Outline

1. Outline • General endpoint considerations • Surrogate endpoints • Composite endpoints • Safety outcomes (adverse events)

2. Outline • Some background • Definitions • Data collection considerations • Reporting of safety outcomes • Recommendations

3. Safety Outcomes: Some Viewpoints • The collection of safety outcomes in trials is often not done with same rigor as efficacy outcomes (e.g., less focused, less thought given to data collection protocol). • Safety reporting in trials and systematic reviews is inadequate (this is also true for interim analyses) (Ioannidis, JAMA 2001, and Ernst, BMJ 2001).CONSORT guidelines were modified in 2004 (Ann Intern Med). • Major safety outcomes should be recorded irrespective of attribution to study treatment. • Safety is best assessed using aggregated data against a randomized control. • Safety of new treatments is not known with certainty until a treatment has been used for many years (Lasser, JAMA 2002).

5. FIAU for Hepatitis B Virus Infection • FIAU’s toxicity mimicked the underlying disease and other medications taken by the patients (hepatic and pancreatic adverse events not attributed to the treatment). • FIAU’s toxicity was not predicted by animal studies. • Each adverse event was considered separately – no cumulative analysis of events by treatment group. • In NIH trial, 15 patients were randomized to 2 doses of FIAU for 24 weeks (no placebo control). • Study stopped because one patient developed liver failure. • Ultimately, 7 patients experienced severe liver toxicity and 5 died after cessation of study treatment. • Retrospective review of 2 other studies revealed delayed toxicities of FIAU. N Engl J Med 1995; 333: 1099-1105.

7. Regulatory and Scientific History of Rosiglitazone • Approved by FDA in 1999 on the basis of short-term studies indicating it lowered glucose and HbA1c. • Questions about safety arose based on a meta-analysis by Nissen and Wolski in 2007. • FDA advisory committee concludes that rosiglitazone increases risk of MI compared to placebo and notes limitations of meta-analysis. FDA adds “boxed” warning, recommends long-term head to head comparison with another diabetes drug to compare CVD outcomes, but does not withdraw drug from the market. • Trial is initiated (TIDE trial), ethics of clinical trial questioned, Senate Finance Committee discusses data and ultimately trial discontinued and severe restrictions placed on use of the drug. IOM Report 2012, Ethical and Scientific Issues in Studying the Safety of Approved Drugs.

8. Some Lessons Learned (Maybe) from Rosiglitazone • Short-term studies using surrogate outcomes are not powered to identify clinically relevant safety signals. • Many trials done for registration are not conducted to reliably assess major safety issues (e.g., data not collected following treatment discontinuation, major clinical outcomes not collected in a standardized manner, good meta-analyses hard to do). • It is difficult to do a trial to confirm a safety signal.

9. Guidance Documents • International Conference on Harmonization (ICH) of Technical Requirements of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use • Clinical Safety Data Management: Definitions and Standards for Expedited Reporting E2A • Regulatory authorities have reporting requirements for adverse events • Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 21, Part 312 describes safety reporting for investigational drugs (trials being carried out under an IND with the FDA) • EU Directive provides guidance for reporting safety data for investigational medicinal products

10. Types of Safety Outcomes (1) • Adverse events that require reporting to regulatory authorities • Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) • Suspected Unexpected Serious Adverse Reaction (SUSARs) • Adverse events for planned treatment comparisons • Treatment discontinuation due to adverse effects • Adverse effects according to severity by standard grading table • Open-ended • Side effect check-list

11. Types of Safety Outcomes (2) • Another way of thinking of the categorization: • Case reports of individual events • Data on case report forms with which to compute counts and rates by treatment group • Both are important (refer to week 1 notes for discussion of case summaries)

12. Serious Events Definition – ICH Guidelines • Events resulting in death • Life-threatening events • Events leading to hospitalization or prolonging existing hospitalization • Events leading to persistent/significant disability or incapacity • Congenital abnormalities/birth defects • Other important medical events that may jeopardize the participant or require intervention to prevent one of the other outcomes above

13. Other Definitions • Unexpected – an adverse drug experience which is not consistent with the current investigator brochure (or label for approved drug) • Related – cannot rule out the possibility that the treatment caused the adverse event (i.e., the investigator cannot check “not related”)

14. SUSARs • SUSAR=Suspected Unexpected Serious Adverse Reaction • SUSAR reporting is required by the European Union (EU) Directive 2001/20/EC for all trials being conducted at sites in the European Economic Area (EEA) that use investigational medicinal products (IMPs)

