ObjectivesNon-randomised clinical trial designs involving comparisons against external controls or specific standards can be used to support regulatory submissions for indications in diseases that are rare, with high unmet need, without approved therapies and/or where placebo is considered unethical. The objective of this review was to summarise the characteristics of non-randomised trials submitted to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) or Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for indications in haematological cancers, haematological non-malignant conditions, stem cell transplants or rare metabolic diseases.MethodsWe conducted systematic searches of EMA databases of conditional approvals, exceptional circumstances, or orphan drug designations and FDA inventories of orphan drug designations, accelerated approvals, breakthrough therapy, fast-track and priority approvals. Products were included if reviewed by at least one agency between 2005 and 2017, the primary evidence base was non-randomised trial(s) and the indication was for haematological cancers, stem cell transplantation, haematological conditions or rare metabolic conditions.ResultsWe identified 43 eligible indication-specific products using non-randomised study designs involving comparisons with external controls, submitted to the EMA (n=34) and/or FDA (n=41). Of the 43 indication-specific products, 4 involved matching external controls to the population of a non-randomised interventional study using individual patient-level data (IPD), 12 referred to external controls without IPD and 27 did not explicitly reference external controls. The FDA approved 98% of submissions, with 56% accelerated approvals; most required postapproval confirmatory randomised controlled trials (RCT). The EMA approved 79% of submissions, with a quarter of approvals conditional on completion of a postapproval RCT or additional non-randomised trials.ConclusionsThere has been a large increase in submissions to the EMA and FDA using non-randomised study designs involving comparisons with external controls in recent years. This study demonstrated that regulators may be willing to approve such submissions, although approvals are often conditional on further confirmatory evidence from postapproval studies.

Compared with DPP-4 inhibitors, TZDs and sulphonylureas, dapagliflozin offers similar HbA1c control after 1 year, with similar or reduced risk of hypoglycaemia and the additional benefit of weight loss, when added to metformin.

Platinum-based chemotherapy is the mainstay of first-line (1L) therapy for advanced non-small cell cancer (NSCLC). The objective of this study was to evaluate the relative efficacy, safety, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of carboplatin-versus cisplatin-based chemotherapy in 1L NSCLC. Materials and Methods: A meta-analysis by the Cochrane group (2013) was updated. Systematic searches of CENTRAL, Medline, Embase, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences database, clinicaltrials.gov and conference proceedings were conducted to include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between 2013-January 2018 which compared carboplatin and cisplatin combined with: gemcitabine, vinorelbine, docetaxel, paclitaxel, irinotecan, or pemetrexed. Endpoints included overall survival (OS), one-year OS, objective response rate (ORR), grade 3/4 drug-related toxicities, and HRQoL. Results: Twelve RCTs (2,048 patients) were identified from 4,139 records for inclusion in the meta-analysis. There were no significant differences in OS (hazards ratio [HR]: 1.08, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.96, 1.21) and one-year OS (relative risk [RR]: 0.97, CI: 0.89, 1.07) between carboplatin-and cisplatin-based chemotherapy. A small effect on ORR favouring cisplatin was detected (RR = 0.88; CI: 0.78, 0.99). Differences in drug-related toxicities were observed between carboplatin-and cisplatin-based chemotherapy for thrombocytopenia, anaemia, neurotoxicity, and the risk of nausea/vomiting. Three RCTs comparing HRQoL between carboplatin-and cisplatin-based chemotherapy found no significant differences. Conclusions: This updated evidence base corroborates findings of previous meta-analyses showing no difference in OS between carboplatin-and cisplatin-based chemotherapy, despite a slight benefit in ORR for cisplatin. Toxicity profiles should be considered alongside patients' comorbidities in the choice of therapy.

No abstract

Summary First‐line treatments for classical Hodgkin lymphoma ( HL ) include ABVD (adriamycin, bleomycin, vinblastine, dacarbazine) and BEACOPP escalated (escalated dose bleomycin, etoposide, adriamycin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, prednisone). To further improve overall outcomes, positron emission tomography‐driven strategies and ABVD or BEACOPP variants incorporating the antibody‐drug conjugate brentuximab vedotin ( BV ) or anti‐ PD 1 antibodies are under investigation in advanced‐stage patients. The present study aimed to elicit preferences for attributes associated with ABVD , BEACOPP escalated and BV ‐ AVD ( BV , adriamycin, vinblastine and dacarbazine) among patients and physicians. Cross‐sectional online discrete choice experiments were administered to HL patients ( n = 381) and haematologists/oncologists ( n = 357) in France, Germany and the United Kingdom. Included attributes were progression‐free survival ( PFS ), overall survival ( OS ), and the risk of neuropathy, lung damage, infertility and hospitalisation due to adverse events. Whereas 5‐year PFS and OS were the most important treatment attributes to patients, the relative importance of each attribute and preference weights for each level varied among physicians according to the description of the hypothetical patient for whom treatment was recommended. PFS and OS most strongly influenced physicians’ recommendations when considering young female patients who did not want children or young male patients. Infertility was more important to physicians’ treatment decision than PFS when considering young women with unknown fertility preferences, whereas hospitalisations due to adverse events played the largest role in treatment decisions for older patients.