Talal Hilal1, Mohamad Bassam Sonbol1, Vinay Prasad2,3,4. 1. Division of Hematology and Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona. 2. Division of Hematology Oncology, Knight Cancer Institute, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. 3. Department of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. 4. Senior Scholar in the Center for Health Care Ethics, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: To date, an empirical evaluation of the quality of control arms in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) leading to anticancer drug approvals by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not been undertaken. OBJECTIVE: We sought to estimate the percentage of RCTs that used a control arm deemed suboptimal and led to FDA approval of anticancer drugs from January 1, 2013, to July 31, 2018. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This quality improvement study included 143 anticancer drug approvals granted by the FDA from January 1, 2013, to July 31, 2018. All approvals based on single-arm studies (48 approvals) were excluded. Approvals based on RCTs were further investigated and each trial was analyzed for design, time of patient accrual, control arm, and primary end point. Standard-of-care therapy was determined by evaluating the literature and published guidelines 1 year prior to the start of trial enrollment. The percentage of approvals based on RCTs that used suboptimal control arms was then calculated. The quality of the control arm was deemed suboptimal if the choice of control agent was restricted to exclude a recommended agent, the control arm was specified but the recommended agent was unspecified, and if prior RCT data had demonstrated that the control agent was inferior to an available alternative. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Estimated percentage of RCTs that used suboptimal control arms that led to FDA approval of anticancer agents between January 1, 2013, to July 31, 2018. RESULTS: A total of 145 studies that led to 143 drug approvals between January 1, 2013, and July 31, 2018, were included. Of these studies, 48 single-arm studies were excluded. The remaining 97 studies led to 95 drug approvals. Of these 95 approvals, 16 (17%) were based on RCTs with suboptimal control arms; 15 were international trials, and 1 was conducted in the United States. The type of approval was regular in 15 trials and accelerated in 1 trial. When categorized by the nature of suboptimal control, 4 (25%) trials omitted active treatment in control arm by limiting investigator's choice, 11 (63%) trials omitted active treatment in the control arm by using a control agent known to be inferior to other available agents or not allowing combinations, and 1 (13%) trial used a previously used treatment in the control arm with a known lack of benefit associated with reexposure. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Although anticancer drug approvals are increasing, a proportion of these drugs are reaching the market without proven superiority to what is considered the standard of care at the time of patient enrollment in pivotal trials. The choice of control arm should be optimized to ensure that new anticancer agents being marketed are truly superior to what most clinicians would prescribe outside a clinical trial setting.
IMPORTANCE: To date, an empirical evaluation of the quality of control arms in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) leading to anticancer drug approvals by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not been undertaken. OBJECTIVE: We sought to estimate the percentage of RCTs that used a control arm deemed suboptimal and led to FDA approval of anticancer drugs from January 1, 2013, to July 31, 2018. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This quality improvement study included 143 anticancer drug approvals granted by the FDA from January 1, 2013, to July 31, 2018. All approvals based on single-arm studies (48 approvals) were excluded. Approvals based on RCTs were further investigated and each trial was analyzed for design, time of patient accrual, control arm, and primary end point. Standard-of-care therapy was determined by evaluating the literature and published guidelines 1 year prior to the start of trial enrollment. The percentage of approvals based on RCTs that used suboptimal control arms was then calculated. The quality of the control arm was deemed suboptimal if the choice of control agent was restricted to exclude a recommended agent, the control arm was specified but the recommended agent was unspecified, and if prior RCT data had demonstrated that the control agent was inferior to an available alternative. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Estimated percentage of RCTs that used suboptimal control arms that led to FDA approval of anticancer agents between January 1, 2013, to July 31, 2018. RESULTS: A total of 145 studies that led to 143 drug approvals between January 1, 2013, and July 31, 2018, were included. Of these studies, 48 single-arm studies were excluded. The remaining 97 studies led to 95 drug approvals. Of these 95 approvals, 16 (17%) were based on RCTs with suboptimal control arms; 15 were international trials, and 1 was conducted in the United States. The type of approval was regular in 15 trials and accelerated in 1 trial. When categorized by the nature of suboptimal control, 4 (25%) trials omitted active treatment in control arm by limiting investigator's choice, 11 (63%) trials omitted active treatment in the control arm by using a control agent known to be inferior to other available agents or not allowing combinations, and 1 (13%) trial used a previously used treatment in the control arm with a known lack of benefit associated with reexposure. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Although anticancer drug approvals are increasing, a proportion of these drugs are reaching the market without proven superiority to what is considered the standard of care at the time of patient enrollment in pivotal trials. The choice of control arm should be optimized to ensure that new anticancer agents being marketed are truly superior to what most clinicians would prescribe outside a clinical trial setting.
