UNASSIGNED: The goal of treatment in autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) is induction of remission to prevent the development of liver fibrosis, cirrhosis, and its related complications. Various definitions of treatment response and remission have been used. The International Autoimmune Hepatitis Group (IAIHG) recently defined consensus criteria for treatment response. We aimed to validate the IAIHG response criteria in our cohort and establish correlations with survival endpoints.
UNASSIGNED: We performed a retrospective, multicentric cohort study in one tertiary and seven secondary care centres in Belgium. Eligible patients were at least 18 years of age at data collection and were diagnosed with AIH by a simplified IAIHG score of ≥6. Complete biochemical response (CBR) was defined according to the IAIHG consensus criteria as normalisation of transaminases and serum IgG within the first 6 months of treatment. The primary endpoint was liver-related survival - defined as freedom from liver-related death or liver transplantation. Secondary endpoints were overall mortality and transplant-free survival. Outcomes were compared between patients attaining CBR and those with insufficient response.
UNASSIGNED: Biochemical response status could be determined in 200 patients with AIH: CBR was achieved in 128 (64.0%) individuals. Patients not achieving CBR more frequently presented with cirrhosis on initial histology (22.2% vs. 10.9%, p = 0.036). Liver-related mortality or liver transplantation as a primary outcome occurred in 26 patients (13.0%). Patients achieving CBR exhibited superior liver-related (hazard ratio 0.118; 95% CI 0.052-0.267; p <0.0001) and overall (hazard ratio 0.253; 95% CI 0.111-0.572; p = 0.0003) survival.
UNASSIGNED: We externally validated the IAIHG consensus criteria for CBR and confirmed their correlation with survival endpoints in a multicentric, real-world cohort. Patients with AIH achieving CBR as an intermediate endpoint have significantly superior liver-related and overall survival.
UNASSIGNED: Corticosteroids remain the cornerstone of treatment to induce remission of disease activity in autoimmune hepatitis (AIH), and the majority of patients require long-term corticosteroid treatment to achieve sustained remission. Definitions of response to treatment have varied over the years, and consistently used intermediate endpoints are needed to facilitate advancements in non-corticosteroid treatment for autoimmune hepatitis. The International Autoimmune Hepatitis Group (IAIHG) defined consensus criteria on endpoints in the treatment of AIH, for which further external validation is needed. Here, we demonstrate the usefulness of the IAIHG consensus criteria and corroborate their correlation to primary endpoints, such as liver-related survival and native liver survival in a multicentric, real-world setting. The design of future studies can rely on the IAIHG consensus criteria as intermediate endpoints.

OBJECTIVE: The main purpose of using a surrogate endpoint is to estimate the treatment effect on the true endpoint sooner than with a true endpoint. Based on a meta-regression of historical randomized trials with surrogate and true endpoints, we discuss statistics for applying and evaluating surrogate endpoints.
METHODS: We computed statistics from two types of linear meta-regressions for trial-level data: simple random effects and novel random effects with correlations among estimated treatment effects in trials with more than 2 arms. A key statistic is the estimated intercept of the meta-regression line. An intercept that is small or not statistically significant increases confidence when extrapolating to a new treatment because of consistency with a single causal pathway and invariance to labeling of treatments as controls. For a regulator applying the meta-regression to a new treatment, a useful statistic is the 95% prediction interval. For a clinical trialist planning a trial of a new treatment, useful statistics are the surrogate threshold effect proportion, the sample size multiplier adjusted for dropouts, and the novel true endpoint advantage.
RESULTS: We illustrate these statistics with surrogate endpoint meta-regressions involving anti-hypertension treatment, breast cancer screening, and colorectal cancer treatment.
CONCLUSIONS: Regulators and trialists should consider using these statistics when applying and evaluating surrogate endpoints.

