Dataset Information

Comparable outcomes of patients eligible vs ineligible for SWOG leukemia studies.

ABSTRACT: Patients may be deemed ineligible for a clinical trial for reasons that do not directly impact efficacy or safety. We identified reasons for ineligibility and compared outcomes of ineligible with eligible patients treated on Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) Leukemia Committee protocols. Patients enrolled in SWOG phase 2, 2/3, or 3 protocols open since 2005 were analyzed for eligibility status, reasons for ineligibility, baseline characteristics, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS), serious adverse events (SAEs), complete remission (CR) status, and overall survival. A total of 2361 patients were enrolled in the 13 included studies. Of these, 247 (10%) were deemed ineligible; 78 were excluded from analyses, and 169 were included. Of the 169 included in analyses, 60% (101/169) were excluded due to missing baseline documentation. Baseline characteristics comparing ineligible to eligible patients were similar, with the exception of ECOG PS for S0325 (P = .02) and S0530 (P = .002). In multivariable analyses, neither the proportion of patients with ECOG PS ? 2 (P = .12) nor the rate of grade 5 SAEs (P = .62) differed between groups. There was no difference in survival between eligible and ineligible patients (P = .25), and CR rates were similar, with the exception of S0325 (P < .001) and S0703 (P = .004). The findings of this study suggest that nonessential eligibility criteria can be less restrictive, thus expanding patient enrollment and avoiding protocol deviations. The clinical trials included in this study were registered at www.clincialtrials.gov as #NCT00085709, #NCT00066794, #NCT00070499, #NCT00109837, #NCT00093418, #NCT00492856, #NCT00337168, #NCT00352365, #NCT00658814, #NCT00792948, #NCT00945815, #NCT00840177, and #NCT01522976.

SUBMITTER: Statler A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6014358 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparable outcomes of patients eligible vs ineligible for SWOG leukemia studies.

Statler Abby A Othus Megan M Erba Harry P HP Chauncey Thomas R TR Radich Jerald P JP Coutre Steven S Advani Anjali A Nand Sucha S Ravandi Farhad F Mukherjee Sudipto S Sekeres Mikkael A MA

Blood 20180404 25

Patients may be deemed ineligible for a clinical trial for reasons that do not directly impact efficacy or safety. We identified reasons for ineligibility and compared outcomes of ineligible with eligible patients treated on Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) Leukemia Committee protocols. Patients enrolled in SWOG phase 2, 2/3, or 3 protocols open since 2005 were analyzed for eligibility status, reasons for ineligibility, baseline characteristics, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performan ...[more]

PMID: 29618479

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:Patients with psoriasis enrolled in clinical trials of biologics may not be representative of the real-world population. There is evidence that patients ineligible for such trials have a greater risk of serious adverse events (SAEs), but the effect on drug discontinuation and effectiveness are unknown. Objective:To determine whether (1) drug discontinuation, (2) effectiveness, and (3) rates of SAEs differ in patients with psoriasis categorized as eligible or ineligible for clinical trials. Design, Setting, and Participants:An observational study using 157 dermatology centers in the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland was carried out wherein we applied the eligibility criteria of clinical trials of biologic therapies for psoriasis to patients who were being followed up in the British Association of Dermatologists Biologic Interventions Register (BADBIR) and being prescribed biologics as part of standard clinical care. Patients with psoriasis registered to BADBIR who were taking etanercept (enbrel only; n = 1509), adalimumab (n = 4000), and ustekinumab (n = 1627) with at least 1 follow-up visit. Eligibility criteria were extracted from phase 3 licensing trials for etanercept, adalimumab, and ustekinumab for the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis. Patients in BADBIR with a missing baseline Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) or baseline PASI value less than 10 (etanercept) or less than 12 (adalimumab; ustekinumab) but who would otherwise be eligible were investigated separately. Eligibility categories applied to BADBIR included: eligible, ineligible, insufficient baseline PASI only, and missing baseline PASI only. Main Outcomes and Measures:(1) Drug discontinuation: cumulative incidence at 12 months by stop reason per eligibility category and drug; (2) effectiveness: linear regression of absolute change in PASI from baseline to 6 and 12 months; and (3) SAEs: incidence rate ratio (IRR) at 12 months between eligibility categories per drug. Results:The mean (SD) age of the 7136 patients included in the analysis was 45 (13) years and 2924 (41%) were women and 4212 (59%) were men. Of 7136 patients, 839 (56%) etanercept, 2219 (56%) adalimumab, and 754 (46%) ustekinumab registrations were categorized as eligible. The most common reasons for ineligibility were diabetes (etanercept, 143 [9%]; ustekinumab, 201 [12%]) and nonchronic plaque psoriasis (adalimumab, 157 [4%]). Patients categorized as ineligible (etanercept, 367 [24%]; adalimumab, 282 [7%]; ustekinumab, 394 [24%]) achieved a smaller absolute change in PASI after 6 and 12 months (adalimumab, ustekinumab), and had significantly higher rates of SAEs compared with the eligible category (etanercept: IRR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.4-2.6; adalimumab: IRR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.5-2.6; ustekinumab: IRR, 2.8; 95% CI, 2.1-3.8). No significant differences in drug discontinuation were observed between categories. Conclusions and Relevance:Clinical trial effectiveness and safety outcomes are not representative of real-world patients in BADBIR patients categorized as ineligible for such trials.

