Does the oncology community have a rejection bias when it comes to repurposed drugs?
Bishal Gyawali1,2,3, Pan Pantziarka1,4, Sergio Crispino1 and Gauthier Bouche1
1Anticancer Fund, Boechoutlaan 221-1853, Strombeek-Bever, Belgium
2Department of Medical Oncology, Civil Service Hospital, Minbhawan Marg Min Bhawan, Kathmandu 44600, Nepal
3Institute of Cancer Policy, King’s College London, Great Maze Pond Road, London SE1 9RT, UK
4The George Pantziarka TP53 Trust, London KT1 2JP, UK
Corresponding author: Bishal Gyawali. E-mail: bg.bishalgyawali@gmail.com and Twitter: @oncology_bg
Abstract
Among the various measures proposed to combat the challenge of financial toxicity in cancer care, an important strategy is the use of lower-priced drugs instead of expensive alternatives. However, the oncology community seems to either ignore or more readily reject cheaper drugs in cancer care compared to more expensive alternatives. In this commentary, we present three examples of lower-priced drugs rejected or ignored by the oncology community and contrast this with three expensive drugs where persistent optimism remained despite negative clinical trial results. We argue that all drugs be held to the same rigorous standards – this not only includes skepticism in the absence of sound evidence, but also the suspension of premature judgement as has happened in the cases of repurposed drugs.
Keywords: repurposed drugs, financial toxicity, metformin, statin, aspirin
Copyright: © the authors; licensee ecancermedicalscience. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Published: 16/01/2018; Received: 09/10/2017
Does the oncology community have a rejection bias when it comes to repurposed drugs?
Financial toxicity, the major cause of which remains high drug pricing, is now a widely acknowledged problem in cancer medicine with major implications both for the patient and for health care systems [1]. Of various measures proposed to combat this challenge, an important strategy is the use of lower-priced drugs instead of expensive alternatives [2]. However, the oncology community seems to either ignore or more readily reject cheaper drugs in cancer care compared to more expensive alternatives. In this commentary, we present three examples of lower-priced drugs rejected or ignored by the oncology community and contrast this with three expensive drugs where persistent optimism remained despite negative clinical trial results.
Statins in small cell lung cancer (SCLC)
Statins are a widely-used and low-cost class of drugs that have long been proposed as having significant anti-cancer effects. In the recent LUNGSTAR study, the addition of pravastatin to first-line chemotherapy in small cell lung cancer (SCLC) failed to improve patient outcomes [3]. This is a welcome study as it was the first adequately powered RCT testing an important hypothesis. However, the choice of this particular example of the statin class of drugs as well as the tumor type was less than ideal. First, while it is tempting to see statins as interchangeable when it comes to repurposing, this assumption should only be made where supporting evidence exists. Paradoxically, the only preclinical evidence available in SCLC was with simvastatin [4]. Simvastatin has pharmacological features very different from pravastatin, especially in terms of lipophilicity [5]. Although this limit was touched upon in the accompanying editorial, it argued that additional trials of statins are not justified even in other cancers [6]. This strong claim ignores both possible differences between the statins and the available evidence in other cancer types, such as hepatocellular carcinoma [7, 8]. It also ignores the emerging rationale for trialing some statins in other specific settings (e.g. simvastatin in inflammatory breast cancer with radiotherapy) [9]. Furthermore, SCLC is a very challenging cancer to treat with extremely poor prognosis where many targeted drugs and immunotherapies have failed. The failure of a less-than-ideal statin to improve OS in this challenging cancer shouldn’t discourage us from testing statins in other tumor types, particularly as the combination of statin and chemotherapy didn’t increase adverse events compared to chemotherapy alone.
Let’s compare this approach to the blockbuster drug ipilimumab. Ipilimumab also recently failed to improve survival in SCLC [10]. However, the accompanying editorial optimistically concluded that future combination trials should be pursued and might be positive [11]. In another trial, bevacizumab added to chemotherapy failed to improve OS in SCLC and yet met with optimism in the editorial [12]. We fail to understand this discrepancy such that a single negative RCT of one statin would prompt some experts to conclude that the entire class of statins should not be tested at all in any cancer type but that drugs as expensive and toxic as ipilimumab and bevacizumab be given multiple chances in the hope of achieving a perceived benefit.
Aspirin in colorectal cancer
A 2003 placebo-controlled trial of aspirin showed statistically significant positive results [13]. Among 635 patients with prior colorectal cancer, it showed that daily aspirin (325mg) significantly reduced the risk for developing new adenomas with no increase in bleeding. This finding has also been supported with findings from meta-analyses of various observational studies [14, 15]. However, aspirin has neither been approved nor recommended in any clinical guidelines for this purpose.
By contrast, bevacizumab has been tested as adjuvant treatment of colorectal cancer in 3 huge RCTs [16–18] involving altogether more than 8000 patients. All three trials were negative. Bevacizumab, in contrast with aspirin, is an expensive drug with significant toxicity. Nevertheless, the oncology community was happy with having three large trials with bevacizumab asking the same question in the same setting. Similarly, in the setting of first-line advanced ovarian cancer, several angiogenesis inhibitors have been trialed but failed, and yet the optimism continues unabated [19, 20].
Metformin in pancreatic and gastric cancer
Metformin is another important candidate for drug repurposing in pancreatic, gastric, gynecological and other cancers [21]. Epidemiological data show that the use of metformin is associated with reduced risk of pancreatic cancer in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus [22]. Thus, it is very logical to hypothesize that the beneficial effect of metformin could extend to treatment of pancreatic cancer in non-diabetics as well, given the laboratory rationale for the antitumor effects of metformin [23]. However, only RCTs can provide the gold standard evidence for a drug’s efficacy and we do not intend to propose a lower bar for cheaper drugs. A cheaper drug is still harmful if it confers no benefit to the patient [24].
Unfortunately though, metformin failed to improve outcomes in a placebo-controlled phase 2 RCT comparing metformin in combination with gemcitabine-erlotinib in 121 patients with advanced pancreatic cancer [25]. However, the question of whether metformin improves outcomes in patients with pancreatic cancer is still not settled because of a few issues in the trial design and methodology. First, this was a phase 2 trial powered to detect an increase of 25% in OS at 6 months. While a very ambitious target given that most chemotherapeutic and targeted agents have produced disappointing results in advanced pancreatic cancer, the investigators had to face the usual problem of phase 2 trials: finding a compromise between power, effect size and sample size. Moreover, the interpretation of this study should take into account the risk of confounding. The baseline CA19.9, which is a known prognostic factor in advanced pancreatic cancer [26], is very different between the metformin and placebo groups (median 561 versus 245). This difference in CA19.9 between the groups could have confounded the results against metformin. Furthermore, metformin group patients received fewer treatment cycles compared to placebo (median of 3 versus 5). It is important to consider these confounders before labelling this study as negative. Additionally, another nonrandomized study has shown improved survival outcomes with metformin among patients with gastric cancer [27]. However, our search in clinicaltrials.gov failed to find any RCTs attempting to test this survival benefit.
It is interesting to contrast this with the trial of nab-paclitaxel in gastric cancer. The ABSOLUTE trial tested the efficacy of nab-paclitaxel in advanced gastric cancer as a non-inferiority design with a non-inferiority margin of 1.25 for the hazard ratio [28]. Unsurprisingly, the trial proved nab-paclitaxel to be non-inferior and recommended it as a treatment option for gastric cancer. We fail to understand while the trials of metformin and statins are tested against a high bar of OS endpoint in a superiority trial, the expensive newer agents are allowed the luxury of a non-inferiority design with arbitrary non-inferiority margins. A comparison of gemcitabine alone versus gemcitabine metformin or the non-inferiority of gemcitabine-metformin over gemcitabine-nab-paclitaxel would still be very meaningful in economically-constrained settings given the much cheaper price of metformin compared to other available agents in this setting.
Conclusions
It is important to emphasize that the key criterion for judging clinical efficacy – well-designed RCTs with strong patient-relevant outcomes – remains the same for new commercially developed drugs and for the repurposing of generic non-cancer drug as oncological treatments [24]. However, as has been shown above, expensive commercially developed drugs are often trialed multiply to assess efficacy, and failures simply lead to further trials without necessarily leading to pessimism among clinicians and researchers. In contrast, poorly designed trials or negative results can lead to pessimism and the peremptory dismissal of an entire class of repurposed drugs. Indeed, as the example of aspirin in colorectal cancer has shown, even positive trial results for repurposed drugs can be ignored by the oncology community.
We argue that all drugs be held to the same rigorous standards – this not only includes skepticism in the absence of sound evidence, but also the suspension of premature judgement as has happened in the cases we mention above. We acknowledge on the other hand that clinical trials of repurposed drugs may often have methodological short-comings. In particular, more interactions between research and trial groups should be encouraged to ensure the right drug is tested in the right setting using the most appropriate design and relevant outcome. Also, early discussion with regulators should be promoted to ensure trials meet the regulators’ expectations, hence facilitating licensing, clinical adoption and reimbursements [29].
Note that we are not making specific claims as to the efficacy, or not, of these particular drugs in these settings. It may well be that statins have no role to play in SCLC or metformin have no significant impact on survival outcomes in pancreatic or gastric cancer. However, without the willing engagement of researchers and clinicians perfectly valid hypotheses will not be tested in the same way that commercially sponsored trials test new cancer medicines in a range of settings, often even after suffering set-backs in terms of negative results. Indeed, the ADD-ASPIRIN trial tells us that with enough commitment and will from academia, and support from interested organizations, big phase 3 trials testing repurposable drugs in oncology are possible and feasible [30].
It is paradoxical that the oncology community, while complaining about huge drug costs, encourages futile trials of expensive drugs and yet does not give the same benefit of the doubt to lower cost repurposed drugs. This is important because even if the expensive drugs such as ipilimumab, nab-paclitaxel or bevacizumab achieve significance in some tumors, they are likely to be cost-ineffective and out of the realm of affordability for millions of cancer patients worldwide. However, the discovery of better outcomes with repurposed drugs such as metformin or statins has the potential to lead to immediate applicability and the transformation of cancer care across the global boundaries.
In conclusion, we strongly urge the oncology community to apply similar standards, methodologies and judgments in the assessment of the clinical worth of repurposed drugs and newer agents in cancer.
References
1. Prasad V, De Jesus K, and Mailankody S (2017) The high price of anticancer drugs: origins, implications, barriers, solutions Nat Rev Clin Oncol 14(6) 381–390
2. Gyawali B (2017) Low-value practices in oncology contributing to financial toxicity Ecancermedicalscience 11 727
3. Seckl MJ, Ottensmeier CH, and Cullen M, et al (2017) Multicenter, phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of pravastatin added to first-line standard chemotherapy in small-cell lung cancer (LUNGSTAR) J Clin Oncol 35(14) 1506–1514
4. Khanzada UK, Pardo OE, and Meier C, et al (2006) Potent inhibition of small-cell lung cancer cell growth by simvastatin reveals selective functions of Ras isoforms in growth factor signalling Oncogen 25(6) 877–887
5. Sirtori CR (2014) The pharmacology of statins Pharmacol Res 88 3–11
6. Popat S (2017) Do statins improve survival in small-cell lung cancer? J Clin Oncol 35(14) 1497–1498
7. Kawata S, Yamasaki E, and Nagase T, et al (2001) Effect of pravastatin on survival in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. a randomized controlled trial Br J Cancer 84(7) 886–891
8. Graf H, Jungst C, and Straub G, et al (2008) Chemoembolization combined with pravastatin improves survival in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma Digestion 78(1) 34–38
9. Lacerda L, Reddy JP, and Liu D, et al (2014) Simvastatin radiosensitizes differentiated and stem-like breast cancer cell lines and is associated with improved local control in inflammatory breast cancer patients treated with postmastectomy radiation Stem Cells Transl Med 3(7) 849–856
10. Reck M, Luft A, and Szczesna A, et al (2016) Phase III randomized trial of ipilimumab plus etoposide and platinum versus placebo plus etoposide and platinum in extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer J Clin Oncol 34(31) 3740–3748
11. Riess JW, Lara PN Jr, and Gandara DR (2016) Theory meets practice for immune checkpoint blockade in small-cell lung cancer J Clin Oncol 34(31) 3717–3718
12. Neal JW and Wakelee HA (2017) Elusive target of angiogenesis in small-cell lung cancer J Clin Oncol 35(12) 1269–1271
13. Sandler RS, Halabi S, and Baron JA, et al (2003) A randomized trial of aspirin to prevent colorectal adenomas in patients with previous colorectal cancer N Engl J Med 348(10) 883–890
14. Elwood PC, Morgan G, and Pickering JE, et al (2016) Aspirin in the treatment of cancer: reductions in metastatic spread and in mortality: a systematic review and meta-analyses of published studies Plos One 11(4) e0152402
15. Bosetti C, Rosato V, and Gallus S, et al (2012) Aspirin and cancer risk: a quantitative review to 2011 Ann Oncol 23(6) 1403–1415
16. Allegra CJ, Yothers G, and O’Connell MJ, et al (2011) Phase III trial assessing bevacizumab in stages II and III carcinoma of the colon: results of NSABP protocol C-08 J Clin Oncol 29(1) 11–16
17. de Gramont A, Van Cutsem E, and Schmoll HJ, et al (2012) Bevacizumab plus oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy as adjuvant treatment for colon cancer (AVANT): a phase 3 randomised controlled trial Lancet Oncol 13(12) 1225–1233
18. Kerr RS, Love S, and Segelov E, et al (2016) Adjuvant capecitabine plus bevacizumab versus capecitabine alone in patients with colorectal cancer (QUASAR 2): an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial Lancet Oncol 17(11) 1543–1557
19. Gyawali B and Prasad V (2016) Same data; different interpretations J Clin Oncol 34(31) 3729–3732
20. Gyawali B and Prasad V (2016) Negative trials in ovarian cancer: is there such a thing as too much optimism? Ecancermedicalscience 10 ed58
21. Bertolini F, Sukhatme VP, and Bouche G (2015) Drug repurposing in oncology--patient and health systems opportunities Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2015 12(12) 732–742
22. Wang Z, Lai ST, and Xie L, et al (2014) Metformin is associated with reduced risk of pancreatic cancer in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis Diabetes Res Clin Pract 106(1) 19–26
23. Buzzai M, Jones RG, and Amaravadi RK, et al (2007) Systemic treatment with the antidiabetic drug metformin selectively impairs p53-deficient tumor cell growth Cancer Res 67(14) 6745–6752
24. Pantziarka P, Bouche G, and Meheus L, et al (2014) The repurposing drugs in oncology (ReDO) project Ecancermedicalscience 8 442
25. Kordes S, Pollak MN, and Zwinderman AH, et al (2015) Metformin in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer: a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial Lancet Oncol 16(7) 839–847
26. Bauer TM, El-Rayes BF, and Li X, et al (2013) Carbohydrate antigen 19-9 is a prognostic and predictive biomarker in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer who receive gemcitabine-containing chemotherapy: a pooled analysis of 6 prospective trials Cancer 119(2) 285–292
27. Lee CK, Jung M, and Jung I, et al (2016) Cumulative metformin use and its impact on survival in gastric cancer patients after gastrectomy Ann Surg 263(1) 96–102
28. Shitara K, Takashima A, and Fujitani K, et al (2017) Nab-paclitaxel versus solvent-based paclitaxel in patients with previously treated advanced gastric cancer (ABSOLUTE): an open-label, randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2(4) 277–287
29. Pantziarka P (2017) Scientific advice - is drug repurposing missing a trick? Nat Rev Clin Oncol 14(8) 455–456
30. Coyle C, Cafferty FH, and Rowley S, et al (2016) ADD-ASPIRIN: a phase III, double blind, placebo controlled, randomised trial assessing the effects of aspirin on disease recurrence and survival after primary therapy in common non-metastatic solid tumours Contemp Clin Trials 51 56–64