Disease progression in clinical trials is commonly defined by radiologic measures. However, clinical progression may be more meaningful to patients, may occur even when radiologic criteria for progression are not met, and often requires a change in therapy in clinical practice. The objective of this study was to determine the utilization of clinical progression criteria within progression-based trial endpoints among phase III trials testing systemic therapies for metastatic solid tumors. The primary manuscripts and protocols of phase III trials were reviewed for whether clinical events, such as refractory pain, tumor bleeding, or neurologic compromise, could constitute a progression event. Univariable logistic regression computed odds ratios (OR) and 95% CI for associations between trial-level covariates and clinical progression. A total of 216 trials enrolling 148,190 patients were included, with publication dates from 2006 through 2020. A major change in clinical status was included in the progression criteria of 13% of trials (n = 27), most commonly as a secondary endpoint (n = 22). Only 59% of trials (n = 16) reported distinct clinical progression outcomes that constituted the composite surrogate endpoint. Compared with other disease sites, genitourinary trials were more likely to include clinical progression definitions (16/33 [48%] vs. 11/183 [6%]; OR, 14.72; 95% CI, 5.99 to 37.84; p < .0001). While major tumor-related clinical events were seldom considered as disease progression events, increased attention to clinical progression may improve the meaningfulness and clinical applicability of surrogate endpoints for patients with metastatic solid tumors.

暂无摘要。

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the strength of statistical evidence of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for novel cancer drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the last 2 decades.
METHODS: We used data on overall survival (OS), progression-free survival, and tumor response for novel cancer drugs approved for the first time by the Food and Drug Administration between January 2000 and December 2020. We assessed strength of statistical evidence by calculating Bayes factors (BFs) for all available endpoints, and we pooled evidence using Bayesian fixed-effect meta-analysis for indications approved based on 2 RCTs. Strength of statistical evidence was compared among endpoints, approval pathways, lines of treatment, and types of cancer.
RESULTS: We analysed the available data from 82 RCTs corresponding to 68 indications supported by a single RCT and 7 indications supported by 2 RCTs. Median strength of statistical evidence was ambiguous for OS (BF = 1.9; interquartile range [IQR] 0.5-14.5), and strong for progression-free survival (BF = 24,767.8; IQR 109.0-7.3 × 106) and tumor response (BF = 113.9; IQR 3.0-547,100). Overall, 44 indications (58.7%) were approved without clear statistical evidence for OS improvements and 7 indications (9.3%) were approved without statistical evidence for improvements on any endpoint. Strength of statistical evidence was lower for accelerated approval compared to nonaccelerated approval across all 3 endpoints. No meaningful differences were observed for line of treatment and cancer type. This analysis is limited to statistical evidence. We did not consider nonstatistical factors (eg, risk of bias, quality of the evidence).
CONCLUSIONS: BFs offer novel insights into the strength of statistical evidence underlying cancer drug approvals. Most novel cancer drugs lack strong statistical evidence that they improve OS, and a few lack statistical evidence for efficacy altogether. These cases require a transparent and clear explanation. When evidence is ambiguous, additional postmarketing trials could reduce uncertainty.

Duration of overall survival in patients with cancer has lengthened due to earlier detection and improved treatments. However, these improvements have created challenges in assessing the impact of newer treatments, particularly those used early in the treatment pathway. As overall survival remains most decision-makers\' preferred primary endpoint, therapeutic innovations may take a long time to be introduced into clinical practice. Moreover, it is difficult to extrapolate findings to heterogeneous populations and address the concerns of patients wishing to evaluate everyday quality and extension of life. There is growing interest in the use of surrogate or interim endpoints to demonstrate robust treatment effects sooner than is possible with measurement of overall survival. It is hoped that they could speed up patients\' access to new drugs, combinations, and sequences, and inform treatment decision-making. However, while surrogate endpoints have been used by regulators for drug approvals, this has occurred on a case-by-case basis. Evidence standards are yet to be clearly defined for acceptability in health technology appraisals or to shape clinical practice. This article considers the relevance of the use of surrogate endpoints in cancer in the UK context, and explores whether collection and analysis of real-world UK data and evidence might contribute to validation.

