Dataset Information

Phase I and phase II clinical trials in sarcoma: Implications for drug discovery and development.

ABSTRACT:

Background

There has been limited progress in the development of novel therapeutics for the treatment of sarcomas. A review of phase I and II clinical trials for sarcomas may give insight into factors influencing sarcoma drug development.

Methods

An exhaustive analysis of phase I and II clinical trials testing drugs for human sarcoma patients between 1 January 2000 and 1 June 2018 was performed using the PubMed search engine, the Thomson Web of Science, and the National Clinical Trials registry. Recorded outcomes included tested drugs, tested histological subtypes, whether the drug was initially developed for sarcoma, reported funding sources, and whether studies led to phase III trials.

Results

Out of 238 studies meeting inclusion criteria, 87% (207 studies) reported funding sources. Of these, 59.9% (124/207) reported industry funding, 52.7% (109/207) reported government funding, and 27.5% (57/207) reported private funding. Only 5% (12/238) of phase I and II trials resulted in phase III trials, with 11 of 12 studies funded by industry. Approximately 90% (214/238) of studies tested drugs that were not initially tested in sarcoma, and 60.1% (143/238) of studies grouped different sarcoma histological subtypes together in the same study.

Conclusion

Industry has funded the majority of phase I and II sarcoma clinical trials that have led to phase III trials. There was a high rate of drugs approved for other cancers and then secondarily tested in sarcoma. Most trials tended to group different sarcoma subtypes rather than studying each subtype separately.

SUBMITTER: Lee DY

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6382713 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Phase I and phase II clinical trials in sarcoma: Implications for drug discovery and development.

Lee Daniel Y DY Staddon Arthur P AP Shabason Jacob E JE Sebro Ronnie R

Cancer medicine 20190110 2

<h4>Background</h4>There has been limited progress in the development of novel therapeutics for the treatment of sarcomas. A review of phase I and II clinical trials for sarcomas may give insight into factors influencing sarcoma drug development.<h4>Methods</h4>An exhaustive analysis of phase I and II clinical trials testing drugs for human sarcoma patients between 1 January 2000 and 1 June 2018 was performed using the PubMed search engine, the Thomson Web of Science, and the National Clinical T ...[more]

PMID: 30632291

Similar Datasets

Project description:The number of people in the United States living with Alzheimer disease (AD) is growing, resulting in significant clinical and economic impact. Substantial research investment has led to drug development in stages of AD before symptomatic dementia, such as preclinical AD. Although there are no treatments approved for preclinical AD, there are currently 6 phase 3 clinical trials for preclinical AD treatments. In this article, we review these clinical trials and highlight considerations for future coverage decisions. In line with the definition of preclinical AD, enrollment in these trials focuses on cognitively unimpaired patients that are at high risk of AD because of family history and then genetic testing or brain imaging. Enrollment in most of these trials also allows for younger patients, including those aged under 65 years. Primary clinical trial endpoints focus on cognition often 4 or more years after treatment. Secondary endpoints include other measures of cognition and function, as well as biomarkers. Review of these trials brings to light a few potential considerations when covering these new medications in the future. First, novel and potentially costly approaches involving genetic testing and/or positron emission tomography imaging may be needed to identify appropriate patients and should be developed efficiently. Second, the long duration of these clinical trials suggest that there may be a need for alternative payment approaches in the United States that encourage early payers to pay for a medication for which the long-term benefits may not be realized until after the beneficiary is no longer with the health plan. Third, the value of AD treatments may differ across populations, creating a potential role for indication-based or population-based contracting. Finally, considering the potentially high budgetary impact and little real-world evidence for a new drug class, payers and manufacturers may want to consider outcomes-based payment approaches and coverage with evidence development to mitigate uncertainty about the value of the treatment demonstrated in well-defined populations in clinical trials versus more heterogeneous real-world settings. DISCLOSURES: This work was funded through a generous gift from the Global CEO Initiative on Alzheimer Disease. Hung reports grants from Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America outside the submitted work and past employment at CVS Health and BlueCross BlueShield Association. McClellan is an independent board member on the boards of Johnson & Johnson, Cigna, Alignment Healthcare, and Seer; co-chairs the Accountable Care Learning Collaborative and the Guiding Committee for the Health Care Payment Learning and Action Network; and receives fees for serving as an advisor for Cota and MITRE. Hamilton Lopez and Schneider have nothing to disclose. Part of this work was presented at the 2019 AMCP Nexus Meeting, October 29-November 1, 2019, in National Harbor, MD.

Dataset Information

Phase I and phase II clinical trials in sarcoma: Implications for drug discovery and development.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Phase I and phase II clinical trials in sarcoma: Implications for drug discovery and development.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets