Improving Data Collection in Pregnancy Safety Studies: Towards Standardisation of Data Elements in Pregnancy Reports from Public and Private Partners, A Contribution from the ConcePTION Project.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: The ConcePTION project aims to improve the way medication use during pregnancy is studied. This includes exploring the possibility of developing a distributed data processing and analysis infrastructure using a common data model that could form a foundational platform for future surveillance and research. A prerequisite would be that data from various data access providers (DAPs) can be harmonised according to an agreed set of standard rules concerning the structure and content of the data. To do so, a reference framework of core data elements (CDEs) recommended for primary data studies on drug safety during pregnancy was previously developed. The aim of this study was to assess the ability of several public and private DAPs using different primary data sources focusing on multiple sclerosis, as a pilot, to map their respective data variables and definitions with the CDE recommendations framework. METHODS: Four pregnancy registries (Gilenya, Novartis; Aubagio, Sanofi; the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists [OTIS]; Aubagio, Sanofi; the Dutch Pregnancy Drug Register, Lareb), two enhanced pharmacovigilance programmes (Gilenya PRIM, Novartis; MAPLE-MS, Merck Healthcare KGaA) and four Teratology Information Services (UK TIS, Jerusalem TIS, Zerifin TIS, Swiss TIS) participated in the study. The ConcePTION primary data source CDE includes 51 items covering administrative functions, the description of pregnancy, maternal medical history, maternal illnesses arising in pregnancy, delivery details, and pregnancy and infant outcomes. For each variable in the CDE, the DAPs identified whether their variables were: identical to the one mentioned in the CDE; derived; similar but with a divergent definition; or not available. RESULTS: The majority of the DAP data variables were either directly taken (85%, n = 305/357, range 73-94% between DAPs) or derived by combining different variables (12%, n = 42/357, range 0-24% between DAPs) to conform to the CDE variables and definitions. For very few of the DAP variables, alignment with the CDE items was not possible, either because of divergent definitions (1%, n = 3/357, range 0-2% between DAPs) or because the variables were not available (2%, n = 7/357, range 0-4% between DAPs). CONCLUSIONS: Data access providers participating in this study presented a very high proportion of variables matching the CDE items, indicating that alignment of definitions and harmonisation of data analysis by different stakeholders to accelerate and strengthen pregnancy pharmacovigilance safety data analyses could be feasible.

Safety experience with continued exposure to ofatumumab in patients with relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis for up to 3.5 years.

BACKGROUND: Ofatumumab is approved for the treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS). Ongoing safety reporting is crucial to understand its long-term benefit-risk profile. OBJECTIVE: Report the safety and tolerability of ofatumumab in RMS after extended treatment up to 3.5 years. METHODS: Patients completing ASCLEPIOS I/II (phase 3), APLIOS, or APOLITOS (phase 2) trials could enter ALITHIOS, a phase 3b, open-label, long-term safety study. We analyzed cumulative data of continuous ofatumumab treatment and of patients newly switched from teriflunomide. RESULTS: The safety population had 1969 patients: 1292 continuously treated with ofatumumab (median time-at-risk 35.5 months, 3253 patient-years) and 677 newly switched (median time-at-risk 18.3 months, 986 patient-years). A total of 1650 patients (83.8%) had ⩾1 adverse events and 191 (9.7%) had ⩾1 serious adverse events. No opportunistic infections or progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy events were identified; the risk of malignancies was low. Mean serum immunoglobulin (Ig) G levels remained stable. Mean IgM levels decreased but remained above the lower limit of normal in most. Serious infection incidence was low; decreased Ig levels were not associated with serious infections. CONCLUSION: In patients with up to 3.5 years' exposure, ofatumumab was well tolerated, with no new safety risks identified. These findings, with its established effectiveness, support a favorable benefit-risk profile of ofatumumab in RMS.

Survival analysis for AdVerse events with VarYing follow-up times (SAVVY)-estimation of adverse event risks.

BACKGROUND: The SAVVY project aims to improve the analyses of adverse events (AEs), whether prespecified or emerging, in clinical trials through the use of survival techniques appropriately dealing with varying follow-up times and competing events (CEs). Although statistical methodologies have advanced, in AE analyses, often the incidence proportion, the incidence density, or a non-parametric Kaplan-Meier estimator are used, which ignore either censoring or CEs. In an empirical study including randomized clinical trials from several sponsor organizations, these potential sources of bias are investigated. The main purpose is to compare the estimators that are typically used to quantify AE risk within trial arms to the non-parametric Aalen-Johansen estimator as the gold-standard for estimating cumulative AE probabilities. A follow-up paper will consider consequences when comparing safety between treatment groups. METHODS: Estimators are compared with descriptive statistics, graphical displays, and a more formal assessment using a random effects meta-analysis. The influence of different factors on the size of deviations from the gold-standard is investigated in a meta-regression. Comparisons are conducted at the maximum follow-up time and at earlier evaluation times. CEs definition does not only include death before AE but also end of follow-up for AEs due to events related to the disease course or safety of the treatment. RESULTS: Ten sponsor organizations provided 17 clinical trials including 186 types of investigated AEs. The one minus Kaplan-Meier estimator was on average about 1.2-fold larger than the Aalen-Johansen estimator and the probability transform of the incidence density ignoring CEs was even 2-fold larger. The average bias using the incidence proportion was less than 5%. Assuming constant hazards using incidence densities was hardly an issue provided that CEs were accounted for. The meta-regression showed that the bias depended mainly on the amount of censoring and on the amount of CEs. CONCLUSIONS: The choice of the estimator of the cumulative AE probability and the definition of CEs are crucial. We recommend using the Aalen-Johansen estimator with an appropriate definition of CEs whenever the risk for AEs is to be quantified and to change the guidelines accordingly.

Survival analysis for AdVerse events with VarYing follow-up times (SAVVY): Rationale and statistical concept of a meta-analytic study.

The assessment of safety is an important aspect of the evaluation of new therapies in clinical trials, with analyses of adverse events being an essential part of this. Standard methods for the analysis of adverse events such as the incidence proportion, that is the number of patients with a specific adverse event out of all patients in the treatment groups, do not account for both varying follow-up times and competing risks. Alternative approaches such as the Aalen-Johansen estimator of the cumulative incidence function have been suggested. Theoretical arguments and numerical evaluations support the application of these more advanced methodology, but as yet there is to our knowledge only insufficient empirical evidence whether these methods would lead to different conclusions in safety evaluations. The Survival analysis for AdVerse events with VarYing follow-up times (SAVVY) project strives to close this gap in evidence by conducting a meta-analytical study to assess the impact of the methodology on the conclusion of the safety assessment empirically. Here we present the rationale and statistical concept of the empirical study conducted as part of the SAVVY project. The statistical methods are presented in unified notation, and examples of their implementation in R and SAS are provided.

Quantitative assessment of adverse events in clinical trials: Comparison of methods at an interim and the final analysis.

In clinical study reports (CSRs), adverse events (AEs) are commonly summarized using the incidence proportion (IP). IPs can be calculated for all types of AEs and are often interpreted as the probability that a treated patient experiences specific AEs. Exposure time can be taken into account with time-to-event methods. Using one minus Kaplan-Meier (1-KM) is known to overestimate the AE probability in the presence of competing events (CEs). The use of a nonparametric estimator of the cumulative incidence function (CIF) has therefore been advocated as more appropriate. In this paper, we compare different methods to estimate the probability of one selected AE. In particular, we investigate whether the proposed methods provide a reasonable estimate of the AE probability at an interim analysis (IA). The characteristics of the methods in the presence of a CE are illustrated using data from a breast cancer study and we quantify the potential bias in a simulation study. At the final analysis performed for the CSR, 1-KM systematically overestimates and in most cases IP slightly underestimates the given AE probability. CIF has the lowest bias in most simulation scenarios. All methods might lead to biased estimates at the IA except for AEs with early onset. The magnitude of the bias varies with the time-to-AE and/or CE occurrence, the selection of event-specific hazards and the amount of censoring. In general, reporting AE probabilities for prespecified fixed time points is recommended.

Binimetinib versus dacarbazine in patients with advanced NRAS-mutant melanoma (NEMO): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: There are no established therapies specific for NRAS-mutant melanoma despite the emergence of immunotherapy. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of the MEK inhibitor binimetinib versus that of dacarbazine in patients with advanced NRAS-mutant melanoma. METHODS: NEMO is an ongoing, randomised, open-label phase 3 study done at 118 hospitals in 26 countries. Patients with advanced, unresectable, American Joint Committee on Cancer stage IIIC or stage IV NRAS-mutant melanoma who were previously untreated or had progressed on or after previous immunotherapy were randomised (2:1) to receive either binimetinib 45 mg orally twice daily or dacarbazine 1000 mg/m2 intravenously every 3 weeks. Randomisation was stratified by stage, performance status, and previous immunotherapy. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by blinded central review in the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done in the safety population, consisting of all patients who received at least one study drug dose and one post-baseline safety assessment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01763164 and with EudraCT, number 2012-003593-51. FINDINGS: Between Aug 19, 2013, and April 28, 2015, 402 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned, 269 to binimetinib and 133 to dacarbazine. Median follow-up was 1·7 months (IQR 1·4-4·1). Median progression-free survival was 2·8 months (95% CI 2·8-3·6) in the binimetinib group and 1·5 months (1·5-1·7) in the dacarbazine group (hazard ratio 0·62 [95% CI 0·47-0·80]; one-sided p<0·001). Grade 3-4 adverse events seen in at least 5% of patients the safety population in either group were increased creatine phosphokinase (52 [19%] of 269 patients in the binimetinib group vs none of 114 in the dacarbazine group), hypertension (20 [7%] vs two [2%]), anaemia (five [2%] vs six [5%]), and neutropenia (two [1%] vs ten [9%]). Serious adverse events (all grades) occurred in 91 (34%) patients in the binimetinib group and 25 (22%) patients in the dacarbazine group. INTERPRETATION: Binimetinib improved progression-free survival compared with dacarbazine and was tolerable. Binimetinib might represent a new treatment option for patients with NRAS-mutant melanoma after failure of immunotherapy. FUNDING: Array BioPharma and Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.

Feasibility of adding everolimus to carboplatin and paclitaxel, with or without bevacizumab, for treatment-naive, advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: One standard of care for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is paclitaxel plus carboplatin ± bevacizumab. This two-step phase I study evaluated the feasibility of adding everolimus to paclitaxel plus carboplatin ± bevacizumab for advanced NSCLC. METHODS: Adults with advanced NSCLC naive to systemic therapy were enrolled. A Bayesian dose-escalation model was used to identify feasible daily or weekly everolimus doses given with paclitaxel (200 mg/m(2) q21 days) and carboplatin (AUC 6 mg/mL/min q21 days) (step 1) and paclitaxel (200 mg/m(2) q21 days), carboplatin (AUC 6 mg/mL/min q21 days), and bevacizumab (15 mg/kg q21 days) (step 2). Primary endpoint was end-of-cycle 1 dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) rate. Secondary endpoints included safety; relative dose intensities of paclitaxel, carboplatin, and bevacizumab; pharmacokinetics; and tumor response. RESULTS: Fifty-two patients were enrolled and received everolimus 5 mg/day plus carboplatin and paclitaxel (step 1 daily; n = 13); everolimus 30 mg/week plus carboplatin and paclitaxel (step 1 weekly; n = 13); everolimus 5 mg/day plus carboplatin, paclitaxel, and bevacizumab (step 2 daily; n = 13); or everolimus 30 mg/week plus carboplatin, paclitaxel, and bevacizumab (step 2 weekly; n = 13). End-of-cycle 1 DLT rate was 16.7 % (step 1 daily), 30.8 % (step 1 weekly), 30.0 % (step 2 daily), and 16.7 % (step 2 weekly). Cycle 1 DLTs were grade 3 neutropenia, anal abscess, diarrhea, and thrombocytopenia and grade 4 myalgia, cellulitis, neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, pulmonary embolism, and thrombocytopenia. The most common adverse events were neutropenia, fatigue, anemia, and thrombocytopenia. One patient (step 2 daily) experienced complete response, 10 patients partial response. CONCLUSIONS: The feasible everolimus doses given with carboplatin and paclitaxel ± bevacizumab were 5 mg/day and 30 mg/week. Neither schedule was very well tolerated in this unselected NSCLC population.

Everolimus in advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: the clinical experience.

