29
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Speed of Adoption of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors of Programmed Cell Death 1 Protein and Comparison of Patient Ages in Clinical Practice vs Pivotal Clinical Trials

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          This cohort study assesses the speed with which inhibitors of programmed cell death 1 protein reached eligible patients in practice and compares the ages of patients treated in clinical practice with the ages of those treated in pivotal clinical trials.

          Key Points

          Question

          How quickly have immune checkpoint inhibitors changed clinical practice?

          Findings

          In this cohort study of 3089 patients, most eligible patients were being treated with inhibitors of programmed cell death 1 protein within 4 months after US Food and Drug Administration approval, with treated patients being significantly older than those studied in the pivotal clinical trials that supported US Food and Drug Administration–approved use.

          Meaning

          Immune checkpoint inhibitors may have rapidly changed clinical practice among populations of patients who differ substantially from those studied in pivotal clinical trials.

          Abstract

          Importance

          The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is increasing its pace of approvals for novel cancer therapeutics, including for immune checkpoint inhibitors of programmed cell death 1 protein (anti–PD-1 agents). However, little is known about how quickly anti–PD-1 agents agents reach eligible patients in practice or whether such patients differ from those studied in clinical trials that lead to FDA approval (pivotal clinical trials).

          Objectives

          To assess the speed with which anti–PD-1 agents agents reached eligible patients in practice and to compare the ages of patients treated in clinical practice with the ages of those treated in pivotal clinical trials.

          Design, Setting, and Participants

          This retrospective cohort study, performed from January 1, 2011, through August 31, 2016, included patients from the Flatiron Health Network who were eligible for anti–PD-1 agents treatment of selected cancer types, which included melanoma, non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and renal cell carcinoma (RCC).

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          Cumulative proportions of eligible patients receiving anti–PD-1 agents treatment and their age distributions.

          Results

          The study identified 3089 patients who were eligible for anti–PD-1 agents treatment (median age, 66 [interquartile range, 56-75] years for patients with melanoma, 66 [interquartile range, 58-72] years for patients with RCC, and 67 [interquartile range, 59-74] years for patients with NSCLC; 1742 male [56.4%] and 1347 [43.6%] female; 2066 [66.9%] white). Of these patients, 2123 (68.7%) received anti–PD-1 agents treatment, including 439 eligible patients with melanoma (79.1%), 1417 eligible patients with NSCLC (65.6%), and 267 eligible patients with RCC (71.2%). Within 4 months after FDA approval, greater than 60% of eligible patients in each cohort had received anti–PD-1 agents treatment. Overall, similar proportions of older and younger patients received anti–PD-1 agents treatment during the first 9 months after FDA approval. However, there were significant differences in age between clinical trial participants and patients receiving anti–PD-1 agents treatment in clinical practice, with more patients being older than 65 years in clinical practice (range, 327 of 1365 [60.6%] to 46 of 72 [63.9%]) than in pivotal clinical trials (range, 38 of 120 [31.7%] to 223 of 544 [41.0%]; all P < .001).

          Conclusions and Relevance

          Anti-PD-1 agents rapidly reached patients in clinical practice, and patients treated in clinical practice differed significantly from patients treated in pivotal clinical trials. Future actions are needed to ensure that rapid adoption occurs on the basis of representative trial evidence.

          Related collections

          Most cited references31

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Combined nivolumab and ipilimumab versus ipilimumab alone in patients with advanced melanoma: 2-year overall survival outcomes in a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial.

          Results from phase 2 and 3 trials in patients with advanced melanoma have shown significant improvements in the proportion of patients achieving an objective response and prolonged progression-free survival with the combination of nivolumab (an anti-PD-1 antibody) plus ipilimumab (an anti-CTLA-4 antibody) compared with ipilimumab alone. We report 2-year overall survival data from a randomised controlled trial assessing this treatment in previously untreated advanced melanoma.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Making research relevant: if it is an evidence-based practice, where's the practice-based evidence?

            L Green (2008)
            The usual search for explanations and solutions for the research-practice gap tends to analyze ways to communicate evidence-based practice guidelines to practitioners more efficiently and effectively from the end of a scientific pipeline. This examination of the pipeline looks upstream for ways in which the research itself is rendered increasingly irrelevant to the circumstances of practice by the process of vetting the research before it can qualify for inclusion in systematic reviews and the practice guidelines derived from them. It suggests a 'fallacy of the pipeline' implicit in one-way conceptualizations of translation, dissemination and delivery of research to practitioners. Secondly, it identifies a 'fallacy of the empty vessel' implicit in the assumptions underlying common characterizations of the practitioner as a recipient of evidence-based guidelines. Remedies are proposed that put emphasis on participatory approaches and more practice-based production of the research and more attention to external validity in the peer review, funding, publication and systematic reviews of research in producing evidence-based guidelines.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Enrollment of elderly patients in clinical trials for cancer drug registration: a 7-year experience by the US Food and Drug Administration.

