Search

Clinical endpoints, such as overall survival, directly measure relevant outcomes. Surrogate endpoints, in contrast, are intermediate, stand-in measures of various tumour-related metrics and include tumour growth, tumour shrinkage, blood results, etc. Surrogates may be a time point measurement, that is, tumour shrinkage at some point (eg, response rate) or biomarker-assessed disease status, measured at given time points (eg, circulating tumour DNA, ctDNA). They can also be measured over time, as with progression-free survival, which is the time until a patient presents with either disease progression or death. Surrogates are increasingly used in trials supporting the marketing authorisation of novel oncology drugs. Yet, the trial-level correlation between surrogates and clinical endpoints—meaning to which extent an improvement in the surrogate predicts an improvement in the direct endpoint—is often moderate to low. Here, we provide a comprehensive classification of surrogate endpoints: time point measurements and time-to-event endpoints in solid and haematological malignancies. Also, we discuss an overlooked aspect of the use of surrogates: the limitations of surrogates outside trial settings, at the bedside. Surrogates can result in the inappropriate stopping or switching of therapy. Surrogates can be used to usher in new strategies (eg, ctDNA in adjuvant treatment of colon cancer), which may erode patient outcomes. In liquid malignancies, surrogates can mislead us to use novel drugs and replace proven standards of care with costly medications. Surrogates can lead one to intensify treatment without clear improvement and possibly worsening quality of life. Clinicians should be aware of the role of surrogates in the development and regulation of drugs and how their use can carry real-world, bedside implications.

BackgroundMethodological limitations affect a significant number of oncology and haematology trials, raising concerns about the applicability of their results. For example, a suboptimal control arm or limited access to best care upon progression may skew the trial results toward a benefit in the experimental arm. Beyond the fact that such limitations do not prevent drugs reaching the market, other assessment tools, such as those developed by professional societies-ESMO-MCBS and ASCO Value Framework-do not integrate these important shortcomings.MethodsWe propose creating a novel framework with the scope of assessing registration cancer clinical trials in haematology and oncology (randomized or single arm)-that is trials leading to a marketing authorization. The main steps of the methods are (1) assembling a scientific board; (2) defining the scope, goal and methods through pre-specified, pre-registered and protocolized methodology; (3) preregistration of the protocol; (4) conducting a scoping review of limitations and biases affecting oncology trials and assessing existing scores or methods; (5) developing a list of features to be included and assessed within the framework; (6) assessing each feature through a questionnaire sent to highly cited haematologists and oncologists involved in clinical trials; and (7) finalizing the first version of framework.ResultsNot applicable.ConclusionsOur proposal emerged in response to the lack of consideration for key limitations in current trial assessments. The goal is to create a framework specifically designed to assess single trials leading to marketing authorization in the field of oncology and haematogy.

BackgroundImmune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapies have become increasingly popular treatment options for patients with cancer, even for patients in non-metastatic settings. Survival and responses have been reported for individual tumor types, but little is known about these outcomes, collectively. We sought to provide an overview of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in ICI drugs tested in registration trials.MethodsIn a cross-sectional analysis of US FDA oncology ICI drug approvals (2011-2023), we searched for supporting ICI registration trials. We characterized these trials, regarding differences in median OS and PFS between patients in intervention and control arm participants in ICI registration trials; percentage of patients who receive ICI crossover; and whether there is correlation between the percentage of crossover and differences in OS or PFS.ResultsFifty-six (54.4 %) approvals had trials that reported median OS for both intervention and control arms (median difference was 2.8 months; IQR: 2.2 to 5.0 months). Sixty-five (63.1 %) approvals had trials that reported PFS data for both arms (median of 0.9 months; IQR: -0.2 to 3.0 months). Subsequent therapy was common (median=18.9 %) and was significantly correlated with a higher difference in median OS in all studies with reported differences (R2 =0.15; p = 0.001).ConclusionICIs are increasingly used in the treatment of cancer, yet the median OS improvement is modest, and many ICIs have not been tested for OS benefit. OS is the outcome most meaningful for patients, and drug regulation should require better testing and reporting of these data.

ImportanceThere is an increasing number of cancer 'survivors' and increasing research into supportive care. However, it is unknown how patterns of attention and citation differ between supportive and non-supportive cancer care research. We sought to estimate the engagement of high-impact studies of supportive compared to non-supportive cancer care papers.MethodsIn a cross-sectional review of top oncology journals (2016-2023), we reviewed studies examining supportive care strategies and a frequency-matched random sampling of studies on non-supportive interventions. We compared data on social engagement metrics, as represented by Altmetric scores and citations and funding status, by supportive care or non-supportive care articles.ResultsWe found overall Altmetric scores were no different between articles that did not test supportive care and those that did, with a numerically higher score for supportive care articles (86.0 vs 102; p=0.416). Other bibliometric statistics (such as the number of blogs, number of X users, and the number of X posts) obtained from Altmetric did not differ significantly between the two groups. Non-supportive cancer care papers had a significantly higher number of citations than supportive cancer care papers (45.6 in supportive care vs 141 in non-supportive care papers; p

