Cardiovascular Eligibility Criteria and Adverse Event Reporting in Cancer Therapy Trials of Combined Immune Checkpoint and VEGF Inhibitors: A Systematic Review

Study eligibility criteria

A systematic search of the literature was conducted to identify clinical trials of combination ICI/VEGFI therapy. We included any trial conducted in an adult population with any solid organ cancer who received combination ICI/VEGFI therapy in either the intervention or the control arm. ICIs and VEGFI that were not approved by the FDA for use as an anti-cancer treatment at the time of data extraction were excluded. Trials using only single dosing or sequential (non-concurrent) ICI/VEGFI therapy were excluded.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

We included all phase II-IV randomised controlled trial with a minimum population of 20 participants that was published at time of extraction. Non-randomised controlled trials, meta-analyses, review articles, commentaries, subsequent therapy analyses, cost effectiveness analyses, published abstracts, patient reported outcomes, subgroup analyses and retrospective analyses were excluded. If two published articles reported data from the same patient group, such as subgroup analyses and extended follow up analyses, the original article was used.

Outcomes

Key trial characteristics, trial eligibility criteria and exclusion criteria relating to cardiovascular disease were collected. Trial design characteristics relating to the assessment, adjudication of CVAEs and the extent of reporting of these within the published article were recorded. Data were extracted from the original publication, supplemental material and available protocols from the journal website. Trial registration numbers, identified from the publication, were used to search relevant clinical trial platforms to ensure all relevant publicly available protocol data were identified if they were not available from the publication.

Cardiovascular adverse events

An AE was defined as a CVAE if it was recorded as a cardiac disorder under the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (CTCAE) criteria[23]. CTCAE criteria grades AE severity on a scale of 1 to 5. Grade 1 events are considered ‘mild’ and Grade 2 ‘moderate’. Grade 3 events are considered to be ‘severe or medically significant but not immediately life-threatening’ while Grade 4 events reflect those with life-threatening consequences. Death is recorded as Grade 5. If the AE was not recorded as a cardiac disorder by CTCAE but fulfilled any pre-specified trial criteria for cardiovascular and stroke endpoints for clinical trials, based on FDA endorsed Hicks’ criteria (such as ‘sudden death’), it was also classified as a CVAE[24].

Search strategy

The search was conducted on MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library in May 2022. The search terms are included in the Appendix. Duplicates were removed. Relevant articles were identified by two independent reviewers (B.E and S.R). Disagreements were resolved by consensus with a third reviewer (J.S.L).

Cardiovascular Eligibility Criteria

Eligibility criteria were available for all 17 trials. CVD trial exclusion criteria were broad with heterogenous definitions (Figure 2). Fifteen trials (9389 participants, 91%) had multiple CV exclusion criteria. There were specific exclusion criteria for people with prior HF, MI/unstable angina, hypertension and stroke in 13 trials (9283 participants, 90%). A further two trials (106 participants) had a general exclusion criterion of ‘clinically significant cardiovascular disease or impairment’. Two trials (924 participants) did not explicitly exclude people on the basis of prior CVD but had a general criterion excluding those with ‘a relevant prior condition which may affect the results of the trial’. The interpretation of these more generic criteria was left at the discretion of the investigator.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2: Cardiovascular exclusion criteria in ICI/VEGFi combination therapy trials.

Abbreviations: NYHA: New York Heart Association, LVEF: left ventricular ejection fraction, MI: myocardial infarction, PCI: percutaneous coronary intervention, CABG: coronary artery bypass grafting, BP: blood pressure, VTE: venous thromboembolism

In the 12 trials reporting eligibility data prior to enrolment, 31% (3905 people) were ineligible. Only one paper reported reasons for screen failure and in that publication, 10% of those ineligible were excluded because of cardiovascular exclusions (PE/DVT, hypertension, QTc and ‘cardiovascular conditions’).

Reporting of Baseline Cardiovascular Characteristics

With the exception of smoking status, which was reported in two lung cancer trials, no trial reported baseline CV characteristics, such as the prevalence of previous MI, heart failure, LVSD, diabetes, dyslipidaemia or hypertension.

Reporting of Adverse Events

All 17 trials reported adverse events using CTCAE definitions and severity grading. CTCAE Version 4 was used in 15 trials. AEs were reported by the site investigator with no central or CV specialist event adjudication in 14 trials and was not specified in the remaining three trials. One trial had an independent cardiovascular events adjudication committee. AEs were either reported as treatment related (trAE) or ‘AEs of any attribution.’ TrAEs (adjudicated by the investigator) were reported in all trials. AEs of any attribution were less commonly reported (11 trials, 7458 participants, 72%).

Cardiovascular events

No trial used the FDA-endorsed, standardised Hicks’ criteria for reporting of cardiovascular events[24]. With the exception of hypertension, which was reported in all trials, no trial explicitly stated the absence or occurrence of CVAEs. In trial manuscripts that did not report CVAEs other than hypertension, it was not clear whether this was because of a true absence of CVAEs or because of their occurrence with an incidence beneath a reporting threshold.

CV death

‘AE deaths of any attribution’ were reported in 11 trials (7203 participants) and 7 of these (4734 participants) reported the mode of AE death. In six trials (3110 participants), only deaths that were considered to be treatment related (adjudicated by the investigator) were reported.

