Preparing individual patient data from clinical trials for sharing: the GlaxoSmithKline approach.

In May 2013, GlaxoSmithKline (980 Great West Road, Brentford, Middlesex, TW8 9GS, UK) established a new online system to enable scientific researchers to request access to anonymised patient level clinical trial data. Providing access to individual patient data collected in clinical trials enables conduct of further research that may help advance medical science or improve patient care. In turn, this helps ensure that the data provided by research participants are used to maximum effect in the creation of new knowledge and understanding. However, when providing access to individual patient data, maintaining the privacy and confidentiality of research participants is critical. This article describes the approach we have taken to prepare data for sharing with other researchers in a way that minimises risk with respect to the privacy and confidentiality of research participants, ensures compliance with current data privacy legal requirements and yet retains utility of the anonymised datasets for research purposes. We recognise that there are different possible approaches and that broad consensus is needed.

A case study comparing a randomized withdrawal trial and a double-blind long-term trial for assessing the long-term efficacy of an antidepressant.

Assessing long-term efficacy in psychiatric drugs involves a number of complex questions, and the priaority of these questions is different for different disorders and for different stakeholders. Therefore, it is essential that we not adopt a one-method-fits-all approach, but rather adapt the specific details of the designs and analysis of data from long-term trials to individual disease states. Randomized withdrawal (RW) designs, even though addressing a specific question of particular interest, face some difficult methodological and ethical challenges. A less common alternative design, termed the double-blind long-term efficacy (DBLE) design, is logistically similar to traditional responder extension designs. However, use of an analytic approach that includes all randomized patients rather than only the selected subset that continued beyond acute treatment avoids the major criticism of the extender design. The present paper illustrates the attributes of the RW and DBLE designs by analyzing data from trials adopting these designs. The RW and DBLE designs address different questions, and are thus not directly comparable. Potential benefits of the DBLE design include: (1) the parsimonious use of patients and the resultant reduced exposure to placebo as each patient can contribute to multiple developmental objectives; (2) the results are generalizable to actual clinical practice as the design matches treatment guidelines; and, (3) results of safety assessments are meaningful as they involve all randomized patients. Our case study suggests that the DBLE design can provide definitive answers to important questions and may be a useful design for assessing long-term treatment effects.

Susceptibility of low-density lipoprotein to oxidation and circulating cell adhesion molecules in young healthy adult offspring of parents with type 2 diabetes.

Relatives of subjects with type 2 diabetes carry an increased risk for diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Oxidative modification of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) and proinflammatory processes are believed to have central roles in atherogenesis. We have investigated the susceptibility of LDL to oxidation and circulating cell adhesion molecules in healthy, glucose-tolerant adults (aged 18 to 38 years) with (12 men, 2 women) and without (controls; 12 men, 2 women) a parental history of type 2 diabetes. From fasting blood samples, oxidation of LDL was initiated with copper ions and adhesion molecules were measured using immunoassays. Groups were similar with respect to age, body mass index (BMI), blood pressure, plasma glucose, and serum lipids. Resistance of LDL to oxidation was reduced in offspring of parents with type 2 diabetes (time to Vmax, 80.1 +/- 2.2 v 91.4 +/- 2.6 minutes, P =.003). Plasma hydroperoxides did not differ between groups (1.2 +/- 0.1 v 1.1 +/- 0.1 micromol/L). Soluble intracellular adhesion molecule-1 (sICAM1) was elevated in offspring compared with controls (571 +/- 20 v 447 +/- 20 microg/L, P =.0002). Soluble vascular cell adhesion molecule-1 (sVCAM-1) (1,184 +/- 76 v 1084 +/- 56 microg/L, P =.31) and E-selectin (53 +/- 8 v 53 +/- 7 microg/L, P =.98) did not differ between groups. Reduced resistance of LDL to oxidation and increased circulating sICAM-1 in young healthy adult offspring of parents with type 2 diabetes may be intrinsic to increased risk of atherosclerosis in these subjects.

Efficacy and tolerability of controlled-release and immediate-release paroxetine in the treatment of depression.

