Dataset Information

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Pediatric Cancer Registration Trials: A US Food and Drug Administration Perspective.

ABSTRACT:

Pediatric patient-reported outcome (PRO) data can help inform the US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) benefit-risk assessment of cancer therapeutics by quantifying symptom and functional outcomes from the patient's perspective.

This study assessed use of PROs in commercial pediatric oncology trials submitted to the FDA for regulatory review. FDA databases were searched to identify pediatric oncology product applications approved between 1997 and 2020. Sponsor-submitted documents were reviewed to determine whether PRO data were collected, which instruments were used, and the quality of collected data (ie, sample size, completion rates, and use of fit-for-purpose instruments). The role of PROs in each trial (endpoint hierarchy) was also recorded in addition to whether any PRO endpoints were included in product labeling.

We reviewed 17 pediatric oncology applications, 4 of which included PRO data: denosumab, tisagenlecleucel, larotrectinib, and selumetinib. In these 4 instances, PROs served as exploratory endpoints and were not incorporated in product labeling. Trials that collected PRO data were phase II or phase I/II single-arm studies with sample sizes of 28 to 88 patients. Symptomatic adverse events (AEs) were characterized using clinician-reported Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) without additional patient self-report.

PROs were infrequently used in pediatric cancer registration trials. When PROs were used, PRO data were limited by lack of a clear research objective and corresponding prospective statistical analysis plan. Contemporary PRO symptom libraries, such as the National Cancer Institute's Pediatric PRO-CTCAE, may provide an opportunity to better evaluate the occurrence and impact of symptomatic AEs, from the patient's perspective, in pediatric oncology trials.

SUBMITTER: Murugappan MN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8755487 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:The increasing prevalence of pediatric chronic disease has resulted in increased exposure to long-term drug therapy in children. The duration of recently completed drug trials that support approval for drug therapy in children with chronic diseases has not been systematically evaluated. Such information is a vital first step in forming safety pharmacovigilance strategies for drugs used for long-term therapy in children. Objective:To characterize the duration of clinical trials submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for pediatric drug approvals, with a focus on drugs used for long-term therapy. Design and Setting:A review was performed of all safety and efficacy clinical trials conducted under the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act or the Pediatric Research Equity Act and submitted to the FDA from September 1, 2007, to December 31, 2014, to support the approval of drugs frequently used for long-term therapy in children. Statistical analysis was performed from July 1, 2015, to December 31, 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures:Maximum duration of trials submitted to support FDA approval of drugs for children. Results:A total of 306 trials supporting 86 drugs intended for long-term use in children were eligible for the primary analysis. The drugs most commonly evaluated were for treatment of neurologic (25 [29%]), pulmonary (16 [19%]), and anti-infective (14 [16%]) indications. The median maximum trial duration by drug was 44 weeks (minimum, 1.1 week; maximum, 364 weeks). For nearly two-thirds of the drugs (52 [61%]), the maximum trial duration was less than 52 weeks. For 10 of the drugs (12%), the maximum trial duration was 3 years or more. Maximum duration of trials did not vary by therapeutic category, minimum age of enrollment, calendar year, or legislative mandate. Conclusions and Relevance:Pediatric clinical trials designed to sufficiently investigate drug safety and efficacy to support FDA approval are of relatively limited duration. Given the potential long-term exposure of patients to these drugs, the clinical community should consider whether new approaches are needed to better understand the safety associated with long-term use of these drugs.

Project description:ImportanceSeveral studies have estimated the financial inputs for successful drug development. Such analyses do not capture the large investment that patient study participants commit to drug development.ObjectiveTo estimate the volume of patients required to achieve a first US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for a new anticancer drug or biologic therapy.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study included a random sample of prelicense oncology drugs and biologics with a trial site in the United States that were launched into clinical efficacy testing between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2010. Drugs and biologics were identified using ClinicalTrials.gov registration records. Total patient enrollment was captured over an 8-year span, and each intervention was classified based on whether it received FDA approval and was deemed as having intermediate or substantial value according to the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework (ASCO-VF) score. Secondarily, the association between patient numbers and intervention characteristics was tested. Data were analyzed in February 2020.Main outcomes and measureThe prespecified primary outcome was the number of patients enrolled in prelicense trials per FDA approval.ResultsA total of 120 drugs and biologics were included in our study, with 84 (70.0%) targeted agents, 20 (16.7%) immunotherapies, and 71 (59.2%) novel agents. A total of 13 drugs and biologics (10.8%; 95% CI, 5.3%-16.8%) in our sample gained FDA approval within 8 years, of which 1 (7.7%) was deemed of intermediate value and 3 (23.1%) were deemed of substantial value using ASCO-VF scoring. Overall, 158 810 patients were enrolled in 1335 trials testing these drugs and biologics, 47 913 (30.2%) in trials that led to FDA approval and 110 897 (69.8%) in trials that did not. An estimated 12 217 (95% CI, 7970-22 215) patient study participants contributed to prelicense trials per FDA approval. The estimated number of patients needed to produce a single FDA-approved drug or biologic of intermediate or substantial ASCO-VF clinical value was 39 703 (95% CI, 19 391-177 991).Conclusions and relevanceThe results of this cohort study make visible the substantial patient investment required for prelicense oncology drug development. Such analyses can be used to devise policies that maximize the clinical impact of research on a per-patient basis.

