Phase II Trial of HER-Vaxx, a B-cell Peptide-Based Vaccine, in HER2-Overexpressing Advanced Gastric Cancer Patients Under Platinum-Based Chemotherapy (HERIZON).

PURPOSE: A multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase II study (HERIZON; NCT02795988) was conducted to evaluate the clinical and immunologic efficacy of HER-Vaxx (IMU-131), a B-cell, peptide-based vaccine targeting HER2 overexpressed in 6% to 30% of gastroesophageal adenocarcinomas (GEA). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients (n = 36) with GEA were treated with standard-of-care chemotherapy (n = 17) or HER-Vaxx plus chemotherapy (n = 19), using the recommended phase 2 dose for the vaccine. Overall survival (OS; primary endpoint), safety, progression-free survival (PFS), clinical response (secondary endpoints), and vaccine-induced HER2-specific antibody levels in serum and correlation with tumor response rates (exploratory endpoints) were investigated. RESULTS: A 40% OS benefit [HR, 0.60; median OS, 13.9 months; 80% confidence interval (CI), 7.52-14.32] for patients treated with HER-Vaxx plus chemotherapy compared with OS of 8.31 months (80% CI, 6.01-9.59) in patients that received chemotherapy alone. A 20% PFS difference was obtained for the vaccination arm (HR, 0.80; 80% CI, 0.47, 1.38). No additional toxicity due to HER-Vaxx was observed. The vaccine-induced high levels of HER2-specific total IgG and IgG1 antibodies (P < 0.001 vs. controls) that significantly correlated with tumor reduction (IgG, P = 0.001; IgG1, P = 0.016), had a significant capacity in inhibiting phosphorylation of the intracellular HER2-signaling pathways, mediated antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity, and decreased immunosuppressive FOXP3+ regulatory T cells. CONCLUSIONS: HER-Vaxx plus standard chemotherapy exhibits an excellent safety profile and improves OS. Furthermore, vaccine-induced immune response was significantly associated with reduced tumor size compared with standard-of-care chemotherapy. The presented vaccination approach may substitute for treatment with trastuzumab, upon unavailability or toxicity, based on further evidence of equivalent treatment efficacy.

Investigators' viewpoint of clinical trials in India: Past, present and future.

India's success in producing food and milk for its population (Green Revolution and White Revolution) happened because of scientific research and field trials. Likewise improving the health of Indians needs clinical research and clinical trials. A Large proportion of the sick Indians are poor, illiterate with no access to good health care. They are highly vulnerable to inducement and exploitation in clinical trials. The past two decades saw the rise and fall of clinical trials in India. The rise happened when our regulators created a favorable environment, and Indian investigators were invited to participate in global clinical trials. The gap between the demand and supply resulted in inadequate protection of the trial participants. Reports of abuses of the vulnerable trial participants followed by public interest litigations led to strengthening of regulations by the regulators. The stringent new regulations made the conduct of clinical trials more laborious and increased the cost of clinical trials in India. There was a loss of interest in sponsored clinical trials resulting in the fall in global clinical trials in India. Following repeated appeals by the investigators, the Indian regulators have recently relaxed some of the stringent regulations, while continuing to ensure the adequate patient protection. Clinical trials that are relevant to our population and conducted by well-trained investigators and monitored by trained and registered Ethics Committees will increase in the future. We must remain vigilant, avoid previous mistakes, and strive hard to protect the trial participants in the future trials.

Injection practices of healthcare professionals in a Tertiary Care Hospital.

BACKGROUND: Unsafe injection practices are prevalent worldwide and may result in spread of infection. Thus the present study was planned to observe the injection practices of healthcare professionals (HCP), including aseptic precautions and disposal of used syringes/needle. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Injection practices were observed in the outpatients and inpatients departments. Questionnaire was designed, tested and administered for this purpose. RESULTS: 130 patients receiving injections were observed. Overall injection practices of the HCP were satisfactory. However, unsafe practices with respect to not washing hands (95.4%), not wearing/changing gloves (61.6%), recapping of needles (12.2%), wiping of needle with swab (15.4%) and breaking of ampoule with solid object (44.4%) were observed. CONCLUSION: The problem of unsafe injections can be successfully addressed by organizing continuing medical education/symposium/workshops for improving the knowledge, attitude and practices of the HCP. Periodic monitoring and such interventions may also further improve safe injection practices.

Role of the renin angiotensin system in diabetic nephropathy.

Diabetic nephropathy has been the cause of lot of morbidity and mortality in the diabetic population. The renin angiotensin system (RAS) is considered to be involved in most of the pathological processes that result in diabetic nephropathy. This system has various subsystems which contribute to the disease pathology. One of these involves angiotensin II (Ang II) which shows increased activity during diabetic nephropathy. This causes hypertrophy of various renal cells and has a pressor effect on arteriolar smooth muscle resulting in increased vascular pressure. Ang II also induces inflammation, apoptosis, cell growth, migration and differentiation. Monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 production responsible for renal fibrosis is also regulated by RAS. Polymorphism of angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) and Angiotensinogen has been shown to have effects on RAS. Available treatment modalities have proven effective in controlling the progression of nephropathy. Various drugs (based on antagonism of RAS) are currently in the market and others are still under trial. Amongst the approved drugs, ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are widely used in clinical practice. ARBs are shown to be superior to ACE inhibitors in terms of reducing proteinuria but the combined role of ARBs with ACE inhibitors in diabetic nephropathy is under debate.