Industry Review of Best Practices for Risk Management of Drug-Induced Liver Injury from Development to Real-World Use.

The relative treatment benefit of a drug for patients during development, marketing authorization review, or after approval includes an assessment of the risk of drug-induced liver injury (DILI). In this article, the Pharmacovigilance and Risk Mitigation Working Group of the IQ-DILI Initiative launched in June 2016 within the International Consortium for Innovation and Quality in Pharmaceutical Development presents and reviews three key topics for essential risk management activities to identify, characterize, monitor, mitigate, and communicate DILI risk associated with small molecules during drug development. The three topics are: (1) Current best practices for characterizing the DILI phenotype and the severity and incidence of DILI in the treatment population, including DILI identification, prediction and recovery. (2) Characterization of the relative treatment benefit for patients who will be exposed to a drug and the attendant risk of DILI in conjunction with existing global risk mitigation strategies. (3) Implementation of risk mitigation strategies during drug development highlighting patient factors, healthcare settings and site of product administration, and prescriber and healthcare provider factors. Industry guidance is provided for assessing whether the product labeling is sufficient to minimize the risk of DILI or whether a United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) or European Medicines Agency (EMA) Risk Management Plan (RMP) with additional Risk Minimization Measures (aRMM) is needed.

The relative treatment benefit of a drug for patients during development, marketing authorization review or after approval includes an assessment of the risk of drug-induced liver injury (DILI). Reported incidences of DILI range from 0.74 to 19 per 100,000, and laboratory criteria and/or clinical outcome determine the severity of DILI. At least 10% of patients who develop jaundice caused by DILI (Hy's Law cases) develop liver failure (i.e., severe DILI). A drug's liver safety profile can be assessed using Evaluation of Drug-Induced Serious Hepatotoxicity Plots. Specific recommendations for monitoring DILI in the post-marketing setting depend on characterization of the phenotype during drug development. Risk mitigation tools include additional educational mechanisms, and risk minimization measures include Elements To Assure Safe Use (ETASU) for healthcare professionals, administration sites, and patients. The overall aim of risk management is to ensure that the benefit of a particular product exceeds the risks as far as possible for the individual patient and for the target population.

Clinical Outcomes of Patients with Diabetes Who Exhibit Upper-Quartile Insulin Antibody Responses After Treatment with LY2963016 or Lantus® Insulin Glargine.

INTRODUCTION: We compared insulin antibody response (IAR) profiles in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) or type 2 diabetes (T2D) who received LY2963016 insulin glargine (LY IGlar) or Lantus® insulin glargine (IGlar) and evaluated the potential relationship between higher IARs and clinical and safety outcomes with a focus on patients who exhibited antibody responses in the upper quartile. METHODS: Data from ELEMENT-1 (52-week open-label in T1D) and ELEMENT-2 (24-week, double-blind study in T2D) were analyzed. Maximum postbaseline IAR levels and proportions of patients in the upper quartile of maximum antibody percent binding (UQMAPB; patients with maximum postbaseline percent binding in the highest 25% of maximum values observed) were compared for differential treatment effects on clinical efficacy outcomes and incidence of adverse events. Continuous outcomes were analyzed by analysis of covariance. Categorical data were analyzed by the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel or Breslow-Day test. RESULTS: In both studies (N = 532 evaluable patients with T1D; N = 730 with T2D), no statistically significant differences between LY IGlar and IGlar were observed for maximum antibody percent binding (MAPB) levels or for proportions of patients in the respective UQMAPB. No statistically significant differential treatment effects were observed in the relationship between MAPB and clinical efficacy and safety outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Maximum postbaseline IAR levels and the proportion of patients with high IAR levels were similar for LY IGlar and IGlar. High antibody levels did not affect clinical outcomes. These results add further evidence supporting similar IARs of LY IGlar and IGlar. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company and Boehringer-Ingelheim.

Hepatic outcomes among adults taking duloxetine: a retrospective cohort study in a US health care claims database.

