Failure in cancer drug development exacts heavy burdens on patients and research systems. To investigate inefficiencies and burdens in targeted drug development in cancer, we conducted a systematic review of all prelicensure trials for the anticancer drug, sorafenib (Bayer/Onyx Pharmaceuticals). We searched Embase and MEDLINE databases on October 14, 2014, for prelicensure clinical trials testing sorafenib against cancers. We measured risk by serious adverse event rates, benefit by objective response rates and survival, and trial success by prespecified primary endpoint attainment with acceptable toxicity. The first two clinically useful applications of sorafenib were discovered in the first 2 efficacy trials, after five drug-related deaths (4.6% of 108 total) and 93 total patient-years of involvement (2.4% of 3,928 total). Thereafter, sorafenib was tested in 26 indications and 67 drug combinations, leading to one additional licensure. Drug developers tested 5 indications in over 5 trials each, comprising 56 drug-related deaths (51.8% of 108 total) and 1,155 patient-years (29.4% of 3,928 total) of burden in unsuccessful attempts to discover utility against these malignancies. Overall, 32 Phase II trials (26% of Phase II activity) were duplicative, lacked appropriate follow-up, or were uninformative because of accrual failure, constituting 1,773 patients (15.6% of 11,355 total) participating in prelicensure sorafenib trials. The clinical utility of sorafenib was established early in development, with low burden on patients and resources. However, these early successes were followed by rapid and exhaustive testing against various malignancies and combination regimens, leading to excess patient burden. Our evaluation of sorafenib development suggests many opportunities for reducing costs and unnecessary patient burden in cancer drug development.

No abstract

ObjectiveTo determine whether patients randomized to unapproved, disease-modifying interventions in neurodegenerative disease trials have better outcomes than patients randomized to placebo by performing a systematic review and meta-analysis of risk and benefit experienced by patients in randomized placebo-controlled trials testing investigational treatments for Alzheimer disease, Parkinson disease, Huntington disease, or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov for results of randomized trials testing non–Food and Drug Administration–approved, putatively disease-modifying interventions from January 2005 to May 2018. Trial characteristics were double-extracted. Coprimary endpoints were the treatment advantage over placebo on efficacy (standardized mean difference in outcomes) and safety (risk ratios of serious adverse events and withdrawals due to adverse events), calculated with random effects meta-analyses. The study was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42018103798).ResultsWe included 113 trials (n = 39,875 patients). There was no significant efficacy advantage associated with assignment to putatively disease-modifying interventions compared to placebo for Alzheimer disease (standardized mean difference [SMD] −0.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] −0.07 to 0.01), Parkinson disease (SMD −0.09, 95% CI −0.32 to 0.15), ALS (SMD 0.02, 95% CI −0.25 to 0.30), or Huntington disease (0.02, 95% CI −0.27 to 0.31). Patients with Alzheimer disease assigned to active treatment were at higher risk of experiencing serious adverse events (risk ratio [RR] 1.15, 95% CI 1.04–1.27) and withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.21–1.70).ConclusionsAssignment to active treatment was not beneficial for any of the indications examined and may have been slightly disadvantageous for patients with Alzheimer disease. Our findings suggest that patients with neurodegenerative diseases are not, on the whole, harmed by assignment to placebo when participating in trials.