Patient Benefit and Risk in Anticancer Drug Development: A Systematic Review of the Ixabepilone Trial Portfolio
Carlisle, B. G.; Mattina, J.; Zheng, T.; Kimmelman, J.
Show abstract
OBJECTIVETo describe the patient burden and benefit, and the dynamics of trial success in the development of ixabepilone--a drug that was approved in the US but not in Europe. DATA SOURCESTrials were captured by searching Embase and MEDLINE on July 27, 2015. STUDY SELECTIONInclusion: 1) primary trial reports, 2) interventional trials, 3) human subjects, 4) phase 1 to phase 3, 5) trials of ixabepilone in monotherapy or combination therapy of 6) pre-licensure cancer indications. Exclusion: 1) secondary reports, 2) interim results, 3) meta-analyses, 4) retrospective/observational studies, 5) laboratory analyses (ex vivo tissues), 6) reviews, 7) letters, editorials, guidelines, interviews, abstract-only and poster presentations. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESISData were independently double-extracted and differences between coders were reconciled by discussion. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESWe measured risk using the number of 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. RESULTSWe identified 39 publications of ixabepilone monotherapy and 23 primary publications of combination therapy, representing 5615 patients and 1598 patient-years of involvement over 11 years and involving 17 different malignancies. In total, 830 patients receiving ixabepilone experienced objective tumour response (16%, 95% CI 12.5%-20.1%), and 74 died from drug-related toxicites (2.2%, 95% CI 1.6%-2.9%). Responding indications and combinations were identified very quickly; thereafter, the search for additional responding indications or combinations did not lead to labelling additions. A total of 11 "uninformative" trials were found, representing 27% of studies testing efficacy, 208 grade 3-4 events and 226 patient-years of involvement (21% and 26% of the portfolio total, respectively). After the European Medicines Agency rejected ixabepilone for licensing, all further trial activity involving ixabepilone was pursued outside of Europe. DISCUSSIONRisk/benefit for patients who enrolled in trials of non-approved indications of ixabepilone did not improve over the course of the drugs development. Clinical value was discovered very quickly; however, a large fraction of trials were uninformative.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Preclinical Efficacy in Investigator’s Brochures: Stakeholders’ views on measures to improve Completeness and Robustness 91%
- People exposed to proton pump inhibitors shortly preceding COVID-19 diagnosis are not at an increased risk of subsequent hospitalizations and mortality: a nation-wide matched cohort study 88%
- Cardiovascular Complications of Modern Multiple Myeloma Therapy: Analysis of FDA Adverse Event Reporting System 87%
Similar papers in this journal
- Postmarketing commitments for novel drugs and biologics approved by the US Food and Drug Administration: a cross-sectional analysis 92%
- Phase 3, multicentre, double-blind, randomised, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study of camostat mesilate (FOY-305) for the treatment of COVID-19 (CANDLE study) 92%
- Neutrophil counts and cancer prognosis: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies 89%
Similar papers in this journal
- Exploring scalable assessment methods for terminated trials in ClinicalTrials.gov: A cohort analysis of German and Californian trials 91%
- How Informative Were Early SARS-CoV-2 Treatment and Prevention Trials? A longitudinal cohort analysis of trials registered on clinicaltrials.gov 91%
- Repurposing Therapeutics for COVID-19: Rapid Prediction of Commercially available drugs through Machine Learning and Docking 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Reproducibility and transparency characteristics of oncology research evidence 92%
- Selumetinib in combination with dexamethasone for the treatment of relapsed/refractory RAS-pathway mutated paediatric and adult acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (SeluDex): study protocol for an international, parallel-group, dose-finding with expansion phase I/II trial 92%
- CATALYST trial protocol: A multicentre, open-label, phase II, multi-arm trial for an early and accelerated evaluation of the potential treatments for COVID-19 in hospitalised adults 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Clinical Trial Evidence Supporting FDA Approval of Novel Therapeutic Agents Over Three Decades, 1995-2017: Cross-Sectional Analysis 93%
- A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of the global data involving 61,532 cancer patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection 91%
- The tumor burden of metastatic colorectal cancer patients at initial diagnosis, pre- versus post-Covid-19 lockdown 90%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.