Patients' preferences for subcutaneous trastuzumab versus conventional intravenous infusion for the adjuvant treatment of HER2-positive early breast cancer: final analysis of 488 patients in the international, randomized, two-cohort PrefHer study

BACKGROUND: Patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer (EBC) preferred subcutaneous (SC) trastuzumab, delivered via single-use injection device (SID), over the intravenous (IV) formulation (Cohort 1 of the PrefHer study: NCT01401166). Here we report patient preference, healthcare professional satisfaction, and safety data pooled from Cohort 1 and also Cohort 2, where SC trastuzumab was delivered via hand-held syringe. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive 4 adjuvant cycles of 600 mg fixed-dose SC trastuzumab followed by 4 cycles of standard IV trastuzumab, or vice versa. The primary endpoint was overall preference proportions for SC or IV, assessed by patient interviews in the evaluable ITT population. RESULTS: A total of 245 patients were randomized to receive SC followed by IV and 243 received IV followed by SC (evaluable ITT populations: 235 and 232 patients, respectively). SC was preferred by 415/467 (88.9%; 95% CI, 85.7-91.6; P<.0001; two-sided test against null hypothesis of 65% SC preference); 45/467 preferred IV (9.6%; 7-13); 7/467 indicated no preference (1.5%; 1-3). Clinician-reported adverse events occurred in 292/479 (61.0%) and 245/478 (51.3%) patients during the pooled SC and IV periods, respectively (P<.05; 2x2 chi2); 16 patients (3.3%) in each period experienced grade 3 events; none were grade 4/5. CONCLUSION: PrefHer revealed compelling and consistent patient preferences for SC over IV trastuzumab, regardless of SID or hand-held syringe delivery. SC was well tolerated and safety was consistent with previous reports, including the HannaH study (NCT00950300). No new safety signals were identified compared to the known IV profile in EBC. PrefHer and HannaH confirm that SC trastuzumab is a validated and preferred option over IV for improving patients' care in HER2-positive breast cancer

Pivotal Evaluation of the Accuracy of a Biomarker Used for Classification or Prediction: Standards for Study Design

Research methods for biomarker evaluation lag behind those for evaluating therapeutic treatments. Although a phased approach to development of biomarkers exists and guidelines are available for reporting study results, a coherent and comprehensive set of guidelines for study design has not been delineated. We describe a nested case–control study design that involves prospective collection of specimens before outcome ascertainment from a study cohort that is relevant to the clinical application. The biomarker is assayed in a blinded fashion on specimens from randomly selected case patients and control subjects in the study cohort. We separately describe aspects of the design that relate to the clinical context, biomarker performance criteria, the biomarker test, and study size. The design can be applied to studies of biomarkers intended for use in disease diagnosis, screening, or prognosis. Common biases that pervade the biomarker research literature would be eliminated if these rigorous standards were followed

The IDvIP Trial: A two-centre randomised double-blind controlled trial comparing intramuscular diamorphine and intramuscular pethidine for labour analgesia

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Intramuscular pethidine is routinely used throughout the UK for labour analgesia. Studies have suggested that pethidine provides little pain relief in labour and has a number of side effects affecting mother and neonate. It can cause nausea, vomiting and dysphoria in mothers and can cause reduced fetal heart rate variability and accelerations. Neonatal effects include respiratory depression and impaired feeding. There are few large studies comparing the relative side effects and efficacy of different opioids in labour. A small trial comparing intramuscular pethidine with diamorphine, showed diamorphine to have some benefits over pethidine when used for labour analgesia but the study did not investigate the adverse effects of either opioid.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The Intramuscular Diamorphine versus Intramuscular Pethidine (IDvIP) trial is a randomised double-blind two centre controlled trial comparing intramuscular diamorphine and pethidine regarding their analgesic efficacy in labour and their side effects in mother, fetus and neonate. Information about the trial will be provided to women in the antenatal period or in early labour. Consent and recruitment to the trial will be obtained when the mother requests opioid analgesia. The sample size requirement is 406 women with data on primary outcomes. The maternal primary outcomes are pain relief during the first 3 hours after trial analgesia and specifically pain relief after 60 minutes. The neonatal primary outcomes are need for resuscitation and Apgar Score <7 at 1 minute. The secondary outcomes are an additional measure of pain relief, maternal sedation, nausea and vomiting, maternal oxygen saturation, satisfaction with analgesia, whether method of analgesia would be used again, use of Entonox, umbilical arterial and venous pH, fetal heart rate, meconium staining, time from delivery to first breath, Apgar scores at 5 mins, naloxone requirement, transfer to neonatal intensive care unit, neonatal haemoglobin oxygen saturation at 30, 60, 90, and 120 mins after delivery, and neonatal sedation and feeding behaviour during first 2 hours.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>If the trial demonstrates that diamorphine provides better analgesia with fewer side effects in mother and neonate this could lead to a change in national practice and result in diamorphine becoming the preferred intramuscular opioid for analgesia in labour.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p><a href="http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN14898678">ISRCTN14898678</a></p> <p>Eudra No: 2006-003250-18, REC Reference No: 06/Q1702/95, MHRA Authorisation No: 1443/0001/001-0001, NIHR UKCRN reference 6895, RfPB grant PB-PG-0407-13170_IR5</p