ObjectiveTo evaluate the factors associated with Medicare spending on newly approved anticancer drugs in the US from 2012 through 2021.Patient and methodsUsing a cross-sectional analysis, we searched US FDA new oncology drug approvals (2012-2021). We analyzed clinical attributes and institutional factors influencing the annual cost of new anticancer drugs in the US. Annual treatment cost was calculated based on average spending per beneficiary from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, with product factors sourced from the FDA's annual New Drug Therapy Approval reports and drug package inserts at the time of approval.ResultsOver a ten-year period, 112 new anticancer drugs were approved, of which 97 met the study's criteria. A significant majority, 93 %, received expedited development designations from the FDA. At the time of approval, 40 % of these drugs had data on progression-free survival, and 19 % had data on overall survival; 29 % were first-in-class. The study found a significant relationship between the year of approval and factors associated with the size of the treatment population. No statistically significant relationship was found between the clinical value of a drug and its price.ConclusionsSpending on anticancer drugs by Medicare are predominantly determined by reference pricing and the size of the anticipated treatment population, without an association with therapeutic value. The study advocates for reforms in reimbursement mechanisms for drugs lacking comparator arms and greater transparency for patients treated with these drugs.

BackgroundTo address the need for treatments for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), 3 therapies have been given either full approval or Emergency Use Authorization. These were based on randomized data showing a reduction in deaths/hospitalization, but since then, circulating viral strains and population immunity have changed.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov for clinical trials testing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and molnupiravir for COVID-19. We identified all trials testing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and molnupiravir in patients with COVID-19 and assessed the pooled efficacy in a meta-analysis. We calculated pooled estimates of hospitalization and death in patients with COVID-19 and the number of studies with published/reported data.ResultsOf the 23 studies found, 11 tested nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, 10 tested molnupiravir, and 2 tested both agents. The pooled estimate in reducing deaths and hospitalization for molnupiravir was 0.62 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.15-2.53), and the pooled estimate for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was 0.33 (95% CI, 0.03-3.35). The 1 nirmatrelvir/ritonavir trial that reported significant improvements tested people who were predominantly infected with earlier COVID-19 variants, whereas the 2 null trials were tested in people infected with more recent variants. The 2 positive molnupiravir trials included participants primarily with the Delta variant, whereas the null trials were tested later, against more recent variants.ConclusionsWhile early trial data show effectiveness of these therapies, the overall pooled effects are nonsignificant, suggesting that recommendations and use of approved oral COVID-19 treatment therapies need to be reevaluated in the context of current viral strains and population immunity.

BackgroundProject Orbis is a global initiative that aims to streamline regulatory review processes across international regulators in the USA, Canada, Australia, UK, Israel, Brazil, Singapore, and Switzerland to bring promising cancer drugs to patients earlier. We explored the clinical benefit, time to regulatory approval and health technology assessment recommendations, reimbursement outcomes, and monthly treatment prices of cancer drugs reviewed through this initiative.MethodsFor this retrospective, comparative analysis, we identified cancer drug approvals reviewed through Project Orbis in the USA, Canada, and the UK between May 1, 2019, and Nov 1, 2023. Approvals of cancer drugs reviewed Project Orbis were extracted from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Oncology Centre of Excellence and all other FDA approvals from the Drugs@FDA database. The co-primary outcomes were time of regulatory review, time from regulatory approval to health technology assessment recommendation (England, Scotland, and Canada), reimbursement outcomes, clinical benefit (defined as median gains in progression-free survival and overall survival) between cancer drug approvals reviewed by Project Orbis and other FDA approval processes, and monthly treatment prices. The Wilcoxon rank-sum and Fisher's Exact tests were used to examine statistical significance between approvals reviewed through Project Orbis and other FDA approvals during the same period.FindingsBetween May 1, 2019 and Nov 1, 2023, 81 (33%) of 244 cancer drugs approved by the FDA were reviewed through Project Orbis. The median overall survival gains were 4·1 months (IQR 3·3-5·1) compared with 2·7 months (2·1-3·9) for other FDA approvals. Similarly, progression-free survival gains were 2·6 months (IQR 1·7-4·9) for Project Orbis compared with 2·6 months (0·6-5·1) for other FDA approvals. Neither overall survival (p=0·11) nor progression-free survival (p=0·44) gains were significantly different between the two cohorts of approvals. Of the 14 UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) approvals reviewed by the Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC), the agency gave positive recommendations for all 14 (100%). Of the 15 MHRA approvals reviewed by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), the agency gave positive recommendations for six (40%). Of the 49 approvals reviewed by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), the agency conditionally recommended 44 (90%). The time between regulatory approval to NICE recommendation increased from a median of 137 days (IQR 102-172) in 2021 to 302 days (184-483) in 2023, SMC recommendation increased from 185 days (in 2021 for one drug only) to 368 days (IQR 313-476) in 2023, and CADTH decision increased from 97 days (in 2020 for one drug only) to 202 days (IQR 153-304) in 2023. The median monthly price of approvals reviewed through Project Orbis was US$20 000 per month (IQR 13 000-37 000).InterpretationClinical outcomes of Project Orbis were no different than other FDA approvals during the same time, and access, after a successful health technology assessment, was considerably delayed or absent, raising questions about whether Project Orbis participation translates into faster patient access to medicines with high clinical benefit and sustainable costs. Although future challenges might benefit from regulatory harmonisation, the advantages are currently unclear.FundingNone.

CDK4/6 inhibitors are oral agents inhibiting key molecules of the cell cycle regulation. In patients with endocrine receptor positive (ER+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative (HER2-) breast cancer, the combination of CDK4/6 inhibitors with endocrine therapy is an effective treatment in the metastatic setting. Now, two studies in the adjuvant setting - MonarchE (2 years of abemaciclib) and NATALEE (3 years of ribociclib) - report positive invasive disease-free survival. Here, we re-evaluate these seminal trials. First, an excess drop-out or loss-to-follow up occurred early in the control arms of both studies. Since both trials are open-label, there is concern that the patients who drop-out do not do so at random but based on socioeconomic factors and alternative options. Is it possible that the results merely appear favorable due to loss to follow up? Based on re-constructed Kaplan-Meier curves, we concluded the results of these studies remain fragile, being prone to informative censoring. Secondly, adverse events were notably higher in both trials, and some of them, like COVID-19 related deaths in NATALEE, raise serious concerns. Third, the potential costs associated with CDK4/6 inhibition given as adjuvant therapy are unprecedented. The NATALEE strategy, in particular, could affect up to 35 % of patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer, which is the cancer with the highest incidence worldwide. Without confirmatory data based on a placebo-controlled trial, or better identification of patients that would benefit from the addition of CDK4/6 inhibitors in the adjuvant setting, we argue against their routine use as adjuvant therapy in ER+ /HER2- early breast cancer.

ImportanceIn oncology randomized clinical trials, suboptimal access to best available care at recurrence (or relapse) may affect overall survival results.ObjectiveTo assess the proportion and the quality of postrecurrence treatment received by patients enrolled in US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) registration trials of systemic therapy in the adjuvant or neoadjuvant setting.Evidence reviewFor this systematic review, all trials leading to an FDA approval from January 2018 through May 2023 were obtained from the FDA website and drug announcements. Randomized clinical trials of an anticancer drug in the neoadjuvant or the adjuvant setting were included. Trials of supportive care treatment and treatments given in combination with radiotherapy were excluded. Information abstracted for each trial included tumor type, setting, phase, type of sponsor, reporting and assessment of postrecurrence, and overall survival data.FindingsA total of 14 FDA trials met the inclusion criteria. Postrecurrence data were not available in 6 of 14 registration trials (43%). Of the 8 remaining trials, postrecurrence treatment was assessed as suboptimal in 6 (75%). Overall, only 2 of 14 trials (14%) had data assessed as appropriate.Conclusions and relevanceThis systematic review found that 43% of randomized clinical trials of anticancer treatment in the adjuvant or neoadjuvant context failed to present any assessable postrecurrence treatment data. In instances in which these data were shared, postrecurrence treatment was suboptimal 75% of the time. The findings suggest that regulatory bodies should enforce rules stipulating that patients have access to the best standard of care at recurrence.

To examine methodology characteristics over time and investigate research impact before and after the start of the COVID-19 era, we analyzed original articles published in The New England Journal of Medicine between October 26, 2017 and August 27, 2022. April 1, 2020 was used as the defining date dividing before and after the COVID-19 era. Out of 1051 original articles, 515 (49 %) were before and 536 (51 %) were after the COVID-19 era. Two independent reviewers categorized and reconciled methodology into groups: randomized trial (715 articles), uncontrolled experimental study (128), descriptive observational study (168), and observational study making a causal claim (40). We extracted subsequent citations and Altmetric data for each article to assess impact. The median number of social media shares was 2272 (IQR: 743-7821) for observational studies making a causal conclusion, compared to 306 (IQR: 70-606) for randomized trials (p-value=

PurposeFertility preservation was designed to help young patients overcome complications of cancer treatments, but its effectiveness is unknown. We sought to investigate how often patients with cancer are offered fertility preservation and if patients offered fertility preservation are more likely to have offspring.MethodsWe searched Embase (through 2022) and PubMed (through 2022). Our broad computerized search strategy was built upon using the keywords "chemotherapy," "radiation," and "fertility." The search took place on December 1, 2022. We included randomized and observational studies and excluded reviews and case reports/series.ResultsEighty-five articles that answered at least one of the research questions were included. Studies assessing fertoprotective therapies often rely on surrogate markers for fertility. Multiple factors affect these markers of fertility. The median premature ovarian failure rate among the intervention group was 18% (IQR, 12%-20%), and among the control group, it was 25% (IQR, 19%-33%). Five of 11 studies reported a significant benefit from fertoprotective therapy. Pregnancies occurred in a median of 21% (IQR, 6%-52%) of patients in the intervention group and 11% (IQR, 7-44) of patients in the control group, with three of seven studies reporting a higher percentage of pregnancies among the intervention group.ConclusionWe reviewed the literature on several questions surrounding fertility preservation and found that there is limited and low-quality research on these therapies in cancer. Hence, there is a strong need for studies, especially randomized studies, that follow patients with cancer who undergo fertility preservation and assess outcomes in which patients are most interested.

e14613 Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have notably changed the landscape of systemic treatment of advanced and metastatic cancers in the last decade. We previously estimated the eligibility for and responses to ICIs, but since then, there have been multiple approvals for additional indications. As such, we have updated these estimates to include all approvals, as of December 2023. Methods: For eligibility, we used death data from the American Cancer Society’s Cancer Facts and Figures. Deaths was used as a stand-in for eligibility because these therapies are often given in later lines. Data from the peer-reviewed literature was used to further refine specific tumor type estimates (e.g., the percentage of lung cancers that are non-small cell and small cell lung cancer). For each tumor type, we multiplied the response rates reported in the FDA’s package insert by the number of deaths for each respective tumor type. When multiple drugs were approved for the same indication, we used the highest response rate. Results: Eleven ICI drugs were approved for 88 different indication approvals in the advanced/metastatic setting between 2015 and 2023. These approvals were for 20 general tumor types. The estimated eligibility for ICIs increased from 1.54% in 2011 to 55.47% in 2023. The tumor types with the highest eligibility in 2023 were non-small cell lung cancer with PDL1 status of 50% (13.28%) or less and PDL1 status >50% (4.42%), solid tumors TMB-h (6.81%), and hepatocellular (4.82%). The estimated response to ICIs increased from 0.14% in 2011 to 19.60% in 2023. The tumor types with the highest contribution to response estimates in 2023 were non-small cell lung cancer with PDL1 status of 50% (4.78%) or less and PDL1 status >50% (1.99%), solid tumors TMB-h (2.72%), and renal cell carcinoma (1.95%). Conclusions: We find that the estimated eligibility for and response to ICIs has increased since their introduction in 2011. Our estimates are an upper bound since many people are not eligible due to contraindications or healthcare coverage. Both the response and eligibility were driven by certain tumor types, including non-small cell lung cancer (either PDL1 high or PDL1 low). Patients with these types of tumors made up about one-third of the estimated response and eligibility. Solid tumors TMB-h, hepatocellular and renal cell carcinoma were other tumors with high eligibility and response, but other tumor types had low eligibility and response. While many patients have benefited from ICIs, half of patients with advanced or metastatic cancers are either not eligible or likely do not respond. [Table: see text]

PurposeIn 2013, afatinib was approved for non-small-cell lung cancer with subsequent indication expansion. We investigated published afatinib clinical trials to assess risk and benefit profiles for the drug in its approved indication of non-small-cell lung cancer as well as in off-label uses. Previous literature demonstrates excessive patient burden and limited benefit as afatinib has spread into more indications. A trial analysis is needed to establish efficacy and risk.MethodsIn this investigation, we screened literature databases and clinical trial registries for trials of afatinib as monotherapy or in combination interventions for cancer treatment. We extracted participant demographics, adverse event characteristics, as well as clinical and surrogate endpoints for each trial. Studies were deemed positive, negative, or indeterminate based on their achieving of primary endpoints as well as their safety.ResultsOur search yielded 2444 articles; we excluded 2352 articles for a final inclusion of 92 trials of 8859 patients. Our sample had 49 (53%) positive trials, 27 (29%) negative trials, and 16 (17%) indeterminate trials. The most common off-label indications for afatinib were breast cancer and squamous cell carcinoma of head and neck. The median OS for all trials was 8.4 months, median PFS 3.4 months, and the total ORR was 29.6%. Our study found that trials performed in disease states beyond the initial indications were largely negative with little patient benefit. The adverse events within our trial sample appear to be in line with expectations for toxicity.ImplicationsThese results are consistent with other studies that present similar findings, such as in Carlisle et al which indicate limited efficacy in nonapproved indications. Future trials should keep this potential evidence and patient burden in mind before initiation of those trials. This study contributes to the understanding of afatinib's risk-benefit profile across many clinical applications.

e19011 Background: Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy can induce durable remission in some patients but requires time for a patient’s own cells to be reengineered to produce CAR proteins that can bind to and destroy cancer cells. During this time, bridging therapy is often used in debulking to reduce treatment toxicities and to control the disease while waiting for the manufacturing of CAR-T cells. Because bridging therapy often involves systemic treatment, the bridging therapies can induce responses, in and of themselves, in clinical trials testing CAR-T therapies. As such, we sought to assess bridging therapies used in CAR-T trials. Methods: Using the FDA labels (labels.fda.gov) to identify the indications and the pivotal clinical trials that led to the approval of each CAR-T cell therapy, we looked at which bridging therapies were used, whether multiple therapies were combined, response rates, and the reported adverse events associated with bridging therapy. We took note of all relevant comments regarding bridging therapy in the main paper and supplemental results. Results: Of the 11 studies testing CAR-T therapies, 10 reported the bridging therapies that were used in the study. Notably, only three of 11 studies provided clear information about which combinations of bridging therapy treatments were used during the trials. Of those that reported the types of bridging therapies (n=10), the most commonly used bridging therapy was dexamethasone, which was used in every study (10/10). The next three most commonly used treatments include rituximab (6/10), gemcitabine (5/10), and etoposide (5/10). Of the trials, 2/11 clearly reported whether patients had a complete response (CR), partial response (PR), or very good partial response (VGPR) to bridging therapy. 5/11 vaguely reported responses, using terminology outside of CR, PR, VGPR. 4/11 trials did not report or mention any response information in regards to bridging therapy. Of all the trials, 1/11 clearly reported adverse events associated with bridging therapy in the supplement, while 10/11 of the trials listed adverse events associated with the treatment groups, without clarifying those associated with bridging. Conclusions: Although patients are often refractory to first-line therapies, which share considerable overlap with the bridging therapies used, these therapies may still induce responses. Despite this possibility, the reporting of bridging therapy combinations and their subsequent response rates and adverse event rates, is highly variable. Of 11 pivotal clinical trials that led to the approval of a CAR-T cell therapy, none clearly reported bridging therapy data that encompassed all three categories (combinations used, response rates, adverse events). What is more, these data were often omitted completely. These findings highlight the need for greater transparency in the reporting of bridging therapy in order to more reliably assess the efficacy of CAR-T therapies.

BACKGROUND: The economic and health burden of COVID-19 has transformed the healthcare system in the US. Hospitals have adapted to the heterogeneity in long COVID symptoms, and the sheer number of people affected by this condition, by building long COVID centers and programs. OBJECTIVE: We sought to describe characteristics, services, and clinical trials of long COVID centers at top US hospitals. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis. PARTICIPANTS: Long COVID treatment programs or centers at top US hospitals. EXPOSURES: Frequency of long COVID centers, eligibility for being treated, the services they provide, specialist to whom the patients may be referred, and the long COVID clinical trials in which these hospitals participate. FINDINGS: Most top hospitals in the US (n = 43/50; 86%) offer long COVID services. 65% (28/43) did not describe the services provided. 12 (28%) required a referral from a primary care physician. The most common services were meeting with a team member (n = 20; 47%), ordering lab and/or radiology services (n = 8; 18.6%), and administering a physical exam (n = 7; 16%). 7 (16%) centers/programs treated only adults; 5 (12%) treated both adults and children, and 31 (72%) did not specify. The most common specialists described were psychology (n = 25; 58%), neurology (n = 25; 58%), and pulmonary (n = 24; 56%). Sixty-three trials (of 134 long COVID clinical trials) had at least one top hospital listed as a study site. The median number of clinical trials that each hospital sponsored or was a study site was 2 (interquartile range: 1, 3). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: We find that services offered at long COVID clinics at top hospitals in the US often include meeting with a team member and referrals to a wide range of specialists. The diversity in long COVID services offered parallels the diversity in long COVID symptoms, suggesting a need for better consensus in developing and delivering treatment.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate published clinical trials of ramucirumab to assess the risk/benefit profile and burden over time for patients. BACKGROUND: The burden of oncologic drug development on patients paired with increasing clinical trial failure rates emphasizes the need for reform of drug development. Identifying and addressing patterns of excess burden can guide policy, ensure evidence-based protections for trial participants, and improve medical decision-making. METHODS: On May 25, 2023 a literature search was performed on Pubmed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov for clinical trials using ramucirumab as monotherapy or in combination with other interventions for cancer treatment. Authors screened titles and abstracts for potential inclusion in a masked, duplicate fashion. Following data screening, data was extracted in a masked, duplicate fashion. Trials were classified as positive when meeting their primary endpoint and safety, negative or indeterminate. RESULTS: Ramucirumab was initially approved for gastric cancer but has since been tested in 20 cancers outside of its FDA approved indications. In our analysis of ramucirumab trials, there were a total of 10,936 participants and 10,303 adverse events reported. Gains in overall survival and progression-free survival for patients were 1.5 and 1.2 months, respectively. FDA-approved indications have reported more positive outcomes in comparison to off-label indications. CONCLUSION: We found that FDA-approved indications for ramucirumab had better efficacy outcomes than non-approved indications. However, a concerning number of adverse events were observed across all trials assessed. Participants in ramucirumab randomized controlled trials saw meager gains in overall survival when evaluated against a comparison group. Clinicians should carefully weigh the risks associated with ramucirumab therapy given its toxicity burden and poor survival gains.

Drug development is complex and costly. Clinical trial participants take on risks, making it essential to maximize trial efficiency and maintain participant safety. Identifying periods of excessive burden during drug development can inform trial design, ensure patient benefit and prevent harm. This study aims to examine all published clinical trials for cabozantinib to assess patient benefit and burden over time. We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional review of interventional clinical trials of cabozantinib for solid cancer treatment. We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane (CENTRAL) and ClinicalTrials.gov. We extracted adverse event rates, median progression-free survival (PFS), median overall survival and objective response rate (ORR) for each included trial. We calculated frequencies of trial characteristics, cumulative grade 3-5 adverse event rates and cumulative ORRs. Out of 1735 studies, 54 publications were included that involved 6372 participants and 21 cancers. Of the 54 studies in our sample, 31 (57.41%) were single-arm trials and 23 (42.60%) had negative results. Trials among and within various indications had conflicting results over time. Cumulative risk to participants increased over time, and clinical benefit decreased. The findings suggest that the risk profile of cabozantinib increased from 2011 to 2016 and has remained elevated but stable while benefit has decreased over time. The use of non-randomized and single-arm trials is concerning, and more methodologically rigorous trials are needed. The results of trials for different indications are inconsistent, and empirical administration may reduce the drug's efficacy.

ObjectiveThe objective of this review is to provide an overview of the justification reported for using unequal allocation ratios in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) testing a medical intervention.MethodsUsing the PICOS framework, we conducted a systematic search to find meta-studies within PubMed (a Medline database interface) that addressed the objective.ResultsThe developed search strategy generated 525 results, of which, three studies met criteria for inclusion. These studies found that 22-43% of RCTs provided a justification for the use of unequal allocation based on publication alone, and between 38.7 and 66% after seeking input from trial authors. The most common reason given for this design was to gather increased safety data according to two reviews and to gain experience with an intervention according to the third review.ConclusionReporting of justification for RCTs designed with unequal allocation appears to occur less than half the time in the included studies. The reasons given for designing clinical trials with unequal participants encompass many domains, including ethical considerations. As such, this design feature should be implemented with intentionality to maximize the ethical features of clinical trials for participants. Coupling lack of justification with lack of adjusting for sample size estimations depicts an overall landscape in which there is significant room for improvement in methodological transparency within this area of RCTs.

The COVID-19 vaccine has been a miraculous, life-saving advance, offering staggering efficacy in adults, and was developed with astonishing speed. The time from sequencing the virus to authorizing the first COVID-19 vaccine was so brisk even the optimists appear close-minded. Yet, simultaneously, United States' COVID-19 vaccination roll-out and related policies have contained missed opportunities, errors, run counter to evidence-based medicine, and revealed limitations in the judgment of public policymakers. Misplaced utilization, contradictory messaging, and poor deployment in those who would benefit most-the elderly and high-risk-alongside unrealistic messaging, exaggeration, and coercion in those who benefit least-young, healthy Americans-is at the heart. It is important to consider the history of COVID-19 vaccines to identify where we succeeded and where we failed, and the effects that these errors may have more broadly on vaccination hesitancy and routine childhood immunization programs in the decades to come.

Objective: Our objective of this study was to analyse all oncological clinical trials using regorafenib to create a complete risk/benefit profile for the drug. Background: Creating a novel chemotherapy is costly both in time and capital spent for drug manufacturers. To regenerate what they’ve spent, drug manufacturers may attempt to repurpose their medications for new indications via clinical trials. To fully understand the risk/benefits in comparison to a drug’s efficacy, a pooled analysis must be completed. Methods: We screened PubMed, Embase, Cochrane (CENTRAL) and ClinicalTrials.gov for trials of regorafenib used to treat solid cancers. Next, we extracted median progression-free survival and overall survival in months, adverse event rates and objective response rate (ORR). Studies were deemed positive, negative or indeterminate based on their pre-specified endpoints and tolerability. Results: 56 clinical trials were included in our final sample, with 4960 total participants across 13 indications. Most studies (44 of 56; 78.75%) were non-blinded, and a majority were non-randomised (41 of 56; 73.21%). Trials for colorectal cancer started out as positive but became more negative over time. Cumulative risk to patients increased over time while ORR stayed consistently low. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that since regorafenib’s original Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval, the risk profile for its original indication increased. The amount of non-randomised, single-arm trials in our sample size was concerning, indicating that higher quality research must be conducted. Our results propose that regorafenib’s efficacy and safety may be more impactful in cancers other than its FDA approvals.

ImportanceChemotherapy agents are typically initially tested in their most promising indications; however, following initial US FDA approval, new clinical trials are often initiated in less promising indications where patients experience a worse burden-benefit ratio. The current literature on the burden-benefit profile of lenvatinib in non-FDA-approved indications is lacking.ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate published clinical trials of lenvatinib in order to determine the burden-benefit profile for patients over time.Evidence reviewOn 25 May 2023, we searched the Pubmed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases for clinical trials of lenvatinib used to treat solid cancers. Eligible articles were clinical trials, containing adult participants, published in English, and involving solid tumors. Screening and data collection took place in a masked, duplicate fashion. For each eligible study, we collected adverse event data, trial characteristics, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and objective response rate (ORR). Trials were classified as positive when meeting their primary endpoint and safety, negative (not meeting either criteria), or indeterminate (lacking prespecified primary endpoint).FindingsExpansion of clinical trial testing beyond lenvatinib's initial FDA indication demonstrated a consistent rise in cumulative adverse events, along with a decline in drug efficacy. Lenvatinib was tested in 16 cancer indications, receiving FDA approval in 4. A total of 5390 Grade 3-5 adverse events were experienced across 6225 clinical trial participants. Expanded indication testing further demonstrated widely variable ORR (11-69%), OS (6.2-32 months), and PFS (3.6-15.7 months) across all indications. After initial FDA approval, clinical trial results in expanded indications were less likely to meet their primary endpoints, particularly among non-randomized clinical trials.Conclusion and relevanceOur paper evaluated the effectiveness of lenvatinib for its FDA-approved indications; however, expansion of clinical trials into novel indications was characterized by diminished efficacy, while patients experienced a high burden of adverse events consistent with lenvatinib's established safety profile. Furthermore, clinical trials testing in novel indications was marked by repeated phase I and II clinical trials along with a failure to progress to phase III clinical trials. Future clinical trials using lenvatinib as an intervention should carefully evaluate the potential benefits and burden patients may experience.