Most frequently, CVAEs were described when associated with death. No trial reported total number of CV deaths. However, ten trials (7737 participants) reported AE death that would be categorised as CV death by Hicks’ Criteria (Figure 3).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3 Proportion of trials reporting CV adverse events

Abbreviations: CV: cardiovascular, MI: myocardial infarction

Cardiovascular Trial Eligibility Criteria Heterogeneity

Our review identified that cardiovascular exclusion criteria were ubiquitous in these trials. We also identified substantial heterogeneity in the nature of these exclusion criteria and the use of potentially arbitrary CV definitions and exclusion thresholds. It is of note that the FDA recommend the avoidance of ‘unnecessarily restrictive eligibility criteria’ to maximise the generalizability of trial results to the patient population in whom the drug may be used in subsequent routine clinical practice[30]. This recommendation is made particularly to allow trials to inform the net risk/benefit profile. While we acknowledge that it may be appropriate to include some clinically-relevant cardiovascular eligibility criteria for trial safety reasons, standardisation of these criteria would allow easier translation of trial results to guide treatment decisions for patients treated in everyday practice. Indeed, CV disease and risk factor burden is high in patients with cancer [1,31,32]. Furthermore, while these trials were designed and powered to provide information on cancer treatment effects, potential safety signals may only become apparent when trial populations are combined for meta-analysis. Those insights are currently limited by heterogeneity in eligibility criteria.

Baseline CVD and CVD Risk Factors in Trial Participants

Baseline cardiovascular characteristics, including cardiovascular risk factors or established CVD, were not reported in any primary trial publication. However, a secondary analysis of one trial did report the prevalence of baseline CV risk factors[33]. In that report, the prevalence of CV risk factors was low. Only 4% of people in the ICI/VEGFI arm had dyslipidaemia, 9.5% had diabetes and 3.2% had cerebrovascular disease[33]. In addition to potentially stringent trial eligibility criteria, trial recruitment bias toward inclusion of people with fewer comorbidities may contribute to a trial population who are not representative of the general population of patients with cancer in whom these drugs may ultimately be used. Observational data suggest that fewer SAEs occur in trial participants than expected when compared to matched patients in routine clinical care and multi-morbidity is associated with higher events[34]. Irrespective of these issues of eligibility and potential recruitment bias, the lack of data on baseline CV characteristics means that the baseline CV risk for patients in these trials is unknown. Inclusion of those with comorbidities, when assessed in non-cancer trials, only modestly affected completion of study enrolment, meaning there could be an increase in generalisability of trial data with minimal impact on trial completion[35]. Without this information, it is not possible to assess the degree to which pre-existing CVD or risk factors may potentiate adverse cardiovascular effects of ICI/VEGFI therapy. It also remains possible that an interaction between pre-existing CVD and adverse effects of ICI/VEGFI therapy is lower than might otherwise be expected. These insights are critical for providing patients with the best information relating to potential risks of treatment in the context of pre-existing CVD.

Cardiovascular Adverse Event Description and Reporting

CVAEs were reported using CTCAE criteria in all trials and reporting of these was based upon incidence thresholds. The threshold that was required to be reached varied from 5-25% between trials. Furthermore, only four trials used a lower reporting incidence threshold for more severe (CTCAE grade ≥3). In addition to standardization of reporting methods, lowering the threshold or potentially removing this threshold for reporting in primary trial publications altogether would appear reasonable. While the signal to noise ratio of grade 1 and 2 events may mean that reporting on the basis of incidence thresholds could be appropriate, we would argue that reporting of all of the more severe adverse events may be justified.

Trial publication reporting of CVAEs, and the clarity of this, was variable. While many primary trial publications did not report the occurrence of CVAEs, they also did not explicitly state their absence. Reporting of AEs that were specifically considered to have been related to treatment (trAEs) was more frequent than reporting of AEs of any attribution. The assessment of CVAE ‘treatment-relatedness’ was by the local investigator and therefore this introduces bias and impedes transparent understanding of AE profiles. One trial included a pre-specified subgroup analysis of cardiovascular events in ICI/VEGFI therapy. In that analysis, the number of CV events was small but CVAE incidence was higher than reported in the primary manuscript [33].

All trials had longer follow-up for anti-cancer efficacy assessment than they did for collection of CVAEs. Given that the accrual of CVAEs might be expected to occur over a similarly more prolonged period, increasing follow-up duration for CVAEs would provide important information.

Limitations

This systematic review has several limitations. We did not collect data on pre-trial safety data which may have influenced eligibility criteria. We also did not collect data on subgroup analysis and extended follow up papers which may have provided additional information on CV comorbidities and adverse effects. However, given that original trial manuscripts frequently inform drug licensing approvals we believe that our focus on these publications is particularly relevant. It is also possible that some safety data are still to be placed in the public domain and therefore not captured.

Conclusion

This systematic review of randomized trials of ICI/VEGFI combination therapies has identified heterogeneity in trial cardiovascular eligibility criteria, limited trial manuscript reporting of the baseline cardiovascular characteristics in participants and heterogeneity in methods used for reporting of adverse cardiovascular events. These factors may have substantial impact on the ability to make accurate assessments, including meta-analyses, of the potential for cardiovascular adverse effects of these important anti-cancer therapies. While it is possible that cardiovascular adverse effects are under-appreciated, it is also possible that they may be less frequent than feared. With the rapid rise of combination ICI/VEGFI treatment regimens there is an urgent need to standardise these components and, in particular, to inform their use in patients who frequently have pre-existing cardiovascular disease.