Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                

Adverse Event Reporting Quality in Cancer Clinical Trials Evaluating Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy: A Systematic Review release_2uadhsxkunaprcvmztqbdu5nt4

by Yuhong Wang, Yuhong Wang, Yuhong Wang, Chen Chen, Chen Chen, Chen Chen, Wei Du, Wei Du, Wei Du, Yixin Zhou, Yixin Zhou, Yixin Zhou (+9 others)

Published in Frontiers in Immunology by Frontiers Media S.A..

2022   Volume 13, p874829

Abstract

BackgroundImmunotherapy has become one of the most important breakthroughs in cancer treatment. Consequently, there have been more immuno-oncology (IO) clinical trials for various cancers in recent decades. However, the quality of such trials in reporting adverse events (AE), especially immune-related AE (irAE), has not been comprehensively evaluated.MethodsWe evaluated the harm reporting quality of IO trials. The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were searched to identify all head-to-head phase II and III clinical trials assessing cancer immunotherapy published between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2021. Publications were assessed using a 16-point harm reporting quality score (HRQS) derived from the 2004 Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) extension. The characteristics associated with improved reporting quality were identified with linear regression.ResultsA total of 123 publications were included. The mean HRQS was 11.1 (range, 5-14). The most common poorly reported items were harms addressed in the title (2%), AE collection methodology (3%), the statistical approach for analyzing harms (11%), and the irAE onset patterns and management (adequately reported in 14% and 33% of publications, respectively). The harm information was well described in the publications' Results and Discussion sections (89-99%). The multivariable regression model revealed that higher impact factor (IF) (30<IF<60 vs. IF<30, P=0.021) and phase III clinical trial (phase III vs. phase II, P=0.023) were independent predictors of higher quality score.ConclusionOur findings show that AE reporting in IO randomized trials is suboptimal. Efforts should be made to improve harm reporting and to standardize reporting practices. Improvements in AE reporting would permit more balanced assessment of interventions and would enhance evidence-based IO practice.
In text/plain format

Archived Files and Locations

application/pdf  1.0 MB
file_t6vcuhqsvzciranfuub72zelky
fjfsdata01prod.blob.core.windows.net (publisher)
web.archive.org (webarchive)

Web Captures

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2022.874829/full
2022-07-23 14:16:34 | 31 resources
webcapture_i57uy7rxqfci3pbshriocvv2yi
web.archive.org (webarchive)
Read Archived PDF
Preserved and Accessible
Type  article-journal
Stage   published
Date   2022-07-07
Language   en ?
Container Metadata
Open Access Publication
In DOAJ
In ISSN ROAD
In Keepers Registry
ISSN-L:  1664-3224
Work Entity
access all versions, variants, and formats of this works (eg, pre-prints)
Catalog Record
Revision: 7b7e6bf9-0404-43dd-af3a-cc1eee94a545
API URL: JSON