Jia Luo1, Go Nishikawa1, Vinay Prasad2,3,4. 1. Department of Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, 97239, USA. 2. Division of Hematology Oncology, Knight Cancer Institute, Oregon Health and Science University, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Road, Portland, OR, 97239, USA. prasad@ohsu.edu. 3. Department of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, 97239, USA. prasad@ohsu.edu. 4. Senior Scholar in the Center for Health Care Ethics, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, 97239, USA. prasad@ohsu.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Since 1997, several monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) targeting the same receptor or its ligand have been approved for use in oncology. However, no studies have summarized head-to-head trials of these mAbs. METHODS: Systematic search of the biomedical literature and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized studies comparing mAbs targeting the same receptor or its ligand that have been completed and published, completed and unpublished, or ongoing. We extracted trial characteristics including phase, indication, enrollment or target enrollment, randomization, primary endpoint and sponsor. RESULTS: Twenty-two approved cancer mAbs had at least one other approved mAb targeting the same receptor or its ligand, totaling 41 different oncology indications. These include 5 anti-CD20 mAbs, 5 anti-PD1/PDL1 mAbs, 4 anti-HER2 mAbs, 3 anti-EGFR mAbs, 3 anti-VEGF mAbs and 2 anti-IL6/IL6R mAbs. Seventeen were completed and published and 14 were unpublished or ongoing trials. The completed and published trials enrolled 11,373 patients and tested 13 mAbs (13/22, 59%). Additionally, 13 (76%) contained drugs manufactured by the same company and 13 (76%) reached conclusions felt to be favorable to the sponsor. Of the 14 ongoing/completed unpublished trials, there is a total target enrollment of 3404 patients with 9 mAbs tested. Of these, 86% (12/14) are testing mAbs manufactured by the same company and 71% (10/14) are sponsored by the company that made the drug being tested. CONCLUSIONS: Most trials test drugs manufactured or sponsored by the same company. An overview of clinical trials agenda may lead to more uniform testing, helping clinicians make better evidence-informed prescribing decisions.
BACKGROUND: Since 1997, several monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) targeting the same receptor or its ligand have been approved for use in oncology. However, no studies have summarized head-to-head trials of these mAbs. METHODS: Systematic search of the biomedical literature and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized studies comparing mAbs targeting the same receptor or its ligand that have been completed and published, completed and unpublished, or ongoing. We extracted trial characteristics including phase, indication, enrollment or target enrollment, randomization, primary endpoint and sponsor. RESULTS: Twenty-two approved cancer mAbs had at least one other approved mAb targeting the same receptor or its ligand, totaling 41 different oncology indications. These include 5 anti-CD20 mAbs, 5 anti-PD1/PDL1 mAbs, 4 anti-HER2 mAbs, 3 anti-EGFR mAbs, 3 anti-VEGF mAbs and 2 anti-IL6/IL6R mAbs. Seventeen were completed and published and 14 were unpublished or ongoing trials. The completed and published trials enrolled 11,373 patients and tested 13 mAbs (13/22, 59%). Additionally, 13 (76%) contained drugs manufactured by the same company and 13 (76%) reached conclusions felt to be favorable to the sponsor. Of the 14 ongoing/completed unpublished trials, there is a total target enrollment of 3404 patients with 9 mAbs tested. Of these, 86% (12/14) are testing mAbs manufactured by the same company and 71% (10/14) are sponsored by the company that made the drug being tested. CONCLUSIONS: Most trials test drugs manufactured or sponsored by the same company. An overview of clinical trials agenda may lead to more uniform testing, helping clinicians make better evidence-informed prescribing decisions.
Authors: Valentin Goede; Kirsten Fischer; Raymonde Busch; Anja Engelke; Barbara Eichhorst; Clemens M Wendtner; Tatiana Chagorova; Javier de la Serna; Marie-Sarah Dilhuydy; Thomas Illmer; Stephen Opat; Carolyn J Owen; Olga Samoylova; Karl-Anton Kreuzer; Stephan Stilgenbauer; Hartmut Döhner; Anton W Langerak; Matthias Ritgen; Michael Kneba; Elina Asikanius; Kathryn Humphrey; Michael Wenger; Michael Hallek Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-01-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Maria Elena Flacco; Lamberto Manzoli; Stefania Boccia; Lorenzo Capasso; Katina Aleksovska; Annalisa Rosso; Giacomo Scaioli; Corrado De Vito; Roberta Siliquini; Paolo Villari; John P A Ioannidis Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2015-02-07 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Thomas E Witzig; Leo I Gordon; Fernando Cabanillas; Myron S Czuczman; Christos Emmanouilides; Robin Joyce; Brad L Pohlman; Nancy L Bartlett; Gregory A Wiseman; Norman Padre; Antonio J Grillo-López; Pratik Multani; Christine A White Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-05-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Adriana Navas; Olga Fernández; Carolina Gallego-Marín; María Del Mar Castro; Mariana Rosales-Chilama; Julieth Murillo; Alexandra Cossio; Diane McMahon-Pratt; Nancy Gore Saravia; María Adelaida Gómez Journal: Infect Immun Date: 2020-02-20 Impact factor: 3.441