ObjectiveTo review the evidence on hematological toxicities, including anemia, thrombocytopenia, and neutropenia from PARPis in prostate cancer.Study methodologyA systematic review and meta-analysis using the PRISMA guidelines was performed for phase II and III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of PARPis in prostate cancer. PubMed, Embase, and Ovid All EBM reviews-Cochrane were queried from inception to 9 June 2023. The Mantel-Haenszel method was used to report risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for all-grade and high-grade anemia, thrombocytopenia, and neutropenia toxicities.ResultsThe systematic review retrieved eight phase II and III RCTs; specifically, eight were included in the anemia, five in the all-grade thrombocytopenia and neutropenia, and four in the high-grade thrombocytopenia and neutropenia outcomes. Compared to a placebo and/or other non-PARPi treatments, PARPi use was associated with an increased risk of all-grade anemia (RR, 3.37; 95% CI, 2.37-4.79; p < 0.00001), thrombocytopenia (RR, 4.54; 95% CI, 1.97-10.44; p = 0.0004), and neutropenia (RR, 3.11; 95% CI, 1.60-6.03; p = 0.0008). High-grade anemia (RR, 6.94; 95% CI, 4.06-11.86; p < 0.00001) and thrombocytopenia (RR, 5.52; 95% CI, 2.80-10.88; p < 0.00001) were also associated with an increased risk, while high-grade neutropenia (RR, 3.63; 95% CI, 0.77-17.23; p = 0.10) showed no significant association. Subgroup stratification analyses showed differences in various all-grade and high-grade toxicities.ConclusionPARPis were associated with an increased risk of hematological AEs. Future studies with more pooled RCTs will enhance this understanding and continue to inform patient-physician shared decision-making. Future studies may also have a role in improving the current management strategies for these AEs.

Project description:BackgroundIn recent years, we have observed the pivotal role of immunotherapy in improving survival for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the effectiveness of immunotherapy in the perioperative (neoadjuvant + adjuvant) treatment of resectable NSCLC remains uncertain. We conducted a comprehensive analysis of its antitumor efficacy and adverse effects (AEs) by pooling data from the KEYNOTE-671, NADIM II, and AEGEAN clinical trials.MethodsFor eligible studies, we searched seven databases. The randomized controlled trials (RCTs) pertaining to the comparative analysis of combination neoadjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy plus perioperative immunotherapy (PIO) versus perioperative placebo (PP) were included. Primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and event-free survival (EFS). Secondary endpoints encompassed drug responses, AEs, and surgical outcomes.ResultsThree RCTs (KEYNOTE-671, NADIM II, and AEGEAN) were included in the final analysis. PIO group (neoadjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy plus perioperative immunotherapy) exhibited superior efficacy in OS (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.63 [0.49-0.81]), EFS (HR: 0.61 [0.52, 0.72]), objective response rate (risk ratio [RR]: 2.21 [1.91, 2.54]), pathological complete response (RR: 4.36 [3.04, 6.25]), major pathological response (RR: 2.79 [2.25, 3.46]), R0 resection rate (RR: 1.13 [1.00, 1.26]) and rate of adjuvant treatment (RR: 1.08 [1.01, 1.15]) compared with PP group (neoadjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy plus perioperative placebo). In the subgroup analysis, EFS tended to favor the PIO group in almost all subgroups. BMI (>25), T stage (IV), N stage (N1-N2) and pathological response (with pathological complete response) were favorable factors in the PIO group. In the safety assessment, the PIO group exhibited higher rates of serious AEs (28.96% vs. 23.51%) and AEs leading to treatment discontinuation (12.84% vs. 5.81%). Meanwhile, although total adverse events, grade 3-5 adverse events, and fatal adverse events tended to favor the PP group, the differences were not statistically significant.ConclusionPIO appears to be superior to PP for resectable stage II-III NSCLC, demonstrating enhanced survival and pathological responses. However, its elevated adverse event (AE) rate warrants careful consideration.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails, identifier CRD42023487475.

