Initial treatment of steroid-sensitive idiopathic nephrotic syndrome in children with mycophenolate mofetil versus prednisone: protocol for a randomised, controlled, multicentre trial (INTENT study).

INTRODUCTION: Idiopathic nephrotic syndrome is the most common glomerular disease in childhood with an incidence of 1.8 cases per 100 000 children in Germany. The treatment of the first episode implies two aspects: induction of remission and sustainment of remission. The recent Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes, American Academy of Pediatrics and German guidelines for the initial treatment of the first episode of a nephrotic syndrome recommend a 12-week course of prednisone. Despite being effective, this treatment is associated with pronounced glucocorticoid-associated toxicity due to high-dose prednisone administration over a prolonged period of time. The aim of the INTENT study (Initial treatment of steroid-sensitive idiopathic nephrotic syndrom in children with mycophenolate mofetil versus prednisone: protocol for a randomised, controlled, multicentre trial) is to show that an alternative treatment regimen with mycophenolic acid is not inferior regarding sustainment of remission, but with lower toxicity compared with treatment with glucocorticoids only. METHODS AND DESIGN: The study is designed as an open, randomised, controlled, multicentre trial. 340 children with a first episode of steroid-sensitive nephrotic syndrome and who achieved remission by a standard prednisone regimen will be enrolled in the trial and randomised to one of two treatment arms. The standard care group will be treated with prednisone for a total of 12 weeks; in the experimental group the treatment is switched to mycophenolate mofetil, also for a total of 12 weeks in treatment duration. The primary endpoint is the occurrence of a treated relapse within 24 months after completion of initial treatment. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval for this trial was granted by the ethics committee of the Medical Faculty of the University of Heidelberg (AFmu-554/2014). The study results will be published in accordance with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement and the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials guidelines. Our findings will be submitted to major international paediatric nephrology and general paediatric conferences and submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed, open-access journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: DRKS0006547; EudraCT2014-001991-76; Pre-result. DATE OF REGISTRATION: 30 October 2014; 24 February 2017.

Clinical Research in Vulnerable Populations: Variability and Focus of Institutional Review Boards' Responses.

BACKGROUND: Children and patients with cognitive deficits may find it difficult to understand the implication of research. In the European Union (EU), clinical studies outside the EU directives concerning medicinal products or medical devices, i.e., "miscellaneous clinical studies", have no legally mandated timelines for institutional review boards' (IRB) decisions. GOAL: To evaluate the review process of IRBs for two different "miscellaneous" multicenter clinical research protocols involving vulnerable subjects (children and adult stroke patients). METHODS: Descriptive and comparative statistics. Protocol 1 is a prospective, multicenter, cross-sectional screening study of a symptomatic pediatric population at risk for Fabry disease involving genetic testing (NCT02152189). Protocol 2 is a prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled, open-label, blinded endpoint post-market study to evaluate the effectiveness of stent retrievers (NCT02135926). After having obtained positive initial IRB votes at the main study site, both protocols were subsequently submitted to the remaining IRBs. RESULTS: Protocol 1 was submitted to 19 IRBs. No IRB objected to the study. Median time-to-final vote was 34 (IQR 10-65; range 0 to 130) days. Two IRBs accepted the coordinating center's IRB votes without re-evaluation. Changes to the informed consent documents were asked by 7/19 IRBs, amendments to the protocol by 2. Protocol 2 was submitted to 16 IRBs. Fifteen decisions were made. No IRB objected to the study. Median time-to final vote was 59 (IQR 10 to 65; range 0 to 128) days, which was not statistically significantly different compared with protocol 1 (Wilcoxon test). Two IRBs accepted a previous IRB decision and did not conduct an independent review. Eight/16 IRBs required changes to the informed consent documents; two IRBs recommended an amendment of the protocol. CONCLUSION: Both clinical research protocols involving vulnerable populations were well accepted. IRB workflows and decision times varied substantially. Some IRBs accepted a previous IRB decision without the necessity of another reevaluation process. Requested changes were focused on the informed consent documents. A more standardized approach across jurisdictions is desirable.

MGMT Promoter Methylation Is a Strong Prognostic Biomarker for Benefit from Dose-Intensified Temozolomide Rechallenge in Progressive Glioblastoma: The DIRECTOR Trial.

PURPOSE: Rechallenge with temozolomide (TMZ) at first progression of glioblastoma after temozolomide chemoradiotherapy (TMZ/RT→TMZ) has been studied in retrospective and single-arm prospective studies, applying temozolomide continuously or using 7/14 or 21/28 days schedules. The DIRECTOR trial sought to show superiority of the 7/14 regimen. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients with glioblastoma at first progression after TMZ/RT→TMZ and at least two maintenance temozolomide cycles were randomized to Arm A [one week on (120 mg/m(2) per day)/one week off] or Arm B [3 weeks on (80 mg/m(2) per day)/one week off]. The primary endpoint was median time-to-treatment failure (TTF) defined as progression, premature temozolomide discontinuation for toxicity, or death from any cause. O(6)-methylguanine DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter methylation was prospectively assessed by methylation-specific PCR. RESULTS: Because of withdrawal of support, the trial was prematurely closed to accrual after 105 patients. There was a similar outcome in both arms for median TTF [A: 1.8 months; 95% confidence intervals (CI), 1.8-3.2 vs. B: 2.0 months; 95% CI, 1.8-3.5] and overall survival [A: 9.8 months (95% CI, 6.7-13.0) vs. B: 10.6 months (95% CI, 8.1-11.6)]. Median TTF in patients with MGMT-methylated tumors was 3.2 months (95% CI, 1.8-7.4) versus 1.8 months (95% CI, 1.8-2) in MGMT-unmethylated glioblastoma. Progression-free survival rates at 6 months (PFS-6) were 39.7% with versus 6.9% without MGMT promoter methylation. CONCLUSIONS: Temozolomide rechallenge is a treatment option for MGMT promoter-methylated recurrent glioblastoma. Alternative strategies need to be considered for patients with progressive glioblastoma without MGMT promoter methylation.