15. What is a SUSAR? • Serious: per ICH GCP Guideline E2A • Unexpected: per labeling of the suspect agent • Suspected adverse reaction: related to treatment

16. Recommendations for Reporting Serious Adverse Events • Require serious events to be reported on all participants, regardless of treatment status or relationship to study treatment (attribution is unreliable and hard to standardize). • This allows a randomized comparison of the occurrence of serious events over the course of the trial • Establish systems to meet expedited reporting requirements by regulatory authorities (within 7 days of awareness) • IND safety reports for serious adverse events associated with the treatment and unexpected (e.g., see 21 CFR 312.32 for drugs) • SUSARS

17. Informing Investigators, IRBs and Ethics Committees • Individual case reports sent to all investigators using the investigational product by sponsor or designee (e.g., an investigator may receive safety reports for patients in another institution and in another trial) • Investigators notify IRB/EC • Sponsor updates investigator brochure on a regular basis • Problem: Numerators and not denominators

18. Collection of Safety Outcomes in Clinical Trials - Considerations • Where do you draw the line? • Collect all adverse events irrespective of severity? • Only serious adverse events? • Only why the participants is taking the study treatment? • Standardization • Tables for grading AEs for severity • Open-ended or checklist • MedDRA coding • Event review committee • Describe safety data collection and reporting in the protocol and in the trial report

19. Adverse Events in Cancer Treatment Trials: An Evaluation • Evaluation of 75, 598 “routine” adverse events collected on 1,181 patients between 1999 and 2001. • An average of 2,588 adverse events per study. • Most adverse events reported were mild; 3% were severe; 1% required expedited reporting • Much of what is collected is not reported. Mahoney M, et al, J Clin Oncol 2005; 23:9275-9281

20. Do Not Try to Collect All Adverse Events • You will fail! • Bradford Hill suggested the following 3 questions be asked by the person developing a case report form: • Is this question essential? • Can I obtain useful answers to it? • Can I analyze them usefully at the end? • Peto is less diplomatic: “…the statistician should, at the design stage, cross out most of the things that the trial organizer wants to ask.” Principles of Medical Statistics and Biomedicine 28:24-36, 1978.

21. A Minimalist’s Approach: Composite Hierarchical Outcomes for Safety

22. Sample Toxicity Table for Grading Severity of Adverse Events

23. Generic Grades

24. Structured (Checklist) vs. Unstructured (Open-Ended) Data Collection • Structured data collection is easier to standardize, process and analyze • Structured data is easier to combine across investigators/studies • Greater chance of missing something with structured data collection • No or less freedom of expression with structured data collection

25. Checklist versus Open Response 1) “Did you look at any of the following newspapers or magazines or journals yesterday? Put a tick (√) against each of them that you definitely looked at yesterday. Put a cross (X) if you did not look at it yesterday.” Daily Mail [ ] The Times [ ] Daily Herald [ ] • • List all others: Belson W., Duncan J. Applied Statistics, 1962.

26. 2) “Did you look at any newspapers or magazines or journals yesterday? This would include daily papers, Sunday papers, weeklies and any that come out monthly. Write down the name of each that you definitely looked at yesterday.”

27. Average Number of Publications Identified in the √ List Group 2 Group 1 Daily - - 1.52 1.12 Sunday 1.72 1.23 - - Weekly & Monthly 0.78 0.17 0.90 0.23 Open Response Open Response Type of Publication √ List √ List

28. Daily Papers on the √ List Percent Mentioned with Open Response Percent √’d Daily Mail 16 12 0.78 The Times 4 3 0.70 Daily Herald 9 5 0.54 Evening News 39 27 0.70 Daily Mirror 46 39 0.85 Star 21 12 0.56 Daily Telegraph 17 13 0.77 Ratio* * Before rounding

29. Average Number of Publications Identified Which Did Not Appear in the √ List Daily - 0.06 0.35 0.61 Sunday 0.18 0.26 - - Weekly & Monthly 0.29 0.39 0.33 0.57 ALL 0.47 0.71 0.68 1.18 Group 1 Group 2 Open Response Open Response Type of Publication √ List √ List

30. Daily Papers Mentioned Under “All Others” on the √ List Percent Mentioned Under “All Others” Percent Mentioned with Open Response News Chronicle 6 7 1.12 Daily Express 15 25 1.72 Daily Sketch 7 13 1.95 Evening Standard 5 10 1.94 All Others 3 5 1.99 Ratio* * Before rounding

31. Conclusions 1. There is a sharp difference in the two methods indicating that at least one of them may be in error when assessing yesterday’s behavior. 2. The yields from the two systems cannot be compared or pooled either within a survey or between surveys. 3. One cannot assume that by using an “all others” response in √ list that the problem of not having an exhaustive √ list is solved. 4. Unstructured questions provide more freedom of expression and structured questions allow less expression of individuality. 5. Some TV programs which were not broadcast the day before were included in the √ list and actually checked by some respondents. They were not mentioned in the open response suggesting an inflating tendency with the √ list.

32. Implications of Belson and Duncan’s Work Collection of Adverse Events in Clinical Trials.

33. A Randomized Trial of Methods for Assessing Medical Problems - 1 • After taking placebo for 1 month (as part of a run-in to a trial) 214 men with benign prostatic hyperplasia were randomly assigned to 3 methods for collecting adverse events. • 3 self-administered forms used. • No assessment of severity; responses to open-ended questions were recorded Bent S et al, Ann Intern Med 2006; 144:257-261.

34. A Randomized Trial of Methods for Assessing Medical Problems - 2 Open-Ended Questionnaire: “Did you have any significant medical problem since your last visit?” Open-Ended Defined Question: “Since the last study visit, have you limited your usual daily activities for more than 1 day because of a medical problem?” Checklist: “Since the last visit, have you experienced any of the following?” (53 symptoms)

35. Example: Aspirin vs. Placebo in AMIS Study(See Chapter 11 of Friedman, Furberg, and DeMets) Percent Ever Reporting Bloody Stools Aspirin Placebo Volunteered 1.29 0.45(open-ended) Elicited 4.86 2.99(√-list) Reason for 0.22 0.04dosage reduction

36. Visit-Driven Checklist

37. Open-Ended Questionnaire for Serious Events Event-Driven Form

38. MedDRA Medical Event Coding • Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities • Used in U.S., EU, and Japan; mandated for safety reporting in EU and Japan • Each event assigned an 8-digit number • Multi-axial: one event may be linked to multiple System Organ Classes

39. MedDRA Example Cardiac Disorders SOC HLGT Coronary Artery Disorders Ischaemic Coronary Artery Disorders HLT Myocardial Infarction PT Heart Attack LLT

40. MedDRA Hierarchical Structure SOC (n=26) System Organ Class HLGT (n > 300) High Level Group Term HLT (n > 1,600) High Level Term Preferred Term PT (n > 18,000) Lowest Level Term LLT (n > 66,000)

41. Questions to Consider in Reviewing a Trial Report Was event ascertainment similar for the treatments under study? When did collection of AEs begin and end? What was the timing of follow-up assessments for adverse events? How were AEs defined? Were severe events centrally reviewed and adjudicated?

42. Reporting of Adverse Events- 1 “Grade 4 events were reported irrespective of their perceived relationship to the use of interleukin-2 or antiretroviral therapy and were coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (version 12.0)” ESPRIT HIV Study. N Engl J Med 2009; 361:1548-59.

43. Reporting of Adverse Events - 2 “The study was designed as an intention-to-treat analysis with data of clinical events (excluding survival) and each subject’s tolerance censored at the termination of the study medication.” AIDS 1994;8:1185.

44. Reporting of Adverse Events - 3 “We used a five-point scale…to grade adverse events occurring while the patient was taking study drugs and during the eight weeks after their permanent discontinuation”. “All analyses were performed according to intention to treat”. N Engl J Med 1996;335:1099-1106.

45. Recommendations - 1 • Many trial reports are lacking in terms of safety data collection and reporting limiting the ability to weigh risks versus benefits. • Collect less, better, and report it. • Often a combination of “visit-driven” and “event-driven” data collection is optimal with use of both a checklist and open-ended response questions.

46. Recommendations - 2 • Collect safety outcomes for entire trial duration irrespective of relationship to treatment. • Some treatments, even if taken for a short period of time, may delay or reverse disease progression. • Likewise, some treatments, even if taken for a short time, may cause toxicities (e.g., liver damage, an acceleration of atherosclerosis) that may not manifest themselves while taking the treatment. • A “Consumer Reports” analysis of safety and efficacy outcomes is helpful, but cannot be done reliably unless you collect data on all patients for the duration of the study. • I

47. Recommendations - 3 • Composite hierarchical safety outcomes can be useful to supplement an analysis of the individual safety components. • Interim treatment comparisons, for which numerators and denominators are available, are the most important component of safety monitoring. These must be done to supplement the requirements for reporting individual case summaries to IRBs/ECs and regulatory authorities.

48. Group 3 How much safety data should be collected in clinical trials of approved drugs?