Project description:Nowadays, the vaccination with COVID-19 vaccines is being promoted worldwide, professionals and common people are very concerned about the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines. No published systematic review and meta-analysis has assessed the efficacy and safety of the COVID-19 vaccines based on data from phase III clinical trials. Therefore, this study has estimated the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines and the differences between vaccine types. PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang, medRxiv databases and two websites were used to retrieve the studies. Random-effects models were used to estimate the pooled efficacy and safety with risk ratio (RR). A total of eight studies, seven COVID-19 vaccines and 158,204 subjects were included in the meta-analysis. All the vaccines had a good preventive effect on COVID-19 (RR = 0.17, 95% CI: 0.09-0.32), and the mRNA vaccine (RR = 0.05, 95% CI: 0.03-0.09) was the most effective against COVID-19, while the inactivated vaccine (RR = 0.32, 95% CI: 0.19-0.54) was the least. In terms of safety, the risk of overall adverse events showed an increase in the vaccine group after the first (RR = 1.46, 95% CI: 1.03-2.05) or second (RR = 1.52, 95% CI: 1.04-2.20) injection. However, compared with the first injection, the risk of local (RR = 2.64, 95% CI: 1.02-6.83 vs. RR = 2.25, 95% CI: 0.52-9.75) and systemic (RR = 1.33, 95% CI: 1.21-1.46 vs. RR = 1.59, 95% CI: 0.84-3.01) adverse events decreased after the second injection. As for the mRNA vaccine, the risk of overall adverse events increased significantly, compared with the placebo, no matter whether it was the first (RR = 1.83, 95% CI = 1.80-1.86) or the second (RR = 2.16, 95% CI = 2.11-2.20) injection. All the COVID-19 vaccines that have published the data of phase III clinical trials have excellent efficacy, and the risk of adverse events is acceptable. The mRNA vaccines were the most effective against COVID-19, meanwhile the risk and grade of adverse events was minimal, compared to that of severe symptoms induced by COVID-19.

Project description:Background & aimsCombined therapy inhibiting EGFR and VEGF pathways is becoming a promising therapy in the treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), however, with controversy. The study aims to compare the efficacy of combined inhibition therapy versus control therapy (including placebo, single EGFR inhibition and single VEGF inhibition) in patients with advanced NSCLC.Materials and methodsAn adequate literature search in EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) was conducted. Phase II or III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared effectiveness between combined inhibition therapy and control therapy in patients with advanced NSCLC were eligible. The endpoint was overall response rate (ORR), progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).ResultsSixteen phase II or III RCTs involving a total of 7,109 patients were included. The results indicated that the combined inhibition therapy significantly increased the ORR (OR = 1.59, 95% CI = 1.36-1.87, p<0.00001; I2 = 36%) when compared to control therapy. In the subgroup analysis, the combined inhibition therapy clearly increased the ORR (OR = 2.04, 95% CI = 1.60-2.60, p<0.00001; I2 = 0%) and improved the PFS (HR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.71-0.85, p<0.00001;I2 = 0%) when compared with the placebo, and similar results was detected when compared with the single EGFR inhibition in terms of ORR (OR = 1.39, 95% CI = 1.12-1.74, p = 0.003; I2 = 30%) and PFS (HR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.67-0.81, p<0.0001; I2 = 50%). No obvious difference was found between the combined inhibition therapy and single VEGF inhibition in term of ORR, however, combined inhibition therapy significantly decreased the PFS when compared to the single VEGF inhibition therapy (HR = 1.70, 95% CI = 1.34-2.17, p<0.0001; I2 = 50%). Besides, no significant difference was observed between the combined inhibition therapy and control therapy in term of OS (including placebo, single EGFR inhibition and single VEGF inhibition) (HR = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.92-1.04, p = 0.41; I2 = 0%).ConclusionsCombined inhibition therapy was superior to placebo and single EGFR inhibition in terms of ORR, PFS for advanced NSCLC, however, no statistical difference were found in term of OS. Besides, combined inhibition therapy was not superior to single VEGF inhibition in terms of ORR, PFS and OS. Therefore, combined inhibition therapy is recommended to treat advanced NSCLC patients.