BACKGROUND: Hepatic injury has been reported following duloxetine use. This study further examines the hepatic safety of duloxetine in a large US health insurance database. METHODS: In this propensity score-matched cohort analysis in a US commercially insured population (01 August 2004 to 31 December 2010), we compared individuals with depression and without liver disease who initiated duloxetine to comparators (venlafaxine or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors [SSRIs], and individuals with pharmacologically untreated depression). We estimated incidence rates (IR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI) for medical record-confirmed hepatic-related death, liver failure, and other clinically significant hepatic injury. RESULTS: Among 30,844 duloxetine initiators, 21,000 were matched to venlafaxine initiators, 28,479 to SSRI initiators, and 22,714 to untreated patients. There were no cases of hepatic-related death or liver failure. IRs of other clinically significant hepatic injury without documented alternate etiologies were higher but not statistically significant among duloxetine initiators compared to initiators of venlafaxine (0.7/1000 person-years [PY] [95 % CI: 0.2 - 1.5] vs. 0.0/1000 PY [95 % CI: 0.0 - 0.3]) and SSRIs (0.4/1000 PY [95 % CI: 0.1 - 1.0] vs. 0.0/1000 PY [95 % CI: 0.0 - 0.3]). IRs were similar among duloxetine and untreated patients (0.5/1000 PY [95 % CI: 0.1 - 1.3] vs. 0.5/1000 PY [95 % CI: 0.1 - 1.5]). When hepatic outcomes were considered irrespective of alternate etiologies, similar results were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings, while not statistically significant, may suggest a higher incidence of hepatic injury other than hepatic-related death or liver failure among duloxetine initiators compared to venlafaxine and possibly SSRIs, but not untreated patients. These differences remain consistent with chance, and an elevated risk cannot be ruled in or out.

Mibampator (LY451395) randomized clinical trial for agitation/aggression in Alzheimer's disease.

BACKGROUND: Mibampator, an amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazole propionic acid receptor potentiator, was evaluated for treatment of agitation and aggression (A/A) in Alzheimer's disease (AD). METHODS: Outpatients (n = 132) with probable AD and A/A randomized to 12 weeks of double-blind treatment with 3-mg po mibampator or placebo were assessed using the 4-domain A/A subscale of the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI-4-A/A) derived from the Neuropsychiatric Inventory. Secondary measures included the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory, Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia, Frontal Systems Behavior Inventory (FrSBe), and Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive. Efficacy was analyzed using mixed-effects model repeated measures from baseline to endpoint. Adverse events (AEs), labs, vital signs, and electrocardiograms were monitored. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were comparable between groups. Both groups improved on the NPI-4-A/A, but without group differences. Among secondaries, mibampator was significantly better (p = 0.007) than placebo only on the FrSBe. AEs were similar between groups. One death occurred in the placebo group. CONCLUSION: Possible explanations for no significant group differences include caregiver, drug target engagement, and design issues. This trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov; ID: NCT00843518.

Duloxetine versus placebo for the treatment of women with stress predominant urinary incontinence in Taiwan: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: This manuscript compares the efficacy and safety of duloxetine with placebo in Taiwanese women with SUI. METHODS: Taiwanese women with SUI were were randomly assigned to placebo (n = 61) or duloxetine 80 mg/day (n = 60) in this double-blind, 8-week, placebo-controlled study. Outcome variables included: incontinence episode frequency (IEF), Incontinence Quality of Life questionnaire (I-QOL) scores, and Patient Global Impression of Improvement rating (PGI-I). RESULTS: Decrease in IEF was significantly greater in duloxetine-treated than placebo-treated women (69.98% vs 42.56%, P < .001). No treatment differences in I-QOL scores were significant. There were significant differences in PGI-I rating. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were experienced by more duloxetine-treated than placebo-treated women (80.0% vs 44.3%; P < .001). Discontinuations due to adverse events were significantly greater for duloxetine-treated than placebo-treated women (26.7% vs 6.6%; P = .003). CONCLUSION: Data provide evidence for the safety and efficacy of duloxetine for the treatment for Taiwanese women with SUI. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00475358.

Surrogate motherhood.

A "surrogate mother" is a woman who, for financial or other reasons, agrees to bear a child for another woman who is incapable to conceive herself. In other words, she is a "substitute mother" that conceives, gestates and delivers a baby on behalf of another woman who is subsequently to be seen as the "real" (social and legal) mother of the child. Though the practice of surrogacy has already become a big market in western countries, it has also generated countless challenges for the law because it adds a third dimension to the meaning of motherhood. Like adoption, surrogacy separates the role of rearing mother from what the law has called the natural mother, but gestational surrogacy breaks the latter down into the roles of genetic mother and birth mother, leaving two women with biological connections to the child. Because surrogacy tends to commodify and dehumanize people, and because of all its legal, social, and psychological complications, it is obviously not wise to accept surrogacy as an alternative way of procreation.