Assessing patient risk, benefit and outcomes in drug development: an observational study of regorafenib clinical trials

Brody Dennis, Chance Bratten, Griffin K. Hughes, Andriana Peña, Ryan McIntire, Chase Ladd, Brooke Gardner, William Nowlin, Reagan Livingston, J. Tuia, A. Haslam, Vinay Prasad, Matt Vassar
{"title":"Assessing patient risk, benefit and outcomes in drug development: an observational study of regorafenib clinical trials","authors":"Brody Dennis, Chance Bratten, Griffin K. Hughes, Andriana Peña, Ryan McIntire, Chase Ladd, Brooke Gardner, William Nowlin, Reagan Livingston, J. Tuia, A. Haslam, Vinay Prasad, Matt Vassar","doi":"10.1136/bmjonc-2023-000229","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Our objective of this study was to analyse all oncological clinical trials using regorafenib to create a complete risk/benefit profile for the drug.Creating a novel chemotherapy is costly both in time and capital spent for drug manufacturers. To regenerate what they’ve spent, drug manufacturers may attempt to repurpose their medications for new indications via clinical trials. To fully understand the risk/benefits in comparison to a drug’s efficacy, a pooled analysis must be completed.We screened PubMed, Embase, Cochrane (CENTRAL) and ClinicalTrials.gov for trials of regorafenib used to treat solid cancers. Next, we extracted median progression-free survival and overall survival in months, adverse event rates and objective response rate (ORR). Studies were deemed positive, negative or indeterminate based on their pre-specified endpoints and tolerability.56 clinical trials were included in our final sample, with 4960 total participants across 13 indications. Most studies (44 of 56; 78.75%) were non-blinded, and a majority were non-randomised (41 of 56; 73.21%). Trials for colorectal cancer started out as positive but became more negative over time. Cumulative risk to patients increased over time while ORR stayed consistently low.Our findings suggest that since regorafenib’s original Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval, the risk profile for its original indication increased. The amount of non-randomised, single-arm trials in our sample size was concerning, indicating that higher quality research must be conducted. Our results propose that regorafenib’s efficacy and safety may be more impactful in cancers other than its FDA approvals.","PeriodicalId":505335,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Oncology","volume":"139 ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjonc-2023-000229","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Our objective of this study was to analyse all oncological clinical trials using regorafenib to create a complete risk/benefit profile for the drug.Creating a novel chemotherapy is costly both in time and capital spent for drug manufacturers. To regenerate what they’ve spent, drug manufacturers may attempt to repurpose their medications for new indications via clinical trials. To fully understand the risk/benefits in comparison to a drug’s efficacy, a pooled analysis must be completed.We screened PubMed, Embase, Cochrane (CENTRAL) and ClinicalTrials.gov for trials of regorafenib used to treat solid cancers. Next, we extracted median progression-free survival and overall survival in months, adverse event rates and objective response rate (ORR). Studies were deemed positive, negative or indeterminate based on their pre-specified endpoints and tolerability.56 clinical trials were included in our final sample, with 4960 total participants across 13 indications. Most studies (44 of 56; 78.75%) were non-blinded, and a majority were non-randomised (41 of 56; 73.21%). Trials for colorectal cancer started out as positive but became more negative over time. Cumulative risk to patients increased over time while ORR stayed consistently low.Our findings suggest that since regorafenib’s original Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval, the risk profile for its original indication increased. The amount of non-randomised, single-arm trials in our sample size was concerning, indicating that higher quality research must be conducted. Our results propose that regorafenib’s efficacy and safety may be more impactful in cancers other than its FDA approvals.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估药物开发中的患者风险、获益和结果:瑞戈非尼临床试验观察研究
本研究的目的是分析使用瑞戈非尼的所有肿瘤临床试验,为该药物建立完整的风险/效益档案。为了收回成本,药品生产商可能会尝试通过临床试验将药物重新用于新的适应症。为了充分了解药物疗效的风险/收益比较,必须完成汇总分析。我们在 PubMed、Embase、Cochrane (CENTRAL) 和 ClinicalTrials.gov 中筛选了用于治疗实体瘤的瑞戈非尼的试验。然后,我们提取了以月为单位的中位无进展生存期和总生存期、不良事件发生率和客观反应率(ORR)。我们的最终样本包括 56 项临床试验,共有 4960 名参与者,涉及 13 种适应症。大多数研究(56 项中的 44 项,占 78.75%)是非盲法研究,大多数是非随机研究(56 项中的 41 项,占 73.21%)。针对结直肠癌的试验一开始是积极的,但随着时间的推移变得越来越消极。我们的研究结果表明,自瑞戈非尼最初获得美国食品药品管理局(FDA)批准以来,其原始适应症的风险情况有所增加。在我们的样本量中,非随机、单臂试验的数量令人担忧,这表明必须开展更高质量的研究。我们的研究结果表明,瑞戈非尼的疗效和安全性可能会对美国食品药品管理局批准的癌症以外的癌症产生更大的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Assessing the rates of false-positive ovarian cancer screenings and surgical interventions associated with screening tools: a systematic review Association between rheumatoid arthritis and risk of radiotherapy toxicity: a systematic review Novel machine learning algorithm in risk prediction model for pan-cancer risk: application in a large prospective cohort Addressing the hidden toxicities of cancer: a call to action for clinicians, researchers and clinical trialists Association between neutrophil-to-eosinophil ratio and efficacy outcomes with avelumab plus axitinib or sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: post hoc analyses from the JAVELIN Renal 101 trial
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1