              To analyze the age-related enrollment of cancer patients onto registration trials of new drugs or new indications approved by the US Food and Drug Administration from 1995 to 2002. This study involved retrospective analyses of demographic data of cancer patients enrolled onto registration trials. The data on 28,766 cancer patients from 55 registration trials were analyzed according to age distributions of > or = 65, > or = 70, and > or = 75 years. The rates of enrollment in each age group for each cancer were compared with the corresponding rates in the US cancer population. The age distributions of the US cancer population were derived from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program of the National Cancer Institute for the period 1995 to 1999 based on the 2000 US Census. The proportions of the overall patient populations aged > or = 65, > or = 70, and > or = 75 years were 36%, 20%, and 9% compared with 60%, 46%, and 31%, respectively, in the US cancer population. Statistically significant under-representation of the elderly (P or = 70 years accounted for most of the under-representation. Elderly were under-represented in the registration trials of new cancer therapies. Various strategies may be needed to evaluate cancer therapies for the elderly in prospective clinical trials and to improve cancer care in the elderly population.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Oncol
                JAMA Oncol
                JAMA Oncol
                JAMA Oncology
                American Medical Association
                2374-2437
                2374-2445
                10 May 2018
                August 2018
                10 May 2019
                : 4
                : 8
                : e180798
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Section of General Internal Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
                [2 ]National Clinician Scholars Program, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
                [3 ]Flatiron Health Inc, New York, New York
                [4 ]Yale Cancer Center, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
                [5 ]The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: February 16, 2018.
                Corresponding Author: Cary P. Gross, MD, Section of General Internal Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, 333 Cedar St, New Haven, CT 06510 ( cary.gross@ 123456yale.edu ).
                Published Online: May 10, 2018. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.0798
                Author Contributions: Drs O’Connor and Gross had full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
                Study concept and design: O'Connor, Fessele, Seidl-Rathkopf, Nussbaum, Adelson, Presley, Ross, Abernethy, Gross.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: O'Connor, Fessele, Steiner, Seidl-Rathkopf, Carson, Nussbaum, Yin, Presley, Chiang, Ross, Abernethy.
                Drafting of the manuscript: O'Connor, Fessele, Adelson, Abernethy. Gross.
                Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: O'Connor, Fessele, Steiner, Seidl-Rathkopf, Carson, Nussbaum, Yin, Presley, Chiang, Ross, Abernethy, Gross.
                Statistical analysis: O'Connor, Fessele, Steiner, Seidl-Rathkopf, Carson.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: Fessele, Carson, Gross.
                Study supervision: Fessele, Adelson, Abernethy, Gross.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Drs Fessele, Steiner, Seidl-Rathkopf, Carson, Nussbaum, and Abernethy reported being full-time employees of Flatiron Health during the conduct of this study. Flatiron Health is a cancer-focused health technology company in New York, New York, and the source of study data. Dr Ross reported receiving support for research from Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic Inc, the US Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, and the Laura and John Arnold Foundation. Dr Chiang reported receiving support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly and Company, and AbbVie, with consulting or advisory roles for AstraZeneca and AbbVie. Dr Abernethy reported consulting for Roche/Genentech for less than $5000 and consulting for Bristol-Myers Squibb more than 2 years ago for less than $10 000 and serving on the board of directors for athenahealth and as an adviser for SignalPath. Dr Gross reported receiving support for research from 21st Century Oncology, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic Inc, and Pfizer. No other disclosures were reported.
                Funding/Support: This publication was made possible by grant TL1 TR001864 from the National Center for Advancing Translational Science, a component of the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
                Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funding source had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
                Disclaimer: The contents of this article are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official view of the NIH.
                Article
                PMC6143052 PMC6143052 6143052 coi180021
                10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.0798
                6143052
                29800974
                a49c731a-88bd-4781-ac82-dcb36e541e8b
                Copyright 2018 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.
                History
                : 18 October 2017
                : 16 February 2018
                : 16 February 2018
                Categories
                Research
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Online First
                Online Only

                Comments

                Comment on this article