Benjamin Carlisle1, Nadine Demko1, Georgina Freeman1, Amanda Hakala1, Nathalie MacKinnon1, Tim Ramsay1, Spencer Hey1, Alex John London1, Jonathan Kimmelman2. 1. Studies of Translation, Ethics and Medicine (STREAM), Biomedical Ethics Unit, McGill University, Montréal, QC, Canada (BC, ND, GF, AH, NM, SH, JK); University of Ottawa, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada (TR); Program On Regulation, Therapeutics, And Law (PORTAL), Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA (SH); Department of Philosophy and Center for Ethics and Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA (AJL). 2. Studies of Translation, Ethics and Medicine (STREAM), Biomedical Ethics Unit, McGill University, Montréal, QC, Canada (BC, ND, GF, AH, NM, SH, JK); University of Ottawa, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada (TR); Program On Regulation, Therapeutics, And Law (PORTAL), Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA (SH); Department of Philosophy and Center for Ethics and Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA (AJL). jonathan.kimmelman@mcgill.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Little is known about the total patient burden associated with clinical development and where burdens fall most heavily during a drug development program. Our goal was to quantify the total patient burden/benefit in developing a new drug. METHODS: We measured risk using drug-related adverse events that were grade 3 or higher, benefit by objective response rate, and trial outcomes by whether studies met their primary endpoint with acceptable safety. The differences in risk (death rate) and benefit (overall response rate) between industry and nonindustry trials were analyzed with an inverse-variance weighted fixed effects meta-analysis implemented as a weighted regression analysis. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: We identified 103 primary publications of sunitinib monotherapy, representing 9092 patients and 3991 patient-years of involvement over 10 years and 32 different malignancies. In total, 1052 patients receiving sunitinib monotherapy experienced objective tumor response (15.7% of intent-to-treat population, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 15.3% to 16.0%), 98 died from drug-related toxicities (1.08%, 95% CI = 1.02% to 1.14%), and at least 1245 experienced grade 3-4 drug-related toxicities (13.7%, 95% CI = 13.3% to 14.1%). Risk/benefit worsened as the development program matured, with several instances of replicated negative studies and almost no positive trials after the first responding malignancies were discovered. CONCLUSIONS: Even for a successful drug, the risk/benefit balance of trials was similar to phase I cancer trials in general. Sunitinib monotherapy development showed worsening risk/benefit, and the testing of new indications responded slowly to evidence that sunitinib monotherapy would not extend to new malignancies. Research decision-making should draw on evidence from whole research programs rather than a narrow band of studies in the same indication.
BACKGROUND: Little is known about the total patient burden associated with clinical development and where burdens fall most heavily during a drug development program. Our goal was to quantify the total patient burden/benefit in developing a new drug. METHODS: We measured risk using drug-related adverse events that were grade 3 or higher, benefit by objective response rate, and trial outcomes by whether studies met their primary endpoint with acceptable safety. The differences in risk (death rate) and benefit (overall response rate) between industry and nonindustry trials were analyzed with an inverse-variance weighted fixed effects meta-analysis implemented as a weighted regression analysis. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: We identified 103 primary publications of sunitinib monotherapy, representing 9092 patients and 3991 patient-years of involvement over 10 years and 32 different malignancies. In total, 1052 patients receiving sunitinib monotherapy experienced objective tumor response (15.7% of intent-to-treat population, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 15.3% to 16.0%), 98 died from drug-related toxicities (1.08%, 95% CI = 1.02% to 1.14%), and at least 1245 experienced grade 3-4 drug-related toxicities (13.7%, 95% CI = 13.3% to 14.1%). Risk/benefit worsened as the development program matured, with several instances of replicated negative studies and almost no positive trials after the first responding malignancies were discovered. CONCLUSIONS: Even for a successful drug, the risk/benefit balance of trials was similar to phase I cancer trials in general. Sunitinib monotherapy development showed worsening risk/benefit, and the testing of new indications responded slowly to evidence that sunitinib monotherapy would not extend to new malignancies. Research decision-making should draw on evidence from whole research programs rather than a narrow band of studies in the same indication.
Authors: P Therasse; S G Arbuck; E A Eisenhauer; J Wanders; R S Kaplan; L Rubinstein; J Verweij; M Van Glabbeke; A T van Oosterom; M C Christian; S G Gwyther Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-02-02 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Hye Ryun Kim; Hyung Soon Park; Woo Sun Kwon; Ji Hyun Lee; Yusuke Tanigawara; Sun Min Lim; Hyo Song Kim; Sang Jun Shin; Jung Bae Ahn; Sun Young Rha Journal: Cancer Chemother Pharmacol Date: 2013-09-08 Impact factor: 3.333
Authors: M Moehler; A Mueller; J T Hartmann; M P Ebert; S E Al-Batran; P Reimer; M Weihrauch; F Lordick; T Trarbach; S Biesterfeld; M Kabisch; D Wachtlin; P R Galle Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2011-05-09 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Thomas G Roberts; Bernardo H Goulart; Lee Squitieri; Sarah C Stallings; Elkan F Halpern; Bruce A Chabner; G Scott Gazelle; Stan N Finkelstein; Jeffrey W Clark Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-11-03 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Eric Raymond; Laetitia Dahan; Jean-Luc Raoul; Yung-Jue Bang; Ivan Borbath; Catherine Lombard-Bohas; Juan Valle; Peter Metrakos; Denis Smith; Aaron Vinik; Jen-Shi Chen; Dieter Hörsch; Pascal Hammel; Bertram Wiedenmann; Eric Van Cutsem; Shem Patyna; Dongrui Ray Lu; Carolyn Blanckmeister; Richard Chao; Philippe Ruszniewski Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-02-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: G Sonpavde; P O Periman; D Bernold; D Weckstein; M T Fleming; M D Galsky; W R Berry; F Zhan; K A Boehm; L Asmar; T E Hutson Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2009-07-24 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Iain Chalmers; Michael B Bracken; Ben Djulbegovic; Silvio Garattini; Jonathan Grant; A Metin Gülmezoglu; David W Howells; John P A Ioannidis; Sandy Oliver Journal: Lancet Date: 2014-01-08 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Ahmed M Al-Abd; Abdulmohsin J Alamoudi; Ashraf B Abdel-Naim; Thikryat A Neamatallah; Osama M Ashour Journal: J Adv Res Date: 2017-06-27 Impact factor: 10.479
Authors: Aurelio Moya-García; Tolulope Adeyelu; Felix A Kruger; Natalie L Dawson; Jon G Lees; John P Overington; Christine Orengo; Juan A G Ranea Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2017-08-31 Impact factor: 4.379