Dataset Information

Association of Industry and Academic Sponsorship With Negative Phase 3 Oncology Trials and Reported Outcomes on Participant Survival: A Pooled Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Only 3.4% of cancer drugs evaluated in phase 1 trials are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, with most failing in phase 3 trials.

Objective

To investigate whether an association exists between the sponsorship and conduct of a negative phase 3 randomized clinical trial (RCT) investigating a cancer drug that lacked supporting phase 2 trial evidence for that drug, and to evaluate the association with overall survival among patients randomized to the experimental arm of such phase 3 trials.

Data sources

Articles in the Lancet, Lancet Oncology, JAMA, JAMA Oncology, and Journal of Clinical Oncology published between January 2016 and June 2018 were searched.

Study selection

Phase 3 RCTs of cancer drugs that failed to improve the primary end point were selected and any prior phase 2 trial of the same drug that supported the phase 3 trial was selected without any date or journal restrictions.

Data extraction and synthesis

Percentages of negative phase 3 RCTs of cancer drugs that lacked any phase 2 evidence, had a negative phase 2 trial, or had a positive phase 2 study were extracted. Associations were assessed using the Fisher exact test. Pooled hazard ratios and 95% CIs for the overall survival of patients enrolled in these negative phase 3 RCTs were estimated using a random-effects model.

Main outcomes and measures

Negative phase 3 RCTs with a lack of a phase 2 trial or the presence of a negative phase 2 trial and overall survival of enrolled patients in the phase 3 RCTs.

Results

In this meta-epidemiological study, 67 negative phase 3 RCTs on cancer drugs, which included 64?600 patients, met the criteria of being sponsored by industry or academic groups, of which 42 RCTs (63%) were industry sponsored and the remaining 25 RCTs (37%) were academic. A phase 2 trial was not available for 28 of these trials (42%). Of 29 trials (43%) with a phase 2 trial available, 8 trials (28%) failed to meet their primary end points and 5 of those were industry sponsored. There was no association with overall survival for patients participating in these negative phase 3 RCTs (pooled hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.96-1.02). When the pooled analysis was limited to the 27 RCTs with a hazard ratio above 1.00, the overall pooled hazard ratio for overall survival was 1.11 (95% CI, 1.06-1.16). No association between having a negative or undefined phase 2 trial and trial sponsorship was found using the Fisher exact test.

Conclusions and relevance

More than 40% of the negative phase 3 RCTs in oncology published in these 5 journals were conducted without a supporting phase 2 trial and were sponsored by both academia and industry. Running such trials not only may risk loss of resources owing to a failed trial but also may be associated with decreased patient survival. Further research and regulations in this area appear warranted.

SUBMITTER: Addeo A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6512293 | biostudies-literature | 2019 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Association of Industry and Academic Sponsorship With Negative Phase 3 Oncology Trials and Reported Outcomes on Participant Survival: A Pooled Analysis.

Addeo Alfredo A Weiss Glen J GJ Gyawali Bishal B

JAMA network open 20190503 5

<h4>Importance</h4>Only 3.4% of cancer drugs evaluated in phase 1 trials are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, with most failing in phase 3 trials.<h4>Objective</h4>To investigate whether an association exists between the sponsorship and conduct of a negative phase 3 randomized clinical trial (RCT) investigating a cancer drug that lacked supporting phase 2 trial evidence for that drug, and to evaluate the association with overall survival among patients randomized to the experimen ...[more]