BACKGROUND: Antidepressant efficacy may be compromised by early discontinuation of treatment secondary to common, treatment-emergent side effects, including nausea, agitation, and somnolence. Paroxetine controlled-release (CR) was developed to improve general tolerability and, in particular, gastrointestinal tolerability. OBJECTIVE: To determine the antidepressant efficacy and tolerability of paroxetine CR in adult patients 18 to 65 years of age with DSM-IV major depressive disorder. METHOD: Paroxetine CR (25-62.5 mg/day; N = 212) and paroxetine immediate-release (IR; 20-50 mg/day; N = 217) were compared with placebo (N = 211) in the pooled dataset from 2 identical, double-blind, 12-week clinical trials. RESULTS: Both paroxetine CR and paroxetine IR exhibited efficacy in major depressive disorder as assessed by the reduction in 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression total score compared with placebo. Moreover, depressed mood and psychic anxiety symptoms improved as early as treatment week 1 in the paroxetine CR group compared with the placebo group. After 6 weeks of treatment, response and remission rates were 41.5% and 20.5% for placebo, 52.8% and 29.6% for paroxetine IR, and 58.9% and 34.4% for paroxetine CR, respectively. After 12 weeks of treatment, response and remission rates were 61.2% and 44.0% for placebo, 72.9% and 52.5% for paroxetine IR, and 73.7% and 56.2% for paroxetine CR, respectively. Rates of nausea were significantly lower for paroxetine CR (14%) than for paroxetine IR (23%; p < or = .05) during week 1. Rates of dropout due to adverse events were comparable between paroxetine CR and placebo, while significantly (p = .0008) more patients treated with paroxetine IR withdrew from the study prematurely compared with those treated with placebo. CONCLUSION: Paroxetine CR is an effective and well-tolerated antidepressant exhibiting symptomatic improvement as early as week 1. Paroxetine CR is associated with low rates of early-onset nausea and dropout rates due to adverse events comparable to those of placebo. The clinical improvement seen with paroxetine CR, coupled with its favorable adverse event profile, suggests a benefit for therapeutic outcome with paroxetine CR.

Twice-daily biphasic insulin aspart 30 versus biphasic human insulin 30: a double-blind crossover study in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the premixed insulin analogue biphasic insulin aspart (BIAsp 30) with the equivalent premixed biphasic human insulin (BHI 30), administered twice daily, in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, crossover trial, 13 patients (mean age, 64 years; baseline mean glycosylated hemoglobin, 7.7%; mean body mass index, 28.1 kg/m2) received 2 weeks of treatment with BIAsp 30 and 2 weeks of BHI 30 administered immediately before dinner and breakfast. At the end of each 2-week treatment period, 24-hour serum insulin and glucose profiles were determined using specific 2-sided enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays. All pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic end points were analyzed using analysis of variance. RESULTS: Total daily insulin exposure was similar between treatment periods. Mean area under the total insulin concentration-time profile during the 2 hours following administration of BIAsp 30 was 17% greater than that of BHI 30 after dinner and 44% greater after breakfast; both differences were statistically significant. The maximum serum insulin aspart concentrations following BIAsp 30 were significantly higher after dinner (18%) and breakfast (35%). Peak serum insulin concentration was reached 1 hour earlier after breakfast and 45 minutes earlier after dinner in the BIAsp 30 group; differences were significant only after breakfast. The mean daily prandial glucose excursion was significantly lower for BIAsp 30 (16.2 mmol x h x L(-1)) than BHI 30 (17.9 mmol x h x L(-1)). Postprandial 4-hour glucose excursions were significantly lower with BIAsp 30 than with BHI 30 after dinner and breakfast, but were significantly greater after lunch. Mean 24-hour and nocturnal serum glucose concentrations were similar, and both insulins were associated with < or = 7 minor and no major hypoglycemic events. CONCLUSIONS: Premeal injection of BIAsp 30 in a twice-daily regimen significantly reduced overall postprandial glucose excursions. This effect may be of importance when improvement in postprandial glucose control is desired.