Key Points• Volasertib plus low-dose cytarabine increased the response rate and improved survival in AML patients ineligible for intensive treatment.• Volasertib plus low-dose cytarabine resulted in responses across all AML genetic subgroups and had a clinically manageable safety profile.Treatment outcomes for older patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) have remained dismal. This randomized, phase 2 trial in AML patients not considered suitable for intensive induction therapy compared low-dose cytarabine (LDAC) with or without volasertib, a highly potent and selective inhibitor of polo-like kinases. Eighty-seven patients (median age 75 years) received LDAC 20 mg twice daily subcutaneously days 1-10 or LDAC 1 volasertib 350 mg IV days 1 1 15 every 4 weeks. Response rate (complete remission and complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery) was higher for LDAC 1 volasertib vs LDAC (31.0% vs 13.3%; odds ratio, 2.91; P 5 .052). Responses in the LDAC 1 volasertib arm were observed across all genetic groups, including 5 of 14 patients with adverse cytogenetics. Median event-free survival was significantly prolonged by LDAC 1 volasertib compared with LDAC (5.6 vs 2.3 months; hazard ratio, 0.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.35-0.92; P 5 .021); median overall survival was 8.0 vs 5.2 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.40-1.00; P 5 .047). LDAC 1 volasertib led to an increased frequency of adverse events that was most pronounced for neutropenic fever/infections and gastrointestinal events; there was no increase in the death rate at days 60 1 90. This study was

The analysis of adverse events (AEs) is a key component in the assessment of a drug's safety profile. Inappropriate analysis methods may result in misleading conclusions about a therapy's safety and consequently its benefit‐risk ratio. The statistical analysis of AEs is complicated by the fact that the follow‐up times can vary between the patients included in a clinical trial. This paper takes as its focus the analysis of AE data in the presence of varying follow‐up times within the benefit assessment of therapeutic interventions. Instead of approaching this issue directly and solely from an analysis point of view, we first discuss what should be estimated in the context of safety data, leading to the concept of estimands. Although the current discussion on estimands is mainly related to efficacy evaluation, the concept is applicable to safety endpoints as well. Within the framework of estimands, we present statistical methods for analysing AEs with the focus being on the time to the occurrence of the first AE of a specific type. We give recommendations which estimators should be used for the estimands described. Furthermore, we state practical implications of the analysis of AEs in clinical trials and give an overview of examples across different indications. We also provide a review of current practices of health technology assessment (HTA) agencies with respect to the evaluation of safety data. Finally, we describe problems with meta‐analyses of AE data and sketch possible solutions.

No abstract