The incidence of neuroendocrine tumors (NET) has increased dramatically in the past 30 years. This information has revitalized basic and clinical research into the molecular biology of NET and has resulted in the recent approval of new therapies for pancreatic NET (pNET), including the oral inhibitor of the mTOR everolimus. Everolimus significantly improved progression-free survival among patients with pNET in the phase III RADIANT-3 study. Here, we review the clinical studies showing the efficacy of everolimus in pNET and summarize the translational science from these studies. To understand the mechanisms of resistance and cause of treatment failure, we compared the type of progression events observed in the everolimus and placebo arms of the RADIANT-3 study. Comparison of the everolimus arm to the placebo arm indicated the fractions of progression events due to new metastasis only (21% vs. 22%), growth of preexisting lesions only (54% vs. 49%), and new metastasis along with growth of preexisting lesions (24% vs. 27%) were similar. These results suggest that although everolimus delays disease progression in patients with pNET, patients who experience disease progression while on everolimus do not appear to have a more aggressive metastatic phenotype than those whose disease progresses while on placebo.

Everolimus and erlotinib as second- or third-line therapy in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: The epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor erlotinib is an approved treatment for chemotherapy-refractory advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Because activated epidermal growth factor receptor signals through the phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase/Akt/mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) pathway, adding the oral mTOR inhibitor everolimus to erlotinib may improve efficacy by blocking multiple components of the same pathway. We conducted a phase I study to determine feasible dosages of combination therapy with erlotinib and everolimus for previously treated metastatic or unresectable NSCLC. METHODS: Participants had advanced NSCLC progressing after two or less previous chemotherapy regimens. Feasibility of daily/weekly everolimus plus daily erlotinib was determined using a 6 + 6 dose-escalation design based on the rate of dose-limiting toxicities. Antitumor activity was assessed by the Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors study. RESULTS: Of the 94 patients enrolled, 90% had stage IV NSCLC, 19% never smoked, and 15% were current smokers. Eighty-nine patients experienced one or more adverse events possibly related to any study medication. The most common dose-limiting toxicities were stomatitis (n = 5), rash (n = 4), and diarrhea (n = 3). Maximum tolerated doses were everolimus 5 mg per day or 50 mg per week plus erlotinib 150 mg per day. In daily everolimus cohorts (n = 74), nine patients achieved a complete/partial response and 28 had stable disease (median duration disease control, 9.3 months). In weekly everolimus cohorts (n = 20), no tumor response was observed; seven patients had stable disease (median duration, 9.6 months). CONCLUSIONS: Combination therapy with everolimus 5 mg per day or 50 mg per week and erlotinib 150 mg per day provided acceptable tolerability and disease control. A randomized phase II study evaluating this combination in comparison with erlotinib alone is complete and is being analyzed.

Everolimus plus octreotide long-acting repeatable for the treatment of advanced neuroendocrine tumours associated with carcinoid syndrome (RADIANT-2): a randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Everolimus, an oral inhibitor of the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR), has shown antitumour activity in patients with advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours. We aimed to assess the combination of everolimus plus octreotide long-acting repeatable (LAR) in patients with low-grade or intermediate-grade neuroendocrine tumours (carcinoid). METHODS: We did a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study comparing 10 mg per day oral everolimus with placebo, both in conjunction with 30 mg intramuscular octreotide LAR every 28 days. Randomisation was by interactive voice response systems. Participants were aged 18 years or older, with low-grade or intermediate-grade advanced (unresectable locally advanced or distant metastatic) neuroendocrine tumours, and disease progression established by radiological assessment within the past 12 months. Our primary endpoint was progression-free survival. Adjusted for two interim analyses, the prespecified boundary at final analysis was p≤0·0246. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00412061. FINDINGS: 429 individuals were randomly assigned to study groups; 357 participants discontinued study treatment and one was lost to follow-up. Median progression-free survival by central review was 16·4 (95% CI 13·7-21·2) months in the everolimus plus octreotide LAR group and 11·3 (8·4-14·6) months in the placebo plus octreotide LAR group (hazard ratio 0·77, 95% CI 0·59-1·00; one-sided log-rank test p=0·026). Drug-related adverse events (everolimus plus octreotide LAR vs placebo plus octreotide LAR) were mostly grade 1 or 2, and adverse events of all grades included stomatitis (62%vs 14%), rash (37%vs 12%), fatigue (31%vs 23%), and diarrhoea (27%vs 16%). INTERPRETATION: Everolimus plus octreotide LAR, compared with placebo plus octreotide LAR, improved progression-free survival in patients with advanced neuroendocrine tumours associated with carcinoid syndrome. FUNDING: Novartis Pharmaceuticals.