ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Key opinion leader (KOL) interviews were conducted by the Benefit-Risk Assessment Planning (BRAP) Taskforce to seek expert opinion mainly from industry and regulatory bodies, about the current status and future direction of benefit-risk assessment (BRA) planning in the lifecycle of medical product development. The findings from these interviews are intended to help communication concerning planning for BRA between industry and regulators and shape future guidance. METHODS: Key opinion leader interviews consisted of 5 questions related to BRA planning, which were administered to volunteers (mainly clinicians and statisticians) within a pool of experienced pharmaceutical and medical device professionals representing academia, industry, regulatory agencies and a patient group. The interviewees' responses to the 5 questions were summarized. To analyze the qualitative data, a Coding System was developed to label themes arising from the interviews. The key findings from the interviews were summarized into a Master Template. A quantitative analysis based on descriptive statistics was also conducted. RESULTS: Of the 27 interviewees, there were 11 professionals from regulatory agencies, 11 from industry, 4 from academia and 1 from a patient advocacy group. Key findings based on the comments provided by 48% of the interviewees indicated the need of incorporating BRA into other (e.g., existing) processes with the importance of alignment between processes being stressed in the comments provided by 59% of the interviewees. Commencing BRA early in the product lifecycle was emphasized in comments provided by 44% of the interviewees. Among other needs identified were an appropriate contextualization of benefits and risks (based on comments provided by 41% of interviewees) through adoption of an integrated approach with structured support by regulatory agencies and a need for understanding the audience with better communication of benefit-risk (BR) among all stakeholders (based on comments provided by 44% of the interviewees). Almost all comments provided by interviewees (96%) highlighted the importance of utilizing patient experience/preference to guide new product development and BRA. Comments provided by 74% of the interviewees expressed the need to understand patient tolerance for risk and trade-offs, with a majority (78%) of interviewees highlighting how to gather information, and 59% stressing the need for the selection and development of appropriate methodologies as important considerations for enhancing the quality and relevance of the data collected from patients. CONCLUSIONS: Interviewees indicated that BRA should commence early in the medical product development and inform decision-making throughout the product lifecycle. Better planning and integration of BRA into existing processes within industry would be valuable. The importance of incorporating the patient voice into BRA and medical product development was emphasized. Other key findings from the KOL interviews included a need for improved communication of BR information, and establishment of methodologies for performing BRA and soliciting patient input.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Belantamab mafodotin (belamaf) has shown promising antimyeloma activity in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) as a single agent. It was hypothesized that its multimodal activity may be enhanced by programmed cell death protein 1 pathway inhibition and activation of T cell-mediated antitumor responses. This study investigated the efficacy and safety of belamaf with pembrolizumab in patients with RRMM. METHODS: DREAMM-4 (NCT03848845) was an open-label, single-arm, phase 1/2 study divided into dose-escalation (part 1) and dose-expansion (part 2) phases. Patients were ≥18 years old with ≥3 prior lines of therapy including a proteasome inhibitor, an immunomodulatory drug, and an anti-CD38 agent. Patients received belamaf (2.5 or 3.4 mg/kg, part 1; 2.5 mg/kg, part 2) and 200 mg pembrolizumab for ≤35 cycles. RESULTS: Of 41 enrolled patients, 34 (n = 6 part 1, n = 28 part 2) who received 2.5 mg/kg belamaf plus pembrolizumab were included in this final analysis. Sixteen patients (47%) achieved an overall response. Minimal residual disease negativity was achieved in three of 10 patients who had very good partial response or better. Five of eight patients who had prior anti-B-cell maturation antigen therapy achieved partial response or better, including two who had B-cell maturation antigen-refractory disease. Common grade ≥3 adverse events were keratopathy (38%) and thrombocytopenia (29%). Despite belamaf-related ocular events, quality-of-life measures remained stable over time. No new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSIONS: The results of DREAMM-4 demonstrated clinical activity and a favorable safety profile of belamaf plus pembrolizumab in patients with RRMM. This trial is registered at www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov as NCT03848845.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Demographic diversity among clinical trials is required for representing the real-world populations intended for treatment and disease prevention. Moreover, genetic and environmental differences between ethnic and racial groups necessitate appropriately powered trials for relevant subgroups. We investigate the racial and ethnic demographic diversity of US-based participants in GSK-sponsored interventional trials. We also assess the evaluation of demographic diversity against US Census and epidemiologic data. METHODS: GSK-sponsored interventional phase I-IV clinical trials conducted from 2002 to 2019 across three areas were analyzed: pharmaceutical (includes therapeutic medicines except for vaccines and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)), vaccine (includes prophylactic and therapeutic vaccines), and ViiV (includes HIV therapies). A total of 1005 global trials encompassing 460,707 global participants were identified, of which 495 had US-based sites with a total of 108,261 (23.5% of global) US participants (pharmaceutical, n = 357 trials; vaccine, n = 45 trials; and ViiV, n = 93 trials). We evaluated how GSK US-based trial recruitment compares with US Census (in line with previously published studies from other groups) and with epidemiologic data. RESULTS: GSK participant data for race and ethnicity combined across areas were generally similar to US Census levels (e.g. GSK versus census: White, 76.5% versus 76.3%; Black or African American, 15.1% versus 13.4%; Asian, 1.8% versus 5.9%; Hispanic or Latino, 14.0% versus 18.5%; Non-Hispanic White, 63.5% versus 60.1%). However, this was not the case for the individual pharmaceutical, vaccine, and ViiV data sets; least represented groups were Asian individuals for pharmaceutical and ViiV trials and American Indian or Alaskan Native individuals for vaccine trials (6.2%, 11.8%, and 11.1% of trials met/exceeded census level representation, respectively). The percentage of trials reaching/exceeding census levels also varied per trial phase for race and ethnicity. Furthermore, disparities in the percentage of trials reaching/exceeding census levels versus epidemiology-based prevalence levels have revealed opportunities to improve industry success metrics; in HIV trials, the proportion of Black or African American individuals (35.1%) exceeded census (13.4%) but not epidemiologic levels (55.3%). CONCLUSION: Further work is required to achieve demographic diversity across clinical trials. We conclude that US Census data are an inappropriate universal benchmark. A shift to epidemiology benchmarking will enable the consideration of global participants into US analyses for highly intrinsic (i.e. influenced by ancestry) diseases and more firm requirements for US-based participants into US analyses for extrinsic (i.e. influenced by location or culture) diseases. Benchmarking in line with epidemiologic data will allow us to set better trial enrollment goals, with the aim of conducting more demographically balanced, diverse, and representative clinical trials and enabling a better understanding of drug safety and efficacy per demographic group.
