Nalinie Joharatnam-Hogan1,2, Leo Alexandre3,4, James Yarmolinsky5, Blossom Lake6, Nigel Capps6, Richard M Martin7,8, Alistair Ring9, Fay Cafferty10, Ruth E Langley10. 1. MRC Clinical Trials Unit at University College London, 90 High Holborn, London, WC1V 6LJ, UK. n.j-hogan@ucl.ac.uk. 2. Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, UK. n.j-hogan@ucl.ac.uk. 3. Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital NHS Trust, Norwich, UK. 4. Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK. 5. MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. 6. The Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust, Shrewsbury, UK. 7. Medical Research Council (MRC) Integrative Epidemiology Unit; Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. 8. National Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Bristol, UK. 9. Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, UK. 10. MRC Clinical Trials Unit at University College London, 90 High Holborn, London, WC1V 6LJ, UK.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Repurposing established medicines for a new therapeutic indication potentially has important global and societal impact. The high costs and slow pace of new drug development have increased interest in more cost-effective repurposed drugs, particularly in the cancer arena. The conventional drug development pathway and evidence framework are not designed for drug repurposing and there is currently no consensus on establishing the evidence base before embarking on a large, resource intensive, potential practice changing phase III randomised controlled trial (RCT). Numerous observational studies have suggested a potential role for statins as a repurposed drug for cancer chemoprevention and therapy, and we review the strength of the cumulative evidence here. RECENT FINDINGS: In the setting of cancer, a potential repurposed drug, like statins, typically goes through a cyclical history, with initial use for several years in another disease setting, prior to epidemiological research identifying a possible chemo-protective effect. However, further information is required, including review of RCT data in the initial disease setting with exploration of cancer outcomes. Additionally, more contemporary methods should be considered, such as Mendelian randomization and pharmaco-epidemiological research with "target" trial design emulation using electronic health records. Pre-clinical and traditional observational data potentially support the role of statins in the treatment of cancer; however, randomised trial evidence is not supportive. Evaluation of contemporary methods provides little added support for the use of statin therapy in cancer. We provide complementary evidence of alternative study designs to enable a robust critical appraisal from a number of sources of the go/no-go decision for a prospective phase III RCT of statins in the treatment of cancer.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Repurposing established medicines for a new therapeutic indication potentially has important global and societal impact. The high costs and slow pace of new drug development have increased interest in more cost-effective repurposed drugs, particularly in the cancer arena. The conventional drug development pathway and evidence framework are not designed for drug repurposing and there is currently no consensus on establishing the evidence base before embarking on a large, resource intensive, potential practice changing phase III randomised controlled trial (RCT). Numerous observational studies have suggested a potential role for statins as a repurposed drug for cancer chemoprevention and therapy, and we review the strength of the cumulative evidence here. RECENT FINDINGS: In the setting of cancer, a potential repurposed drug, like statins, typically goes through a cyclical history, with initial use for several years in another disease setting, prior to epidemiological research identifying a possible chemo-protective effect. However, further information is required, including review of RCT data in the initial disease setting with exploration of cancer outcomes. Additionally, more contemporary methods should be considered, such as Mendelian randomization and pharmaco-epidemiological research with "target" trial design emulation using electronic health records. Pre-clinical and traditional observational data potentially support the role of statins in the treatment of cancer; however, randomised trial evidence is not supportive. Evaluation of contemporary methods provides little added support for the use of statin therapy in cancer. We provide complementary evidence of alternative study designs to enable a robust critical appraisal from a number of sources of the go/no-go decision for a prospective phase III RCT of statins in the treatment of cancer.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cancer; Drug development; Drug repurposing; Statins
Authors: Deirdre Cronin-Fenton; Timothy L Lash; Thomas P Ahern; Per Damkier; Peer Christiansen; Bent Ejlertsen; Henrik T Sørensen Journal: Acta Oncol Date: 2017-12-05 Impact factor: 4.089
Authors: S Kawata; E Yamasaki; T Nagase; Y Inui; N Ito; Y Matsuda; M Inada; S Tamura; S Noda; Y Imai; Y Matsuzawa Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2001-04-06 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Janusz A Z Jankowski; John de Caestecker; Sharon B Love; Gavin Reilly; Peter Watson; Scott Sanders; Yeng Ang; Danielle Morris; Pradeep Bhandari; Claire Brooks; Stephen Attwood; Rebecca Harrison; Hugh Barr; Paul Moayyedi Journal: Lancet Date: 2018-07-26 Impact factor: 202.731
Authors: Carolina Bonilla; Sarah J Lewis; Mari-Anne Rowlands; Tom R Gaunt; George Davey Smith; David Gunnell; Tom Palmer; Jenny L Donovan; Freddie C Hamdy; David E Neal; Rosalind Eeles; Doug Easton; Zsofia Kote-Jarai; Ali Amin Al Olama; Sara Benlloch; Kenneth Muir; Graham G Giles; Fredrik Wiklund; Henrik Grönberg; Christopher A Haiman; Johanna Schleutker; Børge G Nordestgaard; Ruth C Travis; Nora Pashayan; Kay-Tee Khaw; Janet L Stanford; William J Blot; Stephen Thibodeau; Christiane Maier; Adam S Kibel; Cezary Cybulski; Lisa Cannon-Albright; Hermann Brenner; Jong Park; Radka Kaneva; Jyotsna Batra; Manuel R Teixeira; Hardev Pandha; Mark Lathrop; Richard M Martin; Jeff M P Holly Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2016-06-23 Impact factor: 7.396