Development of a clinical scale for assessment of patients with diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma (DIPG) receiving experimental therapy: the PONScore.

PURPOSE: Monitoring neurological side-effects in experimental therapy for diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma (DIPG) can be challenging. We aimed to develop a neurological scale that could be used by non-specialists to quantify neurological changes during experimental treatment of DIPG. METHODS: We developed the Pontine Observational Neurological Score (PONScore) to measure signs and symptoms of DIPG by adapting validated assessment scales of neurological signs and symptoms in children. We developed a prototype score, taught it to paediatric intensive care nursing staff, who used the Score to assess children receiving awake pontine infusion of chemotherapy for treatment of DIPG. We used their feedback to develop the PONScore. Points are allocated for headache, ophthalmoplegia, facial and tongue weakness, dysarthria, paraesthesia, limb weakness and dysmetria with increasing scores reflecting increasing disability. The PONScore was administered every hour during awake pontine infusion. Correlation and agreement calculations between nursing staff, as non-specialists, and a specialist rater were performed in 30 infusions in 6 children (aged 8-11). Changes in PONScore versus volume of infusion are described in a further 55 infusions in 8 children (aged 3-11). RESULTS: The PONScore demonstrated excellent intra-rater reliability with an intra-class co-efficient of 0.98 (95% CI 0.97-0.99; p-value < 0.001) between a specialist and non-specialist raters with strong correlation between scores and a Spearman correlation coefficient of 0.985 (p < 0.001). PONScores increased from 3.3 to 5.7 (p-value < 0.001) during infusion reflecting accumulation of neurological signs and symptoms during infusion. CONCLUSIONS: We describe a novel neurological scale that can be used by non-specialists to describe acute neurological changes in children receiving experimental therapy for DIPG. Prospective validation as part of a clinical trial is required.

Regulatory oversight of cell therapy in China: Government's efforts in patient access and therapeutic innovation.

In recent years, remarkable progress has been made in the fundamental research and on clinical development of cell therapy. Although China has launched a series of regulations to establish a proper regulatory framework that facilitates the development of cell therapy products, the regulatory framework has not been able to meet the country's regulatory requirements. This article introduced the development of regulation and current regulatory pathways for cell therapy in China and identified the main challenges in clinical studies. China has recently tightened its policy on cell therapy clinical studies after medical chaos occurred in the area of cell therapy over the past few years. Currently the regulatory jurisdiction between NMPA and NHC are not very clear, especially for clinical somatic cell research, further efforts are necessary to establish a legislative system with a clear and functional regulatory framework for cell therapy.

New Technologies and Applications in Sacral Neuromodulation: An Update.

Recently rechargeable devices have been introduced for sacral neuromodulation (SNM) with conditional safety for full-body magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Currently a recharge-free SNM device represents the standard implant; however, it is only approved for MRI head scans. As further new technologies with broader MRI capabilities are emerging, the advantages as well as disadvantages of both rechargeable versus recharge-free devices will be briefly discussed in this commentary from the perspective of patients, healthcare professionals, and providers.

Uncertainty and Cures: Discontinuation, Irreversibility, and Outcomes-Based Payments: What Is Different About a One-Off Treatment?

Payers are concerned that one-off "cures" bring great uncertainty with the consequential risk of incorrect adoption decisions, and significant budget impact from large one-off payments. Innovators worry about bias against "cures" in favor of repeat treatment, which is not in patients' interests. We find that even in the absence of a difference in uncertainty of outcomes, adverse pay-offs differ. The greater financial risk associated with a cure is related to the issue of treatment discontinuation, driven by irreversibility. This paper uses a stylized example to illustrate the need to separate three different elements of the issue: (i) one-off versus repeat or ongoing treatment, (ii) duration of treatment effect, and (iii) the potential role of financial arrangements or risk sharing to mitigate the financial risk to the payer. It concludes that: (i) prevalence and discontinuation issues mean that the impact on the payer of an incorrect decision is greater with a one-off treatment than a repeat therapy; (ii) with evidence collection this risk diminishes over time (a form of CED or OWR); and (iii) financial arrangements or risk sharing can eliminate differences for the payer as between one-off and repeat therapy. The impact of (iii) also addresses payer concerns about budget impact.

Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia Due to Steroid 21-Hydroxylase Deficiency: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline.

Objective: To update the congenital adrenal hyperplasia due to steroid 21-hydroxylase deficiency clinical practice guideline published by the Endocrine Society in 2010. Conclusions: The writing committee presents updated best practice guidelines for the clinical management of congenital adrenal hyperplasia based on published evidence and expert opinion with added considerations for patient safety, quality of life, cost, and utilization.

Are UK hospital pharmacy departments ready for the rise of gene therapy medicinal products?

INTRODUCTION: The first gene therapy medicines are licensed and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence approved for use in the NHS. UK Hospital pharmacy departments will need to work with multidisciplinary colleagues to ensure that there are facilities available to handle this new group of medicines. Areas Covered: UK licensed and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence gene therapy medicinal products (GTMP) and requirements for handling. Review of pharmacy facilities and implementation of advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMP) in the UK. Expert Opinion: Most hospital pharmacy departments do not have aseptic facilities for the reconstitution of gene therapy medicines, or have the appropriate freezers in place. Staff do not have the understanding or training of these products unless they are experienced in using them in clinical trials. Chief Pharmacists will need to ensure that governance process are in place as they will ultimately be responsible for the implementation and safe handling of these product. Therefore, work needs to continue to highlight the importance of pharmacy departments and their role in the implementation of this new group of medicines. As more GTMPs are licensed and become standard medicines being handled in pharmacy departments, there will be more hospital pharmacy departments ready to handle them. Initially it will just be the centers of excellence, ATMP centers, and research centers with the expertise and facilities. In the long-term, other hospitals will plan and build the facilities they require.

