U-BIOPRED: evaluation of the value of a public-private partnership to industry.

Unbiased Biomarkers for the Prediction of Respiratory Disease Outcomes (U-BIOPRED) was initiated in the first year of the Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI). It was an ambitious plan to tackle the understanding of asthma through an integration of clinical and multi-'omics approaches that necessitated the bringing together of industry, academic, and patient representatives because it was too large to be managed by any one of the partners in isolation. It was a novel experience for all concerned. In this review, we describe the main features of the U-BIOPRED experience from the industry perspective. We list some of the key advantages and learnings from the perspective of the authors, and also improvements that we feel could be made in future projects.

Inhaled iloprost for severe pulmonary hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Uncontrolled studies suggested that aerosolized iloprost, a stable analogue of prostacyclin, causes selective pulmonary vasodilatation and improves hemodynamics and exercise capacity in patients with pulmonary hypertension. METHODS: We compared repeated daily inhalations of 2.5 or 5.0 microg of iloprost (six or nine times per day; median inhaled dose, 30 microg per day) with inhalation of placebo. A total of 203 patients with selected forms of severe pulmonary arterial hypertension and chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (New York Heart Association [NYHA] functional class III or IV) were included. The primary end point was met if, after week 12, the NYHA class and distance walked in six minutes were improved by at least one class and at least 10 percent, respectively, in the absence of clinical deterioration according to predefined criteria and death. RESULTS: The combined clinical end point was met by 16.8 percent of the patients receiving iloprost, as compared with 4.9 percent of the patients receiving placebo (P=0.007). There were increases in the distance walked in six minutes of 36.4 m in the iloprost group as a whole (P=0.004) and of 58.8 m in the subgroup of patients with primary pulmonary hypertension. Overall, 4.0 percent of patients in the iloprost group (including one who died) and 13.7 percent of those in the placebo group (including four who died) did not complete the study (P=0.024); the most common reason for withdrawal was clinical deterioration. As compared with base-line values, hemodynamic values were significantly improved at 12 weeks when measured after iloprost inhalation (P<0.001), were largely unchanged when measured before iloprost inhalation, and were significantly worse in the placebo group. Further significant beneficial effects of iloprost treatment included an improvement in the NYHA class (P=0.03), dyspnea (P=0.015), and quality of life (P=0.026). Syncope occurred with similar frequency in the two groups but was more frequently rated as serious in the iloprost group, although this adverse effect was not associated with clinical deterioration. CONCLUSIONS: Inhaled iloprost is an effective therapy for patients with severe pulmonary hypertension.

Effects of the thromboxane synthetase inhibitor and receptor antagonist terbogrel in patients with primary pulmonary hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Circulating mediators, including thromboxane A2, the vasoconstrictor, platelet aggregant, and smooth muscle mitogen, may contribute to the progression of vascular narrowing in primary pulmonary hypertension (PPH). METHODS: To further understand the contribution of thromboxane and to provide novel therapy for PPH, we administered the potent orally active thromboxane synthetase inhibitor and thromboxane receptor antagonist terbogrel for 12 weeks to patients with New York Heart Association functional classification II and III PPH. The study had a multicenter randomized placebo-controlled design. The primary endpoint was a change in the distance walked during 6 minutes. The pharmacologic effects of terbogrel on thromboxane and prostacyclin metabolism also were studied. RESULTS: Although the planned enrollment was 135 patients, the study was halted after only 71 patients had been randomized because of the unforeseen side effect of leg pain, which occurred almost exclusively in patients with terbogrel treatment. Only 52 patients completed the 12-week study, and only 22 patients (31%) were fully compliant with the study medication. The leg pain confounded the primary endpoint of walking distance. On an intention-to-treat analysis, no improvements in 6-minute walk distance or in hemodynamics in patients with terbogrel treatment were seen. However, terbogrel was effective from a pharmacologic standpoint, reducing thromboxane metabolites by as much as 98% (P <.0001), with a modest but statistically insignificant (39%) rise in prostacyclin metabolites. CONCLUSION: Inhibition of thromboxane with an orally active agent is feasible in PPH, but the incidence of severe leg pain with terbogrel precludes its use in this disorder. Similar therapeutic efforts, with other thromboxane inhibitors, should be considered.