ABSTRACT
Most advanced cancers are treated with drug combinations. Rational designs aim to identify synergistic drug interactions to produce superior treatments. However, metrics of drug interaction (i.e., synergy, additivity, antagonism) apply to pre-clinical experiments, and there has been no established method to quantify synergy versus additivity in clinical settings. Here, we propose and apply a model of drug additivity for progression-free survival (PFS) to assess if the clinical efficacies of approved drug combinations are more than, or equal to, the sum of their parts. This model accounts for the benefit from patient-to-patient variability in the best single drug response, plus the added benefit of the weaker drug per patient. Among FDA approvals for advanced cancers between 1995-2020, we identified 37 combinations across 13 cancer types where monotherapies and combination therapy could be compared. 95% of combination therapies exhibited progression-free survival times that were additive, or less than additive. Among a set of phase III trials with either positive or negative results published between 2014 and 2018, every combination that did improve PFS was expected to succeed by additivity (100% sensitivity) and most failures were expected to fail (78% specificity). This study has two key findings. First, a synergistic effect (more than additive) is neither a necessary nor even a common property of clinically effective drug combinations. Second, the predictable efficacy of many of the best drug combinations established over the past 25 years suggests that additivity can be used as a design principle for novel drug combinations and clinical trials.
Competing Interest Statement
ACP has received consulting fees from Merck and research funding from Prelude Therapeutics.
Funding Statement
H.H. is supported by the Korean Government Scholarship for Study Overseas, S.P. is supported by NIGMS grant T32-GM135095, and D.P. is supported by NIGMS grant T32-GM007753 and F30-CA260780.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study used ONLY openly available human data from published journals listed in references.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
The manuscript is revised for clarity. Figures 1 and 2 are revised. Figure 4 includes new analyses. Supplemental files are updated.
Data Availability
All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript.