Conventional dentistry or periodontal research often ignores the human component in favor of clinical outcomes and biological causes. Clinical research is driven by the statistical significance of outcome parameters rather than the satisfaction level of the patient. In this context, patient-centric periodontal research (PCPR) is an approach that considers the patient´s feedback concerning their functional status, experience, clinical outcomes, and accessibility to their treatments. It is argued that data self-reported by the patient might have low reliability owing to the confounding effect of their personal belief, cultural background, and social and economic factors. However, literature has shown that the incorporation of \"patient-centric outcome\" components considerably enhances the validity and applicability of research findings. Variations in the results of different studies might be due to the use of different and non-standardized assessment tools. To overcome this problem, this editorial enlists various reliable tools available in the literature. In conclusion, we advocate that the focus of researchers should shift from mere periodontal research to PCPR so that the results can be effectively applied in clinical settings and the therapeutic strategy can also change from mere periodontal therapy to patient-centric periodontal therapy.

Overall survival (OS) is the most meaningful endpoint in clinical trials. However, owing to their limitations, surrogate endpoints are commonly used and validation studies are required to assess their reliability. Analysis of phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of advanced gastroesophageal cancer (AGC) with > 100 patients, correlation coefficients (r), and determination coefficients (R²) between OS and surrogates were evaluated through meta-analyses. Progression-free survival (PFS), time to progression (TTP), and objective response rate (ORR) were examined to determine their correlations with OS. Analysis of 65 phase III RCTs (29,766 subjects) showed a moderate correlation between PFS/TTP and OS (r = 0.77, R² = 0.59), while ORR correlation was low (r = 0.56, R² = 0.31). Excluding immunotherapy trials improved the PFS/TTP and OS correlations (r = 0.83, R² = 0.70). These findings suggest the potential use of PFS/TTP in AGC phase III investigations, disregarding the use of ORR as a surrogate endpoint.

UNASSIGNED: Traditionally, the success of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) treatment has been primarily assessed based on clinical outcomes, such as disease response, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). However, the evolution of treatment approaches recognizes the importance of a patient-centered perspective that includes factors directly affecting patients\' quality of life and overall well-being.
UNASSIGNED: Studies addressing the impact of targeted agents on improving either OS or other endpoint surrogates were selected using PubMed and MEDLINE platforms. Our search also included studies that considered patient-centric endpoints such as health-related quality of life and patient-reported outcomes (PROs).
UNASSIGNED: The changing landscape of CLL treatment underscores the importance of continually exploring various endpoints to thoroughly define treatment success. Beyond conventional metrics such as OS and surrogate endpoints, namely, PFS, time to next treatment (TTNT), and measurable residual disease (MRD) assessment, it becomes crucial to integrate enhanced comorbidity evaluations and patient-centered viewpoints into a CLL success roadmap.Subsequent investigations ought to concentrate on enhancing current surrogate endpoints, discerning their contextual significance, and exploring innovative indicators of treatment efficacy and safety. Given the dynamic nature of CLL and the heterogeneity among patient groups, personalized strategies are essential, taking into account individual traits and patient preferences.

Cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA) is a type of cerebrovascular disorder characterised by the accumulation of amyloid within the leptomeninges and small/medium-sized cerebral blood vessels. Typically, cerebral haemorrhages are one of the first clinical manifestations of CAA, posing a considerable challenge to the timely diagnosis of CAA as the bleedings only occur during the later disease stages. Fluid biomarkers may change prior to imaging biomarkers, and therefore, they could be the future of CAA diagnosis. Additionally, they can be used as primary outcome markers in prospective clinical trials. Among fluid biomarkers, blood-based biomarkers offer a distinct advantage over cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers as they do not require a procedure as invasive as a lumbar puncture. This article aimed to provide an overview of the present clinical data concerning fluid biomarkers associated with CAA and point out the direction of future studies. Among all the biomarkers discussed, amyloid β, neurofilament light chain, matrix metalloproteinases, complement 3, uric acid, and lactadherin demonstrated the most promising evidence. However, the field of fluid biomarkers for CAA is an under-researched area, and in most cases, there are only one or two studies on each of the biomarkers mentioned in this review. Additionally, a small sample size is a common limitation of the discussed studies. Hence, it is hard to reach a solid conclusion on the clinical significance of each biomarker at different stages of the disease or in various subpopulations of CAA. In order to overcome this issue, larger longitudinal and multicentered studies are needed.