Project description:In medically high-risk patients the choice between carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) can be difficult. The purpose of this study was to compare risk-stratified outcomes of CAS and CEA.Patients who underwent isolated primary CEA (n = 11,336) or primary CAS (n = 544) at 29 centers in the Vascular Study Group of New England were analyzed (2003-2013); patients with previous ipsilateral CEA or CAS, or concomitant coronary artery bypass graft were excluded. A medical risk score based on predicted 5-year mortality was developed for each patient using a Cox proportional hazards model. Patients in the highest risk score quartile were termed high-risk (vs normal-risk for the other three quartiles). Medically high-risk patients had a 5-year survival of 65% and comprised 23% of CEA and 25% of CAS patients. Risk-stratified outcomes were compared within neurologically symptomatic and asymptomatic patients.Among asymptomatic patients, rates of in-hospital stroke and/or death were not different between CAS and CEA in normal and high-risk cohorts, ranging from 0.7% in normal-risk CEA patients to 1.6% in high-risk CAS patients. In symptomatic patients, significantly worse outcomes were seen with CAS compared with CEA in normal-risk and high-risk patients. Normal-risk symptomatic patients had a stroke or death rate of 1.3% with CEA, but 5.2% with CAS (P < .01). In high-risk symptomatic patients, the stroke or death rate was 1.5% with CEA and 9.3% with CAS (P < .01). No significant differences were seen between asymptomatic CEA and CAS within risk strata across secondary outcome measures of stroke, death, or myocardial infarction, and ipsilateral stroke, major stroke, or death. However, symptomatic high-risk CAS patients had significantly greater rates of all secondary outcomes compared with CEA except death, and symptomatic normal-risk CAS patients had only significantly greater rates of death and stroke, death, or myocardial infarction.In the Vascular Study Group of New England, asymptomatic normal- and high-risk patients do equally well after CEA or CAS. However, normal- and high-risk symptomatic patients have substantially worse outcomes with CAS compared with CEA. High medical risk alone might be an insufficient indication for CAS in symptomatic patients.

Project description:Background and purposeAutomated perfusion imaging can detect stroke patients with unknown time of symptom onset who are eligible for thrombolysis. However, the availability of this technique is limited. We, therefore, established the novel concept of computed tomography (CT) hypoperfusion-hypodensity mismatch, i.e., an ischemic core lesion visible on cerebral perfusion CT without visible hypodensity in the corresponding native cerebral CT. We compared both methods regarding their accuracy in identifying patients suitable for thrombolysis.MethodsIn a retrospective analysis of the MissPerfeCT observational cohort study, patients were classified as suitable or not for thrombolysis based on established time window and imaging criteria. We calculated predictive values for hypoperfusion-hypodensity mismatch and automated perfusion imaging to compare accuracy in the identification of patients suitable for thrombolysis.ResultsOf 247 patients, 219 (88.7%) were eligible for thrombolysis and 28 (11.3%) were not eligible for thrombolysis. Of 197 patients who were within 4.5 h of symptom onset, 190 (96.4%) were identified by hypoperfusion-hypodensity mismatch and 88 (44.7%) by automated perfusion mismatch (p < 0.001). Of 22 patients who were beyond 4.5 h of symptom onset but were eligible for thrombolysis, 5 patients (22.7%) were identified by hypoperfusion-hypodensity mismatch. Predictive values for the hypoperfusion-hypodensity mismatch vs. automated perfusion mismatch were as follows: sensitivity, 89.0% vs. 50.2%; specificity, 71.4% vs. 100.0%; positive predictive value, 96.1% vs. 100.0%; and negative predictive value, 45.5% vs. 20.4%.ConclusionThe novel method of hypoperfusion-hypodensity mismatch can identify patients suitable for thrombolysis with higher sensitivity and lower specificity than established techniques. Using this simple method might therefore increase the proportion of patients treated with thrombolysis without the use of special automated software.The MissPerfeCT study is a retrospective observational multicenter cohort study and is registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04277728).

Dataset Information

Comparable outcomes of patients eligible vs ineligible for SWOG leukemia studies.

Publications

Comparable outcomes of patients eligible vs ineligible for SWOG leukemia studies.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets