Cargando…

What drives cancer clinical trial accrual? An empirical analysis of studies leading to FDA authorisation (2015–2020)

OBJECTIVE: To examine factors associated with accrual rate in industry sponsored clinical trials supporting US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cancer drug approvals from 2015 to 2020. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective cross-sectional study included 194 pivotal trials supporting canc...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jenei, Kristina, Haslam, Alyson, Olivier, Timothée, Miljkovíc, Milos, Prasad, Vinay
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9558788/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36207035
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-064458
_version_ 1784807519962529792
author Jenei, Kristina
Haslam, Alyson
Olivier, Timothée
Miljkovíc, Milos
Prasad, Vinay
author_facet Jenei, Kristina
Haslam, Alyson
Olivier, Timothée
Miljkovíc, Milos
Prasad, Vinay
author_sort Jenei, Kristina
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To examine factors associated with accrual rate in industry sponsored clinical trials supporting US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cancer drug approvals from 2015 to 2020. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective cross-sectional study included 194 pivotal trials supporting cancer drug approvals by the US FDA from 2015 to 2020. INTERVENTIONS: Clinical trials were analysed for the type of blinding, primary endpoint, whether crossover was specified in the publication, study phase, line of therapy, response rate, investigational sites, manufacturer and randomisation ratio. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome was the rate of accrual, which is the number of patients accrued in the study per open month of enrolment. RESULTS: The study consisted of 133 randomised (68%) and 61 (32%) non-randomised clinical trials. In randomised studies, we found the accrual rate was higher in trials investigating first and second line drugs (adjusted rate ratios (aRR): 1.55, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.09), phase III trials (aRR: 2.13, 95% CI 1.48 to 2.99), and for studies sponsored by Merck (aRR: 1.47, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.37), adjusting for other covariates. In contrast, the primary endpoint of a study, presence of crossover, single agent response rate, the number of investigational sites, population disease burden and skewed randomisation ratios were not associated with the rate of accrual. In the non-randomised adjusted model, the accrual rate was 2.03 higher (95% CI 1.10 to 3.92) for clinical trials sponsored by manufacturer, specifically Merck. Primary endpoint, crossover, trial phase, response rate, the number of investigational sites, disease burden or line of therapy were not associated with the rate of accrual. CONCLUSION: In this cross-sectional study, line of therapy, study phase and manufacturer were the only factors associated with accrual rate. These findings suggest many proffered factors for speedy trial accrual are not associated with greater enrolment rates.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9558788
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-95587882022-10-14 What drives cancer clinical trial accrual? An empirical analysis of studies leading to FDA authorisation (2015–2020) Jenei, Kristina Haslam, Alyson Olivier, Timothée Miljkovíc, Milos Prasad, Vinay BMJ Open Oncology OBJECTIVE: To examine factors associated with accrual rate in industry sponsored clinical trials supporting US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cancer drug approvals from 2015 to 2020. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective cross-sectional study included 194 pivotal trials supporting cancer drug approvals by the US FDA from 2015 to 2020. INTERVENTIONS: Clinical trials were analysed for the type of blinding, primary endpoint, whether crossover was specified in the publication, study phase, line of therapy, response rate, investigational sites, manufacturer and randomisation ratio. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome was the rate of accrual, which is the number of patients accrued in the study per open month of enrolment. RESULTS: The study consisted of 133 randomised (68%) and 61 (32%) non-randomised clinical trials. In randomised studies, we found the accrual rate was higher in trials investigating first and second line drugs (adjusted rate ratios (aRR): 1.55, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.09), phase III trials (aRR: 2.13, 95% CI 1.48 to 2.99), and for studies sponsored by Merck (aRR: 1.47, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.37), adjusting for other covariates. In contrast, the primary endpoint of a study, presence of crossover, single agent response rate, the number of investigational sites, population disease burden and skewed randomisation ratios were not associated with the rate of accrual. In the non-randomised adjusted model, the accrual rate was 2.03 higher (95% CI 1.10 to 3.92) for clinical trials sponsored by manufacturer, specifically Merck. Primary endpoint, crossover, trial phase, response rate, the number of investigational sites, disease burden or line of therapy were not associated with the rate of accrual. CONCLUSION: In this cross-sectional study, line of therapy, study phase and manufacturer were the only factors associated with accrual rate. These findings suggest many proffered factors for speedy trial accrual are not associated with greater enrolment rates. BMJ Publishing Group 2022-10-07 /pmc/articles/PMC9558788/ /pubmed/36207035 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-064458 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Oncology
Jenei, Kristina
Haslam, Alyson
Olivier, Timothée
Miljkovíc, Milos
Prasad, Vinay
What drives cancer clinical trial accrual? An empirical analysis of studies leading to FDA authorisation (2015–2020)
title What drives cancer clinical trial accrual? An empirical analysis of studies leading to FDA authorisation (2015–2020)
title_full What drives cancer clinical trial accrual? An empirical analysis of studies leading to FDA authorisation (2015–2020)
title_fullStr What drives cancer clinical trial accrual? An empirical analysis of studies leading to FDA authorisation (2015–2020)
title_full_unstemmed What drives cancer clinical trial accrual? An empirical analysis of studies leading to FDA authorisation (2015–2020)
title_short What drives cancer clinical trial accrual? An empirical analysis of studies leading to FDA authorisation (2015–2020)
title_sort what drives cancer clinical trial accrual? an empirical analysis of studies leading to fda authorisation (2015–2020)
topic Oncology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9558788/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36207035
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-064458
work_keys_str_mv AT jeneikristina whatdrivescancerclinicaltrialaccrualanempiricalanalysisofstudiesleadingtofdaauthorisation20152020
AT haslamalyson whatdrivescancerclinicaltrialaccrualanempiricalanalysisofstudiesleadingtofdaauthorisation20152020
AT oliviertimothee whatdrivescancerclinicaltrialaccrualanempiricalanalysisofstudiesleadingtofdaauthorisation20152020
AT miljkovicmilos whatdrivescancerclinicaltrialaccrualanempiricalanalysisofstudiesleadingtofdaauthorisation20152020
AT prasadvinay whatdrivescancerclinicaltrialaccrualanempiricalanalysisofstudiesleadingtofdaauthorisation20152020