FDA and NIST collaboration on standards development activities supporting innovation and translation of regenerative medicine products.

The development of standards for the field of regenerative medicine has been noted as a high priority by several road-mapping activities. Additionally, the U.S. Congress recognizes the importance of standards in the 21st Century Cure Act. Standards will help to accelerate and streamline cell and gene therapy product development, ensure the quality and consistency of processes and products, and facilitate their regulatory approval. Although there is general agreement for the need of additional standards for regenerative medicine products, a shared understanding of standards is required for real progress toward the development of standards to advance regenerative medicine. Here, we describe the roles of standards in regenerative medicine as well as the process for standards development and the interactions of different entities in the standards development process. Highlighted are recent coordinated efforts between the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the National Institute of Standards and Technology to facilitate standards development and foster science that underpins standards development.

New treatments compared to established treatments in randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: The proportion of proposed new treatments that are 'successful' is of ethical, scientific, and public importance. We investigated how often new, experimental treatments evaluated in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are superior to established treatments. OBJECTIVES: Our main question was: "On average how often are new treatments more effective, equally effective or less effective than established treatments?" Additionally, we wanted to explain the observed results, i.e. whether the observed distribution of outcomes is consistent with the 'uncertainty requirement' for enrollment in RCTs. We also investigated the effect of choice of comparator (active versus no treatment/placebo) on the observed results. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Methodology Register (CMR) 2010, Issue 1 in The Cochrane Library (searched 31 March 2010); MEDLINE Ovid 1950 to March Week 2 2010 (searched 24 March 2010); and EMBASE Ovid 1980 to 2010 Week 11 (searched 24 March 2010). SELECTION CRITERIA: Cohorts of studies were eligible for the analysis if they met all of the following criteria: (i) consecutive series of RCTs, (ii) registered at or before study onset, and (iii) compared new against established treatments in humans. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: RCTs from four cohorts of RCTs met all inclusion criteria and provided data from 743 RCTs involving 297,744 patients. All four cohorts consisted of publicly funded trials. Two cohorts involved evaluations of new treatments in cancer, one in neurological disorders, and one for mixed types of diseases. We employed kernel density estimation, meta-analysis and meta-regression to assess the probability of new treatments being superior to established treatments in their effect on primary outcomes and overall survival. MAIN RESULTS: The distribution of effects seen was generally symmetrical in the size of difference between new versus established treatments. Meta-analytic pooling indicated that, on average, new treatments were slightly more favorable both in terms of their effect on reducing the primary outcomes (hazard ratio (HR)/odds ratio (OR) 0.91, 99% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 0.95) and improving overall survival (HR 0.95, 99% CI 0.92 to 0.98). No heterogeneity was observed in the analysis based on primary outcomes or overall survival (I(2) = 0%). Kernel density analysis was consistent with the meta-analysis, but showed a fairly symmetrical distribution of new versus established treatments indicating unpredictability in the results. This was consistent with the interpretation that new treatments are only slightly superior to established treatments when tested in RCTs. Additionally, meta-regression demonstrated that results have remained stable over time and that the success rate of new treatments has not changed over the last half century of clinical trials. The results were not significantly affected by the choice of comparator (active versus placebo/no therapy). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Society can expect that slightly more than half of new experimental treatments will prove to be better than established treatments when tested in RCTs, but few will be substantially better. This is an important finding for patients (as they contemplate participation in RCTs), researchers (as they plan design of the new trials), and funders (as they assess the 'return on investment'). Although we provide the current best evidence on the question of expected 'success rate' of new versus established treatments consistent with a priori theoretical predictions reflective of 'uncertainty or equipoise hypothesis', it should be noted that our sample represents less than 1% of all available randomized trials; therefore, one should exercise the appropriate caution in interpretation of our findings. In addition, our conclusion applies to publicly funded trials only, as we did not include studies funded by commercial sponsors in our analysis.

[The certification of advanced therapy medicinal products. A quality label for product development in small and medium-sized enterprises]. / Die Zertifizierung neuartiger Therapien. Ein Gütesiegel für die Produktentwicklung in kleinen und mittelständischen Unternehmen.

Advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) are gene therapy, cell therapy, and tissue engineered products. To gain access to the market within the European Union, ATMPs must be authorized by the European Commission (EC). Especially for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), the European centralized procedure of marketing authorization that is conducted by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) constitutes a major challenge, because SMEs often have little experience with regulatory procedures and many have limited financial possibilities. To tackle these challenges, a certification procedure exclusively for SMEs and their ATMP development was introduced by the EC. Independently from a marketing authorization application, development and/or production processes can be certified. An issued certificate demonstrates that the respective process meets the current regulatory and scientific requirements of the EMA, representing a valuable milestone for putative investors and licensees. This article highlights the background, the detailed procedure, the minimum requirements, as well as the costs of certification, while giving further noteworthy guidance for interested parties.

Can open-source drug R&D repower pharmaceutical innovation?

Open-source R&D initiatives are multiplying across biomedical research. Some of them-such as public-private partnerships-have achieved notable success in bringing new drugs to market economically, whereas others reflect the pharmaceutical industry's efforts to retool its R&D model. Is open innovation the answer to the innovation crisis? This Commentary argues that although it may likely be part of the solution, significant cultural, scientific, and regulatory barriers can prevent it from delivering on its promise.