Authors: Dong-Wan Kim; Marcello Tiseo; Myung-Ju Ahn; Karen L Reckamp; Karin Holmskov Hansen; Sang-We Kim; Rudolf M Huber; Howard L West; Harry J M Groen; Maximilian J Hochmair; Natasha B Leighl; Scott N Gettinger; Corey J Langer; Luis G Paz-Ares Rodríguez; Egbert F Smit; Edward S Kim; William Reichmann; Frank G Haluska; David Kerstein; D Ross Camidge Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2017-05-05 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Antonio Palumbo; Asher Chanan-Khan; Katja Weisel; Ajay K Nooka; Tamas Masszi; Meral Beksac; Ivan Spicka; Vania Hungria; Markus Munder; Maria V Mateos; Tomer M Mark; Ming Qi; Jordan Schecter; Himal Amin; Xiang Qin; William Deraedt; Tahamtan Ahmadi; Andrew Spencer; Pieter Sonneveld Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-08-25 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Charles S Fuchs; Jiri Tomasek; Cho Jae Yong; Filip Dumitru; Rodolfo Passalacqua; Chanchal Goswami; Howard Safran; Lucas Vieira Dos Santos; Giuseppe Aprile; David R Ferry; Bohuslav Melichar; Mustapha Tehfe; Eldar Topuzov; John Raymond Zalcberg; Ian Chau; William Campbell; Choondal Sivanandan; Joanna Pikiel; Minori Koshiji; Yanzhi Hsu; Astra M Liepa; Ling Gao; Jonathan D Schwartz; Josep Tabernero Journal: Lancet Date: 2013-10-03 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Laurie H Sehn; Neil Chua; Jiri Mayer; Gregg Dueck; Marek Trněný; Kamal Bouabdallah; Nathan Fowler; Vincent Delwail; Oliver Press; Gilles Salles; John Gribben; Anne Lennard; Pieternella J Lugtenburg; Natalie Dimier; Elisabeth Wassner-Fritsch; Günter Fingerle-Rowson; Bruce D Cheson Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2016-06-23 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: James C Yao; Nicola Fazio; Simron Singh; Roberto Buzzoni; Carlo Carnaghi; Edward Wolin; Jiri Tomasek; Markus Raderer; Harald Lahner; Maurizio Voi; Lida Bubuteishvili Pacaud; Nicolas Rouyrre; Carolin Sachs; Juan W Valle; Gianfranco Delle Fave; Eric Van Cutsem; Margot Tesselaar; Yasuhiro Shimada; Do-Youn Oh; Jonathan Strosberg; Matthew H Kulke; Marianne E Pavel Journal: Lancet Date: 2015-12-17 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Philippe Moreau; Tamás Masszi; Norbert Grzasko; Nizar J Bahlis; Markus Hansson; Ludek Pour; Irwindeep Sandhu; Peter Ganly; Bartrum W Baker; Sharon R Jackson; Anne-Marie Stoppa; David R Simpson; Peter Gimsing; Antonio Palumbo; Laurent Garderet; Michele Cavo; Shaji Kumar; Cyrille Touzeau; Francis K Buadi; Jacob P Laubach; Deborah T Berg; Jianchang Lin; Alessandra Di Bacco; Ai-Min Hui; Helgi van de Velde; Paul G Richardson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-04-28 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Aviv Ladanie; Andreas M Schmitt; Benjamin Speich; Florian Naudet; Arnav Agarwal; Tiago V Pereira; Francesco Sclafani; Amanda K Herbrand; Matthias Briel; Juan Martin-Liberal; Thomas Schmid; Hannah Ewald; John P A Ioannidis; Heiner C Bucher; Benjamin Kasenda; Lars G Hemkens Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2020-11-02
Authors: Amanda Katherina Herbrand; Andreas M Schmitt; Matthias Briel; Hannah Ewald; Marius Goldkuhle; Stefan Diem; Anouk Hoogkamer; Markus Joerger; Giusi Moffa; Urban Novak; Lars G Hemkens; Benjamin Kasenda Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-03-01
Authors: Alberto Farina; Federico Moro; Frederick Fasslrinner; Annahita Sedghi; Miluska Bromley; Timo Siepmann Journal: Pharmacol Res Perspect Date: 2021-08