Dossier 12 – Etudes monobras et essais à contrôle externe

Références

Sommaire > Dossier 12 – Etudes monobras et essais à contrôle externe > Références

Références

[1] Hatswell AJ, Baio G, Berlin JA, et al. Regulatory approval of pharmaceuticals without a randomised controlled study: analysis of EMA and FDA approvals 1999-2014. BMJ open 2016;6:e011666 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011666 [27363818]

[2] Downing NS, Aminawung JA, Shah ND, et al. Clinical trial evidence supporting FDA approval of novel therapeutic agents, 2005-2012. JAMA 2014;311:368–77 10.1001/jama.2013.282034 [24449315]

[3] Bours MJL. A nontechnical explanation of the counterfactual definition of confounding. J Clin Epidemiol 2020;121:91–100 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.01.021 [32068101]

[4] International Conference on Harmonisation of technical requirements for registration of pharmaceuticals for human use. CHOICE OF CONTROL GROUP AND RELATED ISSUES IN CLINICAL TRIALS E10.

[5] INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL FOR HARMONISATION OF TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PHARMACEUTICALS FOR HUMAN USE. ADDENDUM ON ESTIMANDS AND SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS IN CLINICAL TRIALS TO THE GUIDELINE ON STATISTICAL PRINCIPLES FOR CLINICAL TRIALS E9(R1).

[6] Glassman RH, Kim G, Kahn MJ. When are results of single-arm studies dramatic? Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2020;17:651–52 10.1038/s41571-020-00429-1 [32859976]

[7] Tang H, Foster NR, Grothey A, et al. Comparison of error rates in single-arm versus randomized phase II cancer clinical trials. JCO 2010;28:1936–41 10.1200/JCO.2009.25.5489 [20212253]

[8] Grein J, Ohmagari N, Shin D, et al. Compassionate Use of Remdesivir for Patients with Severe Covid-19. N Engl J Med 2020;382:2327–36 10.1056/NEJMoa2007016 [32275812]

[9] Rittberg R, Czaykowski P, Niraula S. Feasibility of Randomized Controlled Trials for Cancer Drugs Approved by the Food and Drug Administration Based on Single-Arm Studies. JNCI Cancer Spectrum 2021;5:pkab061 10.1093/jncics/pkab061 [34409254]

[10] Kanter J, Walters MC, Krishnamurti L, et al. Biologic and Clinical Efficacy of LentiGlobin for Sickle Cell Disease. N Engl J Med 2022;386:617–28 10.1056/NEJMoa2117175 [34898139]

[11] Tennant PWG, Arnold KF, Ellison GTH, et al. Analyses of 'change scores'do not estimate causal effects in observational data. Int J Epidemiol 2021 10.1093/ije/dyab050 [34100077]

[12] Ozelo MC, Mahlangu J, Pasi KJ, et al. Valoctocogene Roxaparvovec Gene Therapy for Hemophilia A. N Engl J Med 2022;386:1013–25 10.1056/NEJMoa2113708 [35294811]

[13] FDA/CDER/mccrayk. Rare Diseases: Common Issues in Drug Development: Guidance for Industry ;

[14] International Conference on Harmonisation of technical requirements for registration of pharmaceuticals for human use. Choice of control group and related issues in clinical trials E10 2000.

[15] Suissa S. Single-arm trials with historical controls: Study designs to avoid time-related biases. Epidemiology 2020 10.1097/EDE.0000000000001267 [33009252]

[16] Rosenberg JE, Hoffman-Censits J, Powles T, et al. Atezolizumab in patients with locally advanced and metastatic urothelial carcinoma who have progressed following treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy: a single-arm, multicentre, phase 2 trial. The Lancet 2016;387:1909–20 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00561-4

[17] Powles T, Durán I, van der Heijden MS, et al. Atezolizumab versus chemotherapy in patients with platinum-treated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (IMvigor211): a multicentre, open-label, phase 3 randomised controlled trial. The Lancet 2018;391:748–57 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)33297-X [29268948]

[18] Signorovitch JE, Sikirica V, Erder MH, et al. Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons: a new tool for timely comparative effectiveness research. Value Health 2012;15:940–47 10.1016/j.jval.2012.05.004 [22999145]

[19] Signorovitch JE, Wu EQ, Yu AP, et al. Comparative effectiveness without head-to-head trials: a method for matching-adjusted indirect comparisons applied to psoriasis treatment with adalimumab or etanercept. PharmacoEconomics 2010;28:935–45 10.2165/11538370-000000000-00000 [20831302]

[20] Fox MP, Lash TL. On the Need for Quantitative Bias Analysis in the Peer-Review Process. Am J Epidemiol 2017;185:865–68 10.1093/aje/kwx057 [28430833]

[21] Lash TL, Fox MP, Cooney D, et al. Quantitative Bias Analysis in Regulatory Settings. Am J Public Health 2016;106:1227–30 10.2105/AJPH.2016.303199 [27196652]

[22] Lash TL, Fox MP, MacLehose RF, et al. Good practices for quantitative bias analysis. Int J Epidemiol 2014;43:1969–85 10.1093/ije/dyu149 [25080530]

[23] David M. Phillippo, A. E. Ades, Sofia Dias, Stephen Palmer, Keith R. Abrams, Nicky J. Welton. NICE DSU technical support document 18: methods for population-adjusted indirect comparisons in submissions to NICE 2016.

[24] Sridhara R, Mandrekar SJ, Dodd LE. Missing data and measurement variability in assessing progression-free survival endpoint in randomized clinical trials. Clin Cancer Res 2013;19:2613–20 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-12-2938 [23669421]

[25] Denne JS, Stone AM, Bailey-Iacona R, et al. Missing data and censoring in the analysis of progression-free survival in oncology clinical trials. Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics 2013;23:951–70 10.1080/10543406.2013.813515 [23957509]

[26] Marks HM. A rational therapeutics: Science and the reform of therapeutics in the United States, 1900-1990. Cambridge England, New York: Cambridge University Press 1997 ISBN:0521581427;

[27] Debray TPA, Damen JAAG, Snell KIE, et al. A guide to systematic review and meta-analysis of prediction model performance. BMJ 2017;356:i6460 10.1136/bmj.i6460 [28057641]

[28] Carrigan G, Whipple S, Capra WB, et al. Using Electronic Health Records to Derive Control Arms for Early Phase Single-Arm Lung Cancer Trials: Proof-of-Concept in Randomized Controlled Trials. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2020;107:369–77 10.1002/cpt.1586 [31350853]

[29] Larrouquere L, Giai J, Cracowski J-L, et al. Externally Controlled Trials: Are We There Yet? Clin Pharmacol Ther 2020;108:918–19 10.1002/cpt.1881 [32542679]

[30] Ribeiro TB, Colunga-Lozano LE, Araujo APV, et al. Single-arm clinical trials that supported FDA Accelerated Approvals have modest effect sizes and at high risk of bias. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2022 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.01.018 [35093531]