Cannabidiol (Epidyolex®) for severe behavioral manifestations in patients with tuberous sclerosis complex, mucopolysaccharidosis type III and fragile X syndrome: protocol for a series of randomized, placebo-controlled N-of-1 trials.

BACKGROUND: Many rare genetic neurodevelopmental disorders (RGNDs) are characterized by intellectual disability (ID), severe cognitive and behavioral impairments, potentially diagnosed as a comorbid autism spectrum disorder or attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Quality of life is often impaired due to irritability, aggression and self-injurious behavior, generally refractory to standard therapies. There are indications from previous (case) studies and patient reporting that cannabidiol (CBD) may be an effective treatment for severe behavioral manifestations in RGNDs. However, clear evidence is lacking and interventional research is challenging due to the rarity as well as the heterogeneity within and between disease groups and interindividual differences in treatment response. Our objective is to examine the effectiveness of CBD on severe behavioral manifestations in three RGNDs, including Tuberous Sclerosis Complex (TSC), mucopolysaccharidosis type III (MPS III), and Fragile X syndrome (FXS), using an innovative trial design. METHODS: We aim to conduct placebo-controlled, double-blind, block-randomized, multiple crossover N-of-1 studies with oral CBD (twice daily) in 30 patients (aged ≥ 6 years) with confirmed TSC, MPS III or FXS and severe behavioral manifestations. The treatment is oral CBD up to a maximum of 25 mg/kg/day, twice daily. The primary outcome measure is the subscale irritability of the Aberrant Behavior Checklist. Secondary outcome measures include (personalized) patient-reported outcome measures with regard to behavioral and psychiatric outcomes, disease-specific outcome measures, parental stress, seizure frequency, and adverse effects of CBD. Questionnaires will be completed and study medication will be taken at the participants' natural setting. Individual treatment effects will be determined based on summary statistics. A mixed model analysis will be applied for analyzing the effectiveness of the intervention per disorder and across disorders combining data from the individual N-of-1 trials. DISCUSSION: These N-of-1 trials address an unmet medical need and will provide information on the effectiveness of CBD for severe behavioral manifestations in RGNDs, potentially generating generalizable knowledge at an individual-, disorder- and RGND population level. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT: 2021-003250-23, registered 25 August 2022, https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/trial/2021-003250-23/NL .

The SNAP Trial: 2-Year Results of a Double-Blind Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial of a Silicon Nitride Versus a PEEK Cage in Patients After Lumbar Fusion Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. OBJECTIVES: Lumbar interbody fusion with cages is performed to provide vertebral stability, restore alignment, and maintain disc and foraminal height. Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) is commonly used. Silicon nitride (Si3N4) is an alternative material with good osteointegrative properties. This study was designed to assess if Si3N4 cages perform similar to PEEK. METHODS: A non-inferiority double-blind multicenter RCT was designed. Patients presenting with chronic low-back pain with or without leg pain were included. Single- or double-level instrumented transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) using an oblique PEEK or Si3N4 cage was performed. The primary outcome was the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ). The non-inferiority margin for the RMDQ was 2.6 points on a scale of 24. Secondary outcomes included the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODI), Visual Analogue Scales (VAS), SF-36 Physical Function, patient and surgeon Likert scores, radiographic evaluations for subsidence, segmental motion, and fusion. Follow-up was planned at 3, 6, 12, and 24-months. RESULTS: Ninety-two patients were randomized (i.e. 48 to PEEK and 44 to Si3N4). Both groups showed good clinical improvements on the RMDQ scores of up to 5-8 points during follow-up. No statistically significant differences were observed in clinical and radiographic outcomes. Mean operative time and blood loss were statistically significantly higher for the Si3N4 cohort. Although not statistically significant, there was a higher incidence of complications and revisions associated with the Si3N4 cage. CONCLUSIONS: There was insufficient evidence to conclude that Si3N4 was non-inferior to PEEK.

A narrative review of estimands in drug development and regulatory evaluation: old wine in new barrels?

BACKGROUND: An estimand defines the target of estimation for a clinical trial through specification of the treatment, target population, variable, population-level summary and of the strategies for intercurrent events. A carefully defined estimand aligns the clinical trial design and analysis with the scientific question of interest and adequately accounts for so-called intercurrent events. The ICH E9(R1) addendum suggests five estimand strategies. We evaluated to what extent current practice in drug development and regulatory assessment fits in the estimand framework. METHODS: We systematically evaluated what estimands, especially what strategies for intercurrent events are advised in European Medicines Agency disease guidelines, used in sponsors' trials and additionally requested by the European Medicines Agency in assessment dossiers. We selected four therapeutic areas: nervous system, oncology, cardiovascular diseases and respiratory diseases. For each, we evaluated all disease guidelines with approved drugs, the dossiers of the most recently approved drugs matching the guidelines and corresponding regulatory questions. RESULTS: Strategies for intercurrent events were present in 18 (53%) of 34 guidelines, in all 34 sponsor documentations and in 15 (44%) of 34 sets of regulatory questions. Treatment policy was advised in 13 (38%) guidelines and was applied in 9 corresponding sponsor documentations. Of these 9, it was the sole strategy in 4 cases and accompanied by another strategy in 5 cases. Hypothetical strategy was not advised in guidelines. However, it was the leading strategy applied in 25 (74%) sponsor documentations. Composite strategy was advised in 3 (9%) guidelines and applied accompanied by another strategy in 2 corresponding sponsor documentations. While on treatment strategy was not advised in guidelines, but was applied in 2 sponsor documentations. Principal stratum strategy was advised in 2 guidelines but not applied in corresponding sponsor documentations. Of the regulatory questions, treatment policy was present in 2 cases (6%), hypothetical in 6 cases (18%), composite in 6 cases (18%) and while on treatment in 1 case (3%). CONCLUSIONS: Estimand attributes are present in guidelines, sponsor documentations and regulatory questions, but not described as estimands. Treatment policy was most often advised in guidelines, but hypothetical was the leading strategy applied in sponsor documentations. Thus, results indicate not a full concordance between the regulatory target of estimation and what is actually estimated. The lack of concordance was mostly due to limitations in collection of intercurrent events data to enable a treatment policy strategy. There is, therefore, a need to better define estimands at the design stage and throughout the applications dossiers and assessment reports.

Ethics in musculoskeletal regenerative medicine; guidance in choosing the appropriate comparator in clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Regenerative Medicine (RM) techniques aimed at the musculoskeletal system are increasingly translated to clinical trials and patient care. This revolutionary era in science raises novel ethical challenges. One of these challenges concerns the appropriate choice of the comparator in (randomized controlled) trials, including the ethically contentious use of sham procedures. To date, only general guidelines regarding the choice of the comparator exist. OBJECTIVE: To provide specific guidelines for clinical trial comparator choice in musculoskeletal RM. METHODS: In this manuscript, we discuss the ethics of comparator selection in RM trials. First, we make a classification of RM interventions according to different health states from disease prevention, return to normal health, postponing RM treatment, supplementing RM treatment, substituting RM treatment, improving RM outcome, and slowing progression. Subsequently, per objective, the accompanying ethical points to consider are evaluated with support from the available literature. RESULTS: a sham procedure is demonstrated to be an ethically acceptable comparator in RM trials with certain objectives, but less appropriate for musculoskeletal RM interventions that aim at preventing disease or substituting a surgical treatment. The latter may be compared to 'standard of care'. CONCLUSION: From a scientific perspective, choosing the correct comparator based on ethical guidelines is a step forward in the success of musculoskeletal RM.