Nonrandomized data were used for 7% of EMA drug approvals. Larger effect sizes were associated with greater likelihood of approval based on nonrandomized data alone. We did not find a clear treatment effect threshold for drug approval without RCT evidence.

IMPORTANCE The size of estimated treatment effects on the basis of which the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved drugs and devices with data from nonrandomized clinical trials (non-RCTs) remains unknown. OBJECTIVES To determine how often the FDA has authorized novel interventions based on non-RCTs and to assess whether there is an association of the magnitude of treatment effects with FDA requirements for additional testing in randomized clinical trials (RCTs).

ObjectiveTo assess the efficacy of active treatment targeted at underlying disease (TTD)/potentially curative treatments versus palliative care (PC) in improving overall survival (OS) in terminally ill patients.DesignWe performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCT). Methodological quality of included RCTs was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool.Data sourcesMedline and Cochrane databases were searched, with no language restriction, from inception to 19 October 2016.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesAny RCT assessing the efficacy of any active TTD versus PC in adult patients with terminal illness with a prognosis of <6-month survival were eligible for inclusion.ResultsInitial search identified 8252 citations of which 10 RCTs (15 comparisons, 1549 patients) met inclusion criteria. All RCTs included patients with cancer. OS was reported in 7 RCTs (8 comparisons, 1158 patients). The pooled results showed no statistically significant difference in OS between TTD and PC (HR (95% CI) 0.85 (0.71 to 1.02)). The heterogeneity between pooled studies was high (I2=62.1%). Overall rates of adverse events were higher in the TTD arm.ConclusionsOur systematic review of available RCTs in patients with terminal illness due to cancer shows that TTD compared with PC did not demonstrably impact OS and is associated with increased toxicity. The results provide assurance to physicians, patients and family that the patients' survival will not be compromised by referral to hospice with focus on PC.

No abstract

Human T cell lymphotropic virus type 1 (HTLV1)-associated adult T cell leukemia/lymphoma (ATLL) is an aggressive malignant disorder. Intensive conventional chemotherapy regimens and autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) have failed to improve outcomes in ATLL. Allogeneic HCT (allo-HCT) is commonly offered as front-line consolidation despite lack of randomized controlled trials. We performed a comprehensive search of the medical literature using PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane reviews on September 10, 2018. We extracted data on clinical outcomes related to benefits (complete response [CR], overall survival [OS], and progression-free survival [PFS]) and harms (relapse and nonrelapse mortality [NRM]), independently by 2 authors. Our search strategy identified a total of 801 references. Nineteen studies (n = 2446 patients) were included in the systematic review; however, only 18 studies (n = 1767 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. Reduced intensity conditioning regimens were more commonly prescribed (52%). Bone marrow (50%) and peripheral blood (40%) were more frequently used as stem cell source. The pooled post-allografting CR, OS, and PFS rates were 73% (95% confidence interval [CI], 57% to 87%), 40% (95% CI, 33% to 46%), and 37% (95% CI, 27% to 48%), respectively. Pooled relapse and NRM rates were 36% (95% CI, 28% to 43%) and 29% (95% CI, 21% to 37%), respectively. The heterogeneity among the included studies was generally high. These results support the use of allo-HCT as an effective treatment for patients with ATLL, yielding pooled OS rates of 40%, but relapse still occurs in over one-third of cases. Future studies should evaluate strategies to help reduce relapse in patients with ATLL undergoing allo-HCT.

No abstract

This article provides a systematic assessment of the efficacy, risks, and methodological quality of evidence from five major publicly available vaccine trials. Results from Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA, Moderna-US NIH mRN-1273, AstraZeneca-Oxford ChAdOx1 nCov-19, Gamaleya GamCovidVac (Sputnik V), and Ad26.COV2.S Johnson & Johnson vaccines were included. Extracted benefits and risks data from each trial were summarized using the GRADE approach denoting the overall certainty of evidence along with relative and absolute effects. Relative risk reduction across all five vaccine trials ranged from 45% to 96%. Absolute risk reduction in symptomatic COVID-19 ranged from 6 to 17 per 1000 across trials. None of the vaccines were associated with a significant increase in serious adverse events compared to placebo. The overall certainty of evidence varied from low to moderate. All five vaccines are effective and safe, but suggest room for improvement in the conduct of large-scale vaccine trials. Certainty of evidence was downrated due to risk of bias, which can be mitigated by improving transparency and thoroughness in conduct and reporting of outcomes.

No abstract