BACKGROUND: Due to encouraging pre-clinical data and supportive observational studies, there has been growing interest in applying cardiovascular drugs (including aspirin, angiotensin-converting enzyme [ACE] inhibitors, statins, and metformin) approved to treat diseases such as hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes mellitus to the field of oncology. Moreover, given growing costs with cancer care, these medications have offered a potentially more affordable avenue to treat or prevent recurrence of cancer. We sought to investigate the anti-cancer effects of drugs repurposed from cardiology or anti-inflammatories to treat cancer. We specifically evaluated the following drug classes: HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins), cyclo-oxygenase inhibitors, aspirin, metformin, and both angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. We also included non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) because they exert a similar mechanism to aspirin by blocking prostaglandins and reducing inflammation that is thought to promote the development of cancer. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature review using PubMed and Web of Science with search terms including aspirin, NSAID, statin (including specific statin drug names), metformin, ACE inhibitors, and ARBs (including specific anti-hypertensive drug names) in combination with cancer. Searches were limited to human studies published between 2000 and 2023. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The number and percentage of studies reported positive results and pooled estimates of overall survival, progression-free survival, response, and disease-free survival. RESULTS: We reviewed 3094 titles and included 67 randomized clinical trials. The most common drugs that were tested were metformin (n = 21; 30.9%), celecoxib (n = 20; 29.4%), and simvastatin (n = 8; 11.8%). There was only one study that tested cardiac glycosides and none that studied ACE inhibitors. The most common tumor types were non-small-cell lung cancer (n = 19; 27.9%); breast (n = 8; 20.6%), colorectal (n = 7; 10.3%), and hepatocellular (n = 6; 8.8%). Most studies were conducted in a phase II trial (n = 38; 55.9%). Most studies were tested in metastatic cancers (n = 49; 72.1%) and in the first-line setting (n = 36; 521.9%). Four studies (5.9%) were stopped early because of difficulty with accrual. The majority of studies did not demonstrate an improvement in either progression-free survival (86.1% of studies testing progression-free survival) or in overall survival (94.3% of studies testing overall survival). Progression-free survival was improved in five studies (7.4%), and overall survival was improved in three studies (4.4%). Overall survival was significantly worse in two studies (3.8% of studies testing overall survival), and progression-free survival was worse in one study (2.8% of studies testing progression-free survival). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Despite promising pre-clinical and population-based data, cardiovascular drugs and anti-inflammatory medications have overall not demonstrated benefit in the treatment or preventing recurrence of cancer. These findings may help guide future potential clinical trials involving these medications when applied in oncology.

Nonprofit organizations have the potential to influence public health by filling voids not filled by government or private organizations. Here we investigate whether the presence of health-related nonprofit organizations at the local community level helps to improve community-level obesity. This study used a time-series design using a random effects model to determine whether the entrance or exits of health nonprofits at the county level was associated with lower obesity rates in the US one and two years following the entrance or departures of nonprofits. The effect was small but significant in urban areas, with a smaller effect in rural areas. Our findings suggest that the presence of health nonprofits is associated with positive health outcomes, in this case obesity. The plausibility may be explained through the increased role nonprofits play in fostering social capital and increased promotion of health-related issues.

Critical representation in literature and curricula requires an emancipatory agenda and examination of the ways in which people of diverse racial, cultural, linguistic, and other socially marginalized identities are portrayed, an assessment of how relevant, affirming, and accurate those representations are, and a consideration of the impact on a child's sense of self and 'other.' This essay includes sample audit criteria for critical representation highlighting five sections: Storyline & Sense of Justice; Affirmation & Self-Worth; Relationships Among People; Author/Illustrator Background; and Language & Terminology, all with a focus on 'mattering' and holistic wellbeing of students of the global majority. Audit criteria explicitly engage questions of critical race theory such as: Does the storyline encourage passive acceptance of inequity, or active resistance against it? Are there messages that limit or damage a child's aspirations or sense of self-worth? The essay concludes with examples of how practitioners are using the audit criteria to identify strengths, needs, and opportunities to improve their practice.

