Statins as potential chemoprevention or therapeutic agents in cancer: A model for evaluating repurposed drugs

Purpose of Review: Repurposing established medicines for a new therapeutic indication potentially has important global and societal impact. The high costs and slow pace of new drug development have increased interest in more cost-effective repurposed drugs, particularly in the cancer arena. The conventional drug development pathway and evidence framework are not designed for drug repurposing and there is currently no consensus on establishing the evidence base before embarking on a large, resource intensive, potential practice changing phase III randomised controlled trial (RCT). Numerous observational studies have suggested a potential role for statins as a repurposed drug for cancer chemoprevention and therapy, and we review the strength of the cumulative evidence here. Recent Findings: In the setting of cancer, a potential repurposed drug, like statins, typically goes through a cyclical history, with initial use for several years in another disease setting, prior to epidemiological research identifying a possible chemo-protective effect. However, further information is required, including review of RCT data in the initial disease setting with exploration of cancer outcomes. Additionally, more contemporary methods should be considered, such as Mendelian randomization and pharmaco-epidemiological research with “target” trial design emulation using electronic health records. Pre-clinical and traditional observational data potentially support the role of statins in the treatment of cancer; however, randomised trial evidence is not supportive. Evaluation of contemporary methods provides little added support for the use of statin therapy in cancer. Summary: We provide complementary evidence of alternative study designs to enable a robust critical appraisal from a number of sources of the go/no-go decision for a prospective phase III RCT of statins in the treatment of cancer

A randomised comparison evaluating changes in bone mineral density in advanced prostate cancer: luteinising hormone-releasing hormone agonists versus transdermal oestradiol

Background Luteinising hormone-releasing hormone agonists (LHRHa), used as androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in prostate cancer (PCa) management, reduce serum oestradiol as well as testosterone, causing bone mineral density (BMD) loss. Transdermal oestradiol is a potential alternative to LHRHa. Objective To compare BMD change in men receiving either LHRHa or oestradiol patches (OP). Design, setting, and participants Men with locally advanced or metastatic PCa participating in the randomised UK Prostate Adenocarcinoma TransCutaneous Hormones (PATCH) trial (allocation ratio of 1:2 for LHRHa:OP, 2006–2011; 1:1, thereafter) were recruited into a BMD study (2006–2012). Dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scans were performed at baseline, 1 yr, and 2 yr. Interventions LHRHa as per local practice, OP (FemSeven 100 μg/24 h patches). Outcome measurements and statistical analysis The primary outcome was 1-yr change in lumbar spine (LS) BMD from baseline compared between randomised arms using analysis of covariance. Results and limitations A total of 74 eligible men (LHRHa 28, OP 46) participated from seven centres. Baseline clinical characteristics and 3-mo castration rates (testosterone ≤1.7 nmol/l, LHRHa 96% [26 of 27], OP 96% [43 of 45]) were similar between arms. Mean 1-yr change in LS BMD was −0.021 g/cm3 for patients randomised to the LHRHa arm (mean percentage change −1.4%) and +0.069 g/cm3 for the OP arm (+6.0%; p < 0.001). Similar patterns were seen in hip and total body measurements. The largest difference between arms was at 2 yr for those remaining on allocated treatment only: LS BMD mean percentage change LHRHa −3.0% and OP +7.9% (p < 0.001). Conclusions Transdermal oestradiol as a single agent produces castration levels of testosterone while mitigating BMD loss. These early data provide further supporting evidence for the ongoing phase 3 trial

Healthcare systems data in the context of clinical trials - A comparison of cardiovascular data from a clinical trial dataset with routinely collected data

BACKGROUND: Routinely-collected healthcare systems data (HSD) are proposed to improve the efficiency of clinical trials. A comparison was undertaken between cardiovascular (CVS) data from a clinical trial database with two HSD resources. METHODS: Protocol-defined and clinically reviewed CVS events (heart failure (HF), acute coronary syndrome (ACS), thromboembolic stroke, venous and arterial thromboembolism) were identified within the trial data. Data (using pre-specified codes) was obtained from NHS Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) and National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research (NICOR) HF and myocardial ischaemia audits for trial participants recruited in England between 2010 and 2018 who had provided consent. The primary comparison was trial data versus HES inpatient (APC) main diagnosis (Box-1). Correlations are presented with descriptive statistics and Venn diagrams. Reasons for non-correlation were explored. RESULTS: From 1200 eligible participants, 71 protocol-defined clinically reviewed CVS events were recorded in the trial database. 45 resulted in a hospital admission and therefore could have been recorded by either HES APC/ NICOR. Of these, 27/45 (60%) were recorded by HES inpatient (Box-1) with an additional 30 potential events also identified. HF and ACS were potentially recorded in all 3 datasets; trial data recorded 18, HES APC 29 and NICOR 24 events respectively. 12/18 (67%) of the HF/ACS events in the trial dataset were recorded by NICOR. CONCLUSION: Concordance between datasets was lower than anticipated and the HSD used could not straightforwardly replace current trial practices, nor directly identify protocol-defined CVS events. Further work is required to improve the quality of HSD and consider event definitions when designing clinical trials incorporating HSD