PMID: 31074821

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo explore the risk of industry sponsorship bias in a systematically identified set of placebo controlled and active comparator trials of statins.DesignSystematic review and network meta-analysis.EligibilityOpen label and double blind randomised controlled trials comparing one statin with another at any dose or with control (placebo, diet, or usual care) for adults with, or at risk of developing, cardiovascular disease. Only trials that lasted longer than four weeks with more than 50 participants per trial arm were included. Two investigators assessed study eligibility.Data sourcesBibliographic databases and reference lists of relevant articles published between 1 January 1985 and 10 March 2013.Data extractionOne investigator extracted data and another confirmed accuracy.Main outcome measureMean absolute change from baseline concentration of low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol.Data synthesisStudy level outcomes from randomised trials were combined using random effects network meta-analyses.ResultsWe included 183 randomised controlled trials of statins, 103 of which were two-armed or multi-armed active comparator trials. When all of the existing randomised evidence was synthesised in network meta-analyses, there were clear differences in the LDL cholesterol lowering effects of individual statins at different doses. In general, higher doses resulted in higher reductions in baseline LDL cholesterol levels. Of a total of 146 industry sponsored trials, 64 were placebo controlled (43.8%). The corresponding number for the non-industry sponsored trials was 16 (43.2%). Of the 35 unique comparisons available in 37 non-industry sponsored trials, 31 were also available in industry sponsored trials. There were no systematic differences in magnitude between the LDL cholesterol lowering effects of individual statins observed in industry sponsored versus non-industry sponsored trials. In industry sponsored trials, the mean change from baseline LDL cholesterol level was on average 1.77 mg/dL (95% credible interval -11.12 to 7.66) lower than the change observed in non-industry sponsored trials. There was no detectable inconsistency in the evidence network.ConclusionsOur analysis shows that the findings obtained from industry sponsored statin trials seem similar in magnitude as those in non-industry sources. There are actual differences in the effectiveness of individual statins at various doses that explain previously observed discrepancies between industry and non-industry sponsored trials.

Project description:BackgroundAdolescents with Hodgkin lymphoma have worse disease outcomes than children. Whether these differences persist within clinical trials is unknown. We examined survival, by age, in patients receiving response-adapted therapy for Hodgkin lymphoma on Children's Oncology Group (COG) trials.MethodsPatients (aged 1-21 years) diagnosed with classical Hodgkin lymphoma and enrolled between Sept 23, 2002, and Jan 19, 2012, on one of three phase 3 COG trials in the USA and Canada were eligible for inclusion. The three COG trials were defined by risk group according to Ann Arbor stage, B-symptoms, and bulk (AHOD0431 [low risk; NCT00302003], AHOD0031 [intermediate risk; NCT00025259], or AHOD0831 [high risk; NCT01026220]). The outcomes of this study were event-free survival (death, relapse, or subsequent neoplasm) and overall survival. Cox proportional hazards models estimated survival, adjusting for disease and treatment factors both overall and in patients with mixed cellularity or non-mixed cellularity (nodular sclerosing and not-otherwise-specified) disease.FindingsOf 2155 patients enrolled on the three trials, 1907 (88·4%; 968 [50·8%] male and 939 [49·2%] female; 1227 [64·3%] non-Hispanic White) were included in this analysis. After a median follow-up of 7·4 years (IQR 4·3-10·2), older patients (aged ≥15 years) had worse unadjusted 5-year event-free survival (80% [95% CI 78-83]) than did younger patients (aged <15 years; 86% [83-88]; HR 1·38 [1·11-1·71]; p=0·0038). Older patients also had worse unadjusted 5-year overall survival than did younger patients (96% [95% CI 95-97] vs 99% [98-99]; HR 2·50 [1·41-4·45]; p=0·0012). In patients with non-mixed cellularity histology, older patients had a significantly increased risk of having an event than did younger patients with the same histology (HR 1·32 [1·03-1·68]; p=0·027). Older patients with mixed cellularity had significantly worse 5-year event-free survival than did younger patients in unadjusted (77% [95% CI 65-86] for older patients vs 94% [88-97] for younger patients; HR 2·93 [1·37-6·29]; p=0·0039) and multivariable models (HR 3·72 [1·56-8·91]; p=0·0032). Overall, older patients were more likely to die than younger patients (HR 3·08 [1·49-6·39]; p=0·0025).InterpretationAdolescents (≥15 years) treated on COG Hodgkin lymphoma trials had worse event-free survival and increased risk of death compared with children (<15 years). Our findings highlight the need for prospective studies to examine tumour and host biology, and to test novel therapies across the age spectrum.FundingNational Institutes of Health, St Baldrick's Foundation, and Lymphoma Research Foundation.

Dataset Information

Association of Industry and Academic Sponsorship With Negative Phase 3 Oncology Trials and Reported Outcomes on Participant Survival: A Pooled Analysis.

Importance

Objective

Data sources

Study selection

Data extraction and synthesis

Main outcomes and measures

Results

Conclusions and relevance

Publications

Association of Industry and Academic Sponsorship With Negative Phase 3 Oncology Trials and Reported Outcomes on Participant Survival: A Pooled Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets