Predictive Value Of Phase I Trials For Safety In Later Trials And Final Approved Dose: Analysis Of 61 Approved Cancer Drugs.

Phase I trials use a small number of patients to define a maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and the safety of new agents. We compared data from phase I and registration trials to determine whether early trials predicted later safety and final dose. We searched the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) website for drugs approved in nonpediatric cancers (January 1990-October 2012). The recommended phase II dose (R2PD) and toxicities from phase I were compared with doses and safety in later trials. In 62 of 85 (73%) matched trials, the dose from the later trial was within 20% of the RP2D. In a multivariable analysis, phase I trials of targeted agents were less predictive of the final approved dose (OR, 0.2 for adopting ± 20% of the RP2D for targeted vs. other classes; P = 0.025). Of the 530 clinically relevant toxicities in later trials, 70% (n = 374) were described in phase I. A significant relationship (P = 0.0032) between increasing the number of patients in phase I (up to 60) and the ability to describe future clinically relevant toxicities was observed. Among 28,505 patients in later trials, the death rate that was related to drug was 1.41%. In conclusion, dosing based on phase I trials was associated with a low toxicity-related death rate in later trials. The ability to predict relevant toxicities correlates with the number of patients on the initial phase I trial. The final dose approved was within 20% of the RP2D in 73% of assessed trials.

National Institutes Of Health Consensus Development Project On Criteria For Clinical Trials In Chronic Graft-versus-host Disease: I. The 2014 Diagnosis And Staging Working Group Report.

The 2005 National Institutes of Health (NIH) Consensus Conference proposed new criteria for diagnosing and scoring the severity of chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). The 2014 NIH consensus maintains the framework of the prior consensus with further refinement based on new evidence. Revisions have been made to address areas of controversy or confusion, such as the overlap chronic GVHD subcategory and the distinction between active disease and past tissue damage. Diagnostic criteria for involvement of mouth, eyes, genitalia, and lungs have been revised. Categories of chronic GVHD should be defined in ways that indicate prognosis, guide treatment, and define eligibility for clinical trials. Revisions have been made to focus attention on the causes of organ-specific abnormalities. Attribution of organ-specific abnormalities to chronic GVHD has been addressed. This paradigm shift provides greater specificity and more accurately measures the global burden of disease attributed to GVHD, and it will facilitate biomarker association studies.

Clinical trials in Brazilian journals of ophthalmology: where we are

PURPOSE: To compare clinical trials published in Brazilian journals of ophthalmology and in foreign journals of ophthalmology with respect to the number of citations and the quality of reporting [by applying the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement writing standards]. METHODS: The sample of this systematic review comprised the two Brazilian journals of ophthalmology indexed at Science Citation Index Expanded and six of the foreign journals of ophthalmology with highest Impact Factor® according ISI. All clinical trials (CTs) published from January 2009 to December 2010 at the Brazilians journals and a 1:1 randomized sample of the foreign journals were included. The primary outcome was the number of citations through the end of 2011. Subgroup analysis included language. The secondary outcome included likelihood of citation (cited at least once versus no citation), and presence or absence of CONSORT statement indicators. RESULTS: The citation counts were statistically significantly higher (P<0.001) in the Foreign Group (10.50) compared with the Brazilian Group (0.45). The likelihood citation was statistically significantly higher (P<0.001) in the Foreign Group (20/20 - 100%) compared with the Brazilian Group (8/20 - 40%). The subgroup analysis of the language influence in Brazilian articles showed that the citation counts were statistically significantly higher in the papers published in English (P<0.04). Of 37 possible CONSORT items, the mean for the Foreign Group was 20.55 and for the Brazilian Group was 13.65 (P<0.003). CONCLUSION: The number of citations and the quality of reporting of clinical trials in Brazilian journals of ophthalmology still are low when compared with the foreign journals of ophthalmology with highest Impact Factor®.

Análise do desempenho em testes de triathlon com diferentes intensidades durante a etapa natação = : Analysis of triathlon trials performance using different intensities during swimming phase

Universidade Estadual de Campinas . Faculdade de Educação Física