Biased by design? Clinical trials and patient benefit in oncology
The study by Naci et al. raises numerous questions relating to the design characteristics, risks of bias and reporting of pivotal clinical trials in oncology. These findings add to the existing body of evidence that suggests drug development in oncology is not delivering the clinical benefits that are required to meet the high unmet needs of cancer patients. Lowering the evidentiary bar increases the number of drug approvals but does not appear to significantly improve overall survival or provide meaningful clinical benefit. We have proposed a number of measures to address some of the points raised – but the topic warrants increased attention from clinicians, researchers, patients and policy-makers.
A recent study by Naci et al. examined the design characteristics, risks of bias and reporting adequacies of pivotal randomized controlled trials of cancer drugs approved by the EMA in the period 2014–2016. During this period, 32 new cancer drugs were approved by the EMA on the basis of 54 pivotal trials – of these, 41 (76%) were randomized controlled trials and 13 (24%) were non-randomized or single arm trials. The study reported that 49% of trials were judged to be at high risk of bias based on aspects of their design, conduct or analysis.
Furthermore, only 10 (26%) randomized controlled trials measured overall survival as a primary end point, with the majority of trials evaluating surrogate metrics such as progression free survival or response rates. Furthermore, there were also discrepancies between scientific publications and regulatory documentation, thereby raising concerns of reporting inadequacies and risks of bias in both sources of information. These findings raise serious questions regarding clinical trial design and the drug registration process, particularly with regards to patient benefits...
Click for Source