Trace species detection in the near infrared using Fourier transform broadband cavity enhanced absorption spectroscopy: Initial studies on potential breath analytes

Cavity enhanced absorption measurements have been made of several species that absorb light between 1.5 and 1.7 µm using both a supercontinuum source and superluminescent light emitting diodes. A system based upon an optical enhancement cavity of relatively high finesse, consisting of mirrors of reflectivity ∼99.98%, and a Fourier transform spectrometer, is demonstrated. Spectra are recorded of isoprene, butadiene, acetone and methane, highlighting problems with spectral interference and unambiguous concentration determinations. Initial results are presented of acetone within a breath-like matrix indicating ppm precision at &lt;∼10 ppm acetone levels. Instrument sensitivities are sufficiently enhanced to enable the detection of atmospheric levels of methane. Higher detection sensitivities are achieved using the supercontinuum source, with a minimum detectable absorption coefficient of ∼4 × 10(-9) cm(-1) reported within a 4 min acquisition time. Finally, two superluminescent light emitting diodes are coupled together to increase the wavelength coverage, and measurements are made simultaneously on acetylene, CO(2), and butadiene. The absorption cross-sections for acetone and isoprene have been measured with an instrumental resolution of 4 cm(-1) and are found to be 1.3 ± 0.1 × 10(-21) cm(2) at a wavelength of 1671.9 nm and 3.6 ± 0.2 × 10(-21) cm(2) at 1624.7 nm, respectively

REFINE (reduced frequency ImmuNE checkpoint inhibition in cancers): A multi-arm phase II basket trial testing reduced intensity immunotherapy across different cancers

Background Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have revolutionised treating advanced cancers. ICI are administered intravenously every 2–6 weeks for up to 2 years, until cancer progression/unacceptable toxicity. Physiological efficacy is observed at lower doses than those used as standard of care (SOC). Pharmacodynamic studies indicate sustained target occupancy, despite a pharmacological half-life of 2–3 weeks. Reducing frequency of administration may be possible without compromising outcomes. The REFINE trial aims to limit individual patient exposure to ICI whilst maintaining efficacy, with potential benefits in quality of life and reduced drug treatment/attendance costs. Methods/Design REFINE is a randomised phase II, multi-arm, multi-stage (MAMS) adaptive basket trial investigating extended interval administration of ICIs. Eligible patients are those responding to conventionally dosed ICI at 12 weeks. In stage I, patients (n = 160 per tumour-specific cohort) will be randomly allocated (1:1) to receive maintenance ICI at SOC vs extended dose interval. REFINE is currently recruiting UK patients with locally advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) who have tolerated and responded to initial nivolumab/ipilimumab, randomised to receive maintenance nivolumab SOC (480 mg 4 weekly) vs extended interval (480 mg 8 weekly). Additional tumour cohorts are planned. Subject to satisfactory outcomes (progression-free survival) stage II will investigate up to 5 different treatment intervals. Secondary outcome measures include overall survival, quality-of-life, treatment-related toxicity, mean incremental pathway costs and quality-adjusted life-years per patient. REFINE is funded by the Jon Moulton Charity Trust and Medical Research Council, sponsored by University College London (UCL), and coordinated by the MRC CTU at UCL

Accessing routinely collected health data to improve clinical trials: recent experience of access.

BACKGROUND: Routinely collected electronic health records (EHRs) have the potential to enhance randomised controlled trials (RCTs) by facilitating recruitment and follow-up. Despite this, current EHR use is minimal in UK RCTs, in part due to ongoing concerns about the utility (reliability, completeness, accuracy) and accessibility of the data. The aim of this manuscript is to document the process, timelines and challenges of the application process to help improve the service both for the applicants and data holders. METHODS: This is a qualitative paper providing a descriptive narrative from one UK clinical trials unit (MRC CTU at UCL) on the experience of two trial teams' application process to access data from three large English national datasets: National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service (NCRAS), National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research (NICOR) and NHS Digital to establish themes for discussion. The underpinning reason for applying for the data was to compare EHRs with data collected through case report forms in two RCTs, Add-Aspirin (ISRCTN 74358648) and PATCH (ISRCTN 70406718). RESULTS: The Add-Aspirin trial, which had a pre-planned embedded sub-study to assess EHR, received data from NCRAS 13 months after the first application. In the PATCH trial, the decision to request data was made whilst the trial was recruiting. The study received data after 8 months from NICOR and 15 months for NHS Digital following final application submission. This concluded in May 2020. Prior to application submission, significant time and effort was needed particularly in relation to the PATCH trial where negotiations over consent and data linkage took many years. CONCLUSIONS: Our experience demonstrates that data access can be a prolonged and complex process. This is compounded if multiple data sources are required for the same project. This needs to be factored in when planning to use EHR within RCTs and is best considered prior to conception of the trial. Data holders and researchers are endeavouring to simplify and streamline the application process so that the potential of EHR can be realised for clinical trials

Does respiratory syncytial virus lower respiratory illness in early life cause recurrent wheeze of early childhood and asthma?:Critical review of the evidence and guidance for future studies from a World Health Organization-sponsored meeting

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a leading cause of lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) and hospitalization in infants and children globally. Many observational studies have found an association between RSV LRTI in early life and subsequent respiratory morbidity, including recurrent wheeze of early childhood (RWEC) and asthma. Conversely, two randomized placebo-controlled trials of efficacious anti-RSV monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) in heterogenous infant populations found no difference in physician-diagnosed RWEC or asthma by treatment group. If a causal association exists and RSV vaccines and mAbs can prevent a substantial fraction of RWEC/asthma, the full public health value of these interventions would markedly increase. The primary alternative interpretation of the observational data is that RSV LRTI in early life is a marker of an underlying predisposition for the development of RWEC and asthma. If this is the case, RSV vaccines and mAbs would not necessarily be expected to impact these outcomes. To evaluate whether the available evidence supports a causal association between RSV LRTI and RWEC/asthma and to provide guidance for future studies, the World Health Organization convened a meeting of subject matter experts on February 12-13, 2019 in Geneva, Switzerland. After discussing relevant background information and reviewing the current epidemiologic evidence, the group determined that: (i) the evidence is inconclusive in establishing a causal association between RSV LRTI and RWEC/asthma, (ii) the evidence does not establish that RSV mAbs (and, by extension, future vaccines) will have a substantial effect on these outcomes and (iii) regardless of the association with long-term childhood respiratory morbidity, severe acute RSV disease in young children poses a substantial public health burden and should continue to be the primary consideration for policy-setting bodies deliberating on RSV vaccine and mAb recommendations. Nonetheless, the group recognized the public health importance of resolving this question and suggested good practice guidelines for future studies

Transdermal oestradiol for androgen suppression in prostate cancer: long-term cardiovascular outcomes from the randomised Prostate Adenocarcinoma Transcutaneous Hormone (PATCH) trial programme

Background Androgen suppression is a central component of prostate cancer management but causes substantial long-term toxicity. Transdermal administration of oestradiol (tE2) circumvents first-pass hepatic metabolism and, therefore, should avoid the cardiovascular toxicity seen with oral oestrogen and the oestrogen-depletion effects seen with luteinising hormone releasing hormone agonists (LHRHa). We present long-term cardiovascular follow-up data from the Prostate Adenocarcinoma Transcutaneous Hormone (PATCH) trial programme. Methods PATCH is a seamless phase 2/3, randomised, multicentre trial programme at 52 study sites in the UK. Men with locally advanced or metastatic prostate cancer were randomly allocated (1:2 from August, 2007 then 1:1 from February, 2011) to either LHRHa according to local practice or tE2 patches (four 100 μg patches per 24 h, changed twice weekly, reducing to three patches twice weekly if castrate at 4 weeks [defined as testosterone ≤1·7 nmol/L]). Randomisation was done using a computer-based minimisation algorithm and was stratified by several factors, including disease stage, age, smoking status, and family history of cardiac disease. The primary outcome of this analysis was cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Cardiovascular events, including heart failure, acute coronary syndrome, thromboembolic stroke, and other thromboembolic events, were confirmed using predefined criteria and source data. Sudden or unexpected deaths were attributed to a cardiovascular category if a confirmatory post-mortem report was available and as other relevant events if no post-mortem report was available. PATCH is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN70406718; the study is ongoing and adaptive. Findings Between Aug 14, 2007, and July 30, 2019, 1694 men were randomly allocated either LHRHa (n=790) or tE2 patches (n=904). Overall, median follow-up was 3·9 (IQR 2·4–7·0) years. Respective castration rates at 1 month and 3 months were 65% and 93% among patients assigned LHRHa and 83% and 93% among those allocated tE2. 157 events from 145 men met predefined cardiovascular criteria, with a further ten sudden deaths with no post-mortem report (total 167 events in 153 men). 26 (2%) of 1694 patients had fatal cardiovascular events, 15 (2%) of 790 assigned LHRHa and 11 (1%) of 904 allocated tE2. The time to first cardiovascular event did not differ between treatments (hazard ratio 1·11, 95% CI 0·80–1·53; p=0·54 [including sudden deaths without post-mortem report]; 1·20, 0·86–1·68; p=0·29 [confirmed group only]). 30 (34%) of 89 cardiovascular events in patients assigned tE2 occurred more than 3 months after tE2 was stopped or changed to LHRHa. The most frequent adverse events were gynaecomastia (all grades), with 279 (38%) events in 730 patients who received LHRHa versus 690 (86%) in 807 patients who received tE2 (p<0·0001) and hot flushes (all grades) in 628 (86%) of those who received LHRHa versus 280 (35%) who received tE2 (p<0·0001). Interpretation Long-term data comparing tE2 patches with LHRHa show no evidence of a difference between treatments in cardiovascular mortality or morbidity. Oestrogens administered transdermally should be reconsidered for androgen suppression in the management of prostate cancer. Funding Cancer Research UK, and Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at University College London

Getting our ducks in a row:The need for data utility comparisons of healthcare systems data for clinical trials

BACKGROUND: Better use of healthcare systems data, collected as part of interactions between patients and the healthcare system, could transform planning and conduct of randomised controlled trials. Multiple challenges to widespread use include whether healthcare systems data captures sufficiently well the data traditionally captured on case report forms. "Data Utility Comparison Studies" (DUCkS) assess the utility of healthcare systems data for RCTs by comparison to data collected by the trial. Despite their importance, there are few published UK examples of DUCkS.METHODS-AND-RESULTS: Building from ongoing and selected recent examples of UK-led DUCkS in the literature, we set out experience-based considerations for the conduct of future DUCkS. Developed through informal iterative discussions in many forums, considerations are offered for planning, protocol development, data, analysis and reporting, with comparisons at "patient-level" or "trial-level", depending on the item of interest and trial status.DISCUSSION: DUCkS could be a valuable tool in assessing where healthcare systems data can be used for trials and in which trial teams can play a leading role. There is a pressing need for trials to be more efficient in their delivery and research waste must be reduced. Trials have been making inconsistent use of healthcare systems data, not least because of an absence of evidence of utility. DUCkS can also help to identify challenges in using healthcare systems data, such as linkage (access and timing) and data quality. We encourage trial teams to incorporate and report DUCkS in trials and funders and data providers to support them.</p

Getting our ducks in a row:The need for data utility comparisons of healthcare systems data for clinical trials

BACKGROUND: Better use of healthcare systems data, collected as part of interactions between patients and the healthcare system, could transform planning and conduct of randomised controlled trials. Multiple challenges to widespread use include whether healthcare systems data captures sufficiently well the data traditionally captured on case report forms. "Data Utility Comparison Studies" (DUCkS) assess the utility of healthcare systems data for RCTs by comparison to data collected by the trial. Despite their importance, there are few published UK examples of DUCkS.METHODS-AND-RESULTS: Building from ongoing and selected recent examples of UK-led DUCkS in the literature, we set out experience-based considerations for the conduct of future DUCkS. Developed through informal iterative discussions in many forums, considerations are offered for planning, protocol development, data, analysis and reporting, with comparisons at "patient-level" or "trial-level", depending on the item of interest and trial status.DISCUSSION: DUCkS could be a valuable tool in assessing where healthcare systems data can be used for trials and in which trial teams can play a leading role. There is a pressing need for trials to be more efficient in their delivery and research waste must be reduced. Trials have been making inconsistent use of healthcare systems data, not least because of an absence of evidence of utility. DUCkS can also help to identify challenges in using healthcare systems data, such as linkage (access and timing) and data quality. We encourage trial teams to incorporate and report DUCkS in trials and funders and data providers to support them.</p