We explore one systematic review and meta-analysis of both observational and randomized studies examining COVID-19 vaccines in 5- to 11-year-olds, which reported substantial benefits associated with vaccinating this age group. We discuss the limitations of the individual studies that were used to estimate vaccination benefits. The review included five observational studies that evaluated vaccine effectiveness (VE) against COVID-19 severe disease or hospitalization. All five studies failed to adequately assess differences in underlying health between vaccination groups. In terms of vaccination harms, looking only at the randomized studies, a significantly higher odds of adverse events was identified among the vaccinated compared with the unvaccinated. Observational studies are at risk of overestimating the effectiveness of vaccines against severe disease if healthy vaccinee bias is present. Falsification endpoints can provide valuable information about underlying healthy vaccinee bias. Studies that have not adequately ruled out bias due to better health among the vaccinated or more vaccinated should be viewed as unreliable for estimating the VE of COVID-19 vaccination against severe disease and mortality. Existing systematic reviews that include observational studies of the COVID-19 vaccine in children may have overstated or falsely inferred vaccine benefits due to unidentified or undisclosed healthy vaccinee bias.

Abstract: Background: Heart failure (HF) following an acute myocardial infarction (post-MI HF) has been studied as an additional sub-type of HF to broaden the indications for HF drugs. Post-MI HF and HFrEF are pathophysiologically similar and share pharmacotherapies. In this meta-analysis, we examined the concordance between all-cause mortality data for drugs indicated for HFrEF and post-MI HF. We used our analysis to calculate the projected all-cause mortality hazard ratios (HRs) for the pending dapagliflozin (DAPA-MI) and empagliflozin (EMPACT-MI) post-MI HF trials. Methods: Using CenterWatch and UpToDate, we identified all FDA-approved drugs for NYHA Class II to IV HFrEF. We searched each of these drugs on FDALabel and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify their registration trials measuring all-cause mortality for HFrEF and, if available, in the post-MI setting—including trials where participants displayed a left ventricular ejection fraction of

American Indians are disproportionately affected by nutrition-related chronic conditions. It is critical to understand Native American food environments that contribute to disparities in nutrition-related conditions. Data from the USDA Food Environment Atlas were used to examine the associations between food environment characteristics, diabetes, obesity, and food insecurity. Counties with the highest percentage of Native American residents had fewer grocery stores and more food insecurity and obesity than counties with fewer Native Americans residents. Future studies may consider evaluating policies or interventions that impact the food environment to assess the effects on obesity and food security outcomes among Native Americans.

Scientific evidence regularly guides policy decisions1, with behavioural science increasingly part of this process2. In April 2020, an influential paper3 proposed 19 policy recommendations (claims) detailing how evidence from behavioural science could contribute to efforts to reduce impacts and end the COVID-19 pandemic. Here we assess 747 pandemic-related research articles that empirically investigated those claims. We report the scale of evidence and whether evidence supports them to indicate applicability for policymaking. Two independent teams, involving 72 reviewers, found evidence for 18 of 19 claims, with both teams finding evidence supporting 16 (89%) of those 18 claims. The strongest evidence supported claims that anticipated culture, polarization and misinformation would be associated with policy effectiveness. Claims suggesting trusted leaders and positive social norms increased adherence to behavioural interventions also had strong empirical support, as did appealing to social consensus or bipartisan agreement. Targeted language in messaging yielded mixed effects and there were no effects for highlighting individual benefits or protecting others. No available evidence existed to assess any distinct differences in effects between using the terms physical distancing and social distancing. Analysis of 463 papers containing data showed generally large samples; 418 involved human participants with a mean of 16,848 (median of 1,699). That statistical power underscored improved suitability of behavioural science research for informing policy decisions. Furthermore, by implementing a standardized approach to evidence selection and synthesis, we amplify broader implications for advancing scientific evidence in policy formulation and prioritization.

ImportanceMany economic theories point to regulatory issues and subsidization of research and development costs as the primary factor in the high cancer drug prices in the US. Even so, the association between the median annual cost and novelty of cancer drugs approved in the US remains unclear.ObjectiveTo evaluate the association between the median annual cost and novelty of cancer drugs approved in the US over a 6-year period.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study included all cancer drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2020. Drug names, indications, manufacturer, dosage, and measures of activity/efficacy were extracted from the FDA announcement. The search was performed in December 2021. Data were analyzed from January 2022 until April 2022.Main outcomes and measuresAnnual cost of treatment was calculated based on average wholesale price collected from the 2021 Micromedex Red Book database. Mechanism of action was inferred from trial publication or its references.ResultsThere were 224 cancer drug approvals across 119 individual drugs, with a median annual cost of $196 000 (IQR, $170 000-$277 000). Gene and viral therapies were the most expensive (median, $448 000 [IQR, $448 000-$479 000]), followed by small molecule therapy (median, $244 000 [IQR, $203 000-$321 000), and biologics (median, $185 000 [IQR, $148 000-$195 000]). There was no significant difference in cost between first-in-class, next-in-class, and subsequent approvals of an already approved drug.Conclusions and relevanceFindings of this study indicate that the median annual price of anticancer drugs in the US is not associated with the novelty of their mechanism of action.