Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39521472›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2024

Factors affecting the feasibility of post-authorisation RCTs for conditionally authorised anticancer medicines: a multistakeholder perspective from a qualitative focus group study.

Christine C van Hattem, Amos J de Jong, Jolien S de Groot, Jarno Hoekman, K Esther Broekman, Gabe S Sonke, Paula B van Hennik, Lourens T Bloem

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Christine C van HattemDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0001-3619-1721
Amos J de JongDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6860-9213
Jolien S de GrootMedicines Evaluation Board, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Jarno HoekmanInnovation Studies, Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
K Esther BroekmanMedicines Evaluation Board, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Gabe S SonkeDepartment of Medical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8088-9628
Paula B van HennikMedicines Evaluation Board, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Lourens T BloemDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands L.T.Bloem@uu.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0014-8625

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe collection of comprehensive data from post-authorisation trials for conditionally authorised anticancer medicines is frequently delayed. This raises questions about the feasibility of post-authorisation randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that aim to address remaining uncertainties. Therefore, this study explored factors that facilitate or impede the feasibility of post-authorisation RCTs from the perspective of stakeholders directly involved in the design, medical-ethical approval, and conduct of these RCTs.

designWe conducted four qualitative focus groups (FGs).

settingFG discussions focused on the oncology setting in European context.

participantsTwenty-eight European patients, physicians, medical ethicists and pharmaceutical industry representatives participated in the FGs.

interventionRespondents were informed about the topic and the purpose of the FGs before and at the start of FG discussions. An FG script was used to guide the discussion, which was informed by 14 semi-structured interviews with various stakeholders.

resultsWe identified factors with the potential to impact feasibility related to trial design, trial conduct, factors external to a trial and post-authorisation interaction with regulators. Factors that may be particularly relevant for the post-authorisation setting include the choice of relevant endpoints and the inclusion of a fair comparator (trial design), strategies to increase patients' and physicians' willingness to participate (trial conduct), and external factors relating to a medicine's commercial availability, the presence of competing medicines and trials and the perceptions about clinical equipoise. Post-authorisation interaction with regulators about how to obtain comprehensive data was deemed necessary in cases where a post-authorisation RCT seems infeasible.

conclusionsBased on the identified factors, our findings suggest that patient recruitment and retention could be assessed more in-depth during regulatory feasibility assessments at the time of granting conditional marketing authorisation and that sponsors and regulators should better inform patients and physicians about the remaining uncertainties for conditionally authorised medicines and the necessity for post-authorisation RCTs. By enhancing the evaluation of trial feasibility, timely completion of post-authorisation RCTs may be facilitated to resolve the remaining uncertainties within a reasonable timeframe.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic AgentsFeasibility StudiesFocus GroupsQualitative ResearchRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAdultDrug ApprovalEuropeFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsResearch DesignAntineoplastic AgentsHealth policyONCOLOGYQUALITATIVE RESEARCHRandomized Controlled TrialTHERAPEUTICS

Identifiers

PMID39521472
PMCPMC11552028

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.