Accounting for centre-effects in multicentre trials with a binary outcome - when, why, and how?

BACKGROUND: It is often desirable to account for centre-effects in the analysis of multicentre randomised trials, however it is unclear which analysis methods are best in trials with a binary outcome. METHODS: We compared the performance of four methods of analysis (fixed-effects models, random-effects models, generalised estimating equations (GEE), and Mantel-Haenszel) using a re-analysis of a previously reported randomised trial (MIST2) and a large simulation study. RESULTS: The re-analysis of MIST2 found that fixed-effects and Mantel-Haenszel led to many patients being dropped from the analysis due to over-stratification (up to 69% dropped for Mantel-Haenszel, and up to 33% dropped for fixed-effects). Conversely, random-effects and GEE included all patients in the analysis, however GEE did not reach convergence. Estimated treatment effects and p-values were highly variable across different analysis methods. The simulation study found that most methods of analysis performed well with a small number of centres. With a large number of centres, fixed-effects led to biased estimates and inflated type I error rates in many situations, and Mantel-Haenszel lost power compared to other analysis methods in some situations. Conversely, both random-effects and GEE gave nominal type I error rates and good power across all scenarios, and were usually as good as or better than either fixed-effects or Mantel-Haenszel. However, this was only true for GEEs with non-robust standard errors (SEs); using a robust ‘sandwich’ estimator led to inflated type I error rates across most scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: With a small number of centres, we recommend the use of fixed-effects, random-effects, or GEE with non-robust SEs. Random-effects and GEE with non-robust SEs should be used with a moderate or large number of centres

Serious adverse events reported in placebo randomised controlled trials of oral naltrexone: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background Naltrexone is an opioid antagonist used in many different conditions, both licensed and unlicensed. It is used at widely varying doses from 3 - 250 mg. The aim of this review was to evaluate the safety of oral naltrexone by examining the risk of serious adverse events (SAEs) in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of naltrexone compared to placebo. Methods A systematic search of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, other databases and clinical trials registries was undertaken up to March 2018. Parallel placebo-controlled RCTs longer than 4 weeks published after 1/1/2001, of oral naltrexone at any dose were selected. Any condition and age group were included, excluding only studies for opioid or ex-opioid users, due to possible opioid/opioid antagonist interactions. The systematic review used the guidance of the Cochrane Handbook throughout. Numerical data was independently extracted by two people and cross-checked. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Meta-analyses were performed using Stata 15 and R, using random and fixed effects models throughout. Results Eighty-nine RCTs with 11194 participants were found, studying alcohol use disorders, various psychiatric disorders, impulse control disorders, other addictions, obesity, Crohn’s disease, fibromyalgia and cancers. Twenty-six studies (4,960 participants) recorded SAEs occurring by arm of study. There was no evidence of increased risk of SAEs for naltrexone compared to placebo, relative risk (RR) 0.84 (95% CI: 0.66 to 1.06). Sensitivity analyses pooling risk differences supported this conclusion (RD = -0.01 (-0.02, 0.00)) and subgroup analyses showed that results were consistent across different doses and disease groups. The quality of evidence for this outcome was judged high using the GRADE criteria. Conclusions Naltrexone does not appear to increase the risk of SAEs over placebo. These findings confirm the safety of naltrexone when used in licensed indications and encourage investments to undertake efficacy studies in unlicensed indications