Project description:BackgroundLymphoma treatment can lead to long-term consequences such as fatigue, infertility and organ damage. In clinical trials, survival outcomes, clinical response and toxicity are extensively reported while the assessment of treatment on quality of life (QoL) and symptoms is often lacking.ObjectiveWe evaluated the use and frequency of patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments used in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) and their consistency of reporting.MethodsMEDLINE, CENTRAL and trial registries for RCTs investigating HL were systematically searched from 01/01/2016 to 31/05/2022. Following trial selection, trial, patient characteristics and outcome data on the use of PRO measures (PROMs) and reporting of PROs using a pre-defined extraction form were extracted. To assess reporting consistency, trial registries, protocols and publications were compared.ResultsWe identified 4,222 records. Following screening, a total of 317 reports were eligible for full-text evaluation. One hundred sixty-six reports of 51 ongoing/completed trials were included, of which 41% of trials were completed and 49% were ongoing based on registry entries. Full-text or abstract were available for 33 trials. Seventy percent of trials were conducted in the newly diagnosed disease setting, the majority with advanced HL. In 32 trials with published follow-up data, the median follow-up was 5.2 years. Eighteen (35%) completed/ongoing trials had mentioned PRO assessment in registry entries, protocol or publications. Twelve trials (67%) had published results and only 6 trials (50%) reported on PROs in part with the exception of 1 trial where PROs were evaluated as secondary/exploratory outcome. The most referenced global PROM was the EORTC-QLQ-C30 (12 studies), the EQ-5D (3 studies) and the FACT-Neurotoxicity (3 studies). FACT-Lymphoma, a disease-specific PROM for non-HL was mentioned in one ongoing trial. None of the trials referenced the EORTC QLQ-HL27, another disease-specific PROM developed specifically for HL patient's QoL assessment.DiscussionsOnly one-third of RCTs in HL report PROs as an outcome and only half present the outcome in subsequent publications, showcasing the underreporting of PROs in trials. Disease-specific PROMs are underutilized in the assessment of QoL in HL patients. Guidance on the assessment of PROs is needed to inform on comprehensive outcomes important to patients.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=391552, identifier CRD42023391552.

Project description:ImportancePharmaceutical manufacturers can receive 6 additional months of market exclusivity for performing pediatric clinical trials of brand-name drugs widely used in adults. Congress created this incentive in 1997 because these drugs were being used off-label in children without such trials.ObjectiveTo review updates to drug labeling and the cost to consumers of extending market exclusivity related to the pediatric exclusivity program.DesignFrom government records, we identified 54 drugs that earned the pediatric exclusivity incentive between 2007 and 2012. We evaluated labeling changes from the pediatric studies. We then extracted trial details from clinical review documents and used industry estimates of trial costs on a per-patient basis to estimate cost of investment for trials (with a 10% cost of capital). To calculate the net return and cost to consumers during the 6-month exclusivity period, we estimated additional revenue for the 48 drugs with available information.Main outcomes and measuresFor each drug, we evaluated labeling changes and costs associated with pediatric trials under the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act and the cost to consumers of 6-month market exclusivity extensions.ResultsThe 141 trials in our sample enrolled 20 240 children (interquartile range [IQR], 2-3 trials and 127-556 patients per drug). These trials led to 29 extended indications and 3 new indications, as well as new safety information for 16 drugs. Median cost of investment for trials was $36.4 million (IQR, $16.6 to $100.6 million). Among 48 drugs with available financial information, median net return was $176.0 million (IQR, $47.0 million to $404.1 million), with a median ratio of net return to cost of investment of 680% (IQR, 80% to 1270%).Conclusions and relevanceClinical trials conducted under the US Food and Drug Administration's pediatric exclusivity program have provided important information about the effectiveness and safety of drugs used in children. The costs to consumers have been high, exceeding the estimated costs of investment for conducting the trials. As an alternative, policymakers should consider direct funding of such studies.

Dataset Information

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Pediatric Cancer Registration Trials: A US Food and Drug Administration Perspective.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets