Clinical approval of nanotechnology-based SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines: impact on translational nanomedicine.

One year after the first human case of SARS-CoV-2, two nanomedicine-based mRNA vaccines have been fast-tracked, developed, and have received emergency use authorization throughout the globe with more vaccine approvals on the heels of these first two. Several SARS-CoV-2 vaccine compositions use nanotechnology-enabled formulations. A silver lining of the COVID-19 pandemic is that the fast-tracked vaccine development for SARS-CoV-2 has advanced the clinical translation pathway for nanomedicine drug delivery systems. The laboratory science of lipid-based nanoparticles was ready and rose to the clinical challenge of rapid vaccine development. The successful development and fast tracking of SARS-CoV-2 nanomedicine vaccines has exciting implications for the future of nanotechnology-enabled drug and gene delivery; it demonstrates that nanomedicine is necessary and critical to the successful delivery of advanced molecular therapeutics such as nucleic acids, it is establishing the precedent of safety and the population effect of phase four clinical trials, and it is laying the foundation for the clinical translation of more complex, non-lipid nanomedicines. The development, fast-tracking, and approval of SARS-CoV-2 nanotechnology-based vaccines has transformed the seemingly daunting challenges for clinically translating nanomedicines into measurable hurdles that can be overcome. Due to the tremendous scientific achievements that have occurred in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, years, perhaps even decades, have been streamlined for certain translational nanomedicines.

Blood eosinophils as a biomarker of future COPD exacerbation risk: pooled data from 11 clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is characterised by progressive airflow limitation and chronic inflammation. Predicting exacerbations of COPD, which contribute to disease progression, is important to guide preventative treatment and improve outcomes. Blood eosinophils are a biomarker for patient responsiveness to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS); however, their effectiveness as a predictive biomarker for COPD exacerbations is unclear. METHODS: This post hoc analysis pooled data from 11 Boehringer Ingelheim-sponsored Phase III and IV randomised COPD studies with similar methodologies. Exacerbation data were collected from these studies, excluding patients from the ICS withdrawal arm of the WISDOM® study. Patients were grouped according to their baseline blood eosinophil count, baseline ICS use and number of exacerbations in the year prior to each study. RESULTS: Exacerbation rate data and baseline eosinophil count were available for 22,125 patients; 45.6% presented with a baseline blood eosinophil count of ≤ 150 cells/µL, 34.3% with 150-300 cells/µL and 20.1% with > 300 cells/µL. The lowest exacerbation rates were observed in patients with ≤ 150 cells/µL, with small increases in exacerbation rate observed with increasing eosinophil count. When stratified by exacerbation history, the annual rate of exacerbations for patients with 0 exacerbations in the previous year increased in line with increasing eosinophil counts (0.38 for ≤ 150 cells/µL, 0.39 for 150-300 cells/µL and 0.44 for > 300 cells/µL respectively). A similar trend was identified for patients with one exacerbation in the previous year, 0.62, 0.66 and 0.67 respectively. For patients with ≥ 2 exacerbations, exacerbation rates fluctuated between 1.02 (≤ 150 cells/µL) to 1.10 (150-300 cells/µL) and 1.07 (> 300 cells/µL). Higher exacerbation rates were noted in patients treated with ICS at baseline (range 0.75 to 0.82 with increasing eosinophil count) compared with patients not on ICS (range 0.45 to 0.49). CONCLUSION: We found no clinically important relationship between baseline blood eosinophil count and exacerbation rate. Hence, the current analysis does not support the use of blood eosinophils to predict exacerbation risk; however, previous exacerbation history was found to be a more reliable predictor of future exacerbations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT00168844 , NCT00168831 , NCT00387088 , NCT00782210 , NCT00782509 , NCT00793624 , NCT00796653 , NCT01431274 , NCT01431287 , NCT02296138 and NCT00975195 .

Long-term safety of secukinumab in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis: integrated pooled clinical trial and post-marketing surveillance data.

BACKGROUND: Secukinumab, a fully human immunoglobulin G1-kappa monoclonal antibody that directly inhibits interleukin (IL)-17A, has been shown to have robust efficacy in the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis (PsO), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and ankylosing spondylitis (AS) demonstrating a rapid onset of action and sustained long-term clinical responses with a consistently favorable safety profile in multiple Phase 2 and 3 trials. Here, we report longer-term pooled safety and tolerability data for secukinumab across three indications (up to 5 years of treatment in PsO and PsA; up to 4 years in AS). METHODS: The integrated clinical trial safety dataset included data pooled from 21 randomized controlled clinical trials of secukinumab 300 or 150 or 75 mg in PsO (14 Phase 3 trials and 1 Phase 4 trial), PsA (3 Phase 3 trials), and AS (3 Phase 3 trials), along with post-marketing safety surveillance data with a cut-off date of June 25, 2017. Adverse events (AEs) were reported as exposure-adjusted incident rates (EAIRs) per 100 patient-years. Analyses included all patients who received ≥ 1 dose of secukinumab. RESULTS: A total of 5181, 1380, and 794 patients from PsO, PsA, and AS clinical trials representing secukinumab exposures of 10,416.9, 3866.9, and 1943.1 patient-years, respectively, and post-marketing data from patients with a cumulative exposure to secukinumab of ~ 96,054 patient-years were included in the analysis. The most frequent AE was upper respiratory tract infection. EAIRs across PsO, PsA, and AS indications were generally low for serious infections (1.4, 1.9, and 1.2, respectively), Candida infections (2.2, 1.5, and 0.7, respectively), inflammatory bowel disease (0.01, 0.05, and 0.1, respectively), and major adverse cardiac events (0.3, 0.4, and 0.6, respectively). No cases of tuberculosis reactivation were reported. The incidence of treatment-emergent anti-drug antibodies was low with secukinumab across all studies, with no discernible loss of efficacy, unexpected alterations in pharmacokinetics, or association with immunogenicity-related AEs. CONCLUSIONS: Secukinumab demonstrated a favorable safety profile over long-term treatment in patients with PsO, PsA, and AS. This comprehensive assessment demonstrated that the safety profile of secukinumab was consistent with previous reports in patients with PsO, PsA, and AS, supporting its long-term use in these chronic conditions.

Phase IV Studies: Some Insights, Clarifications, and Issues.

BACKGROUND: There is an increasing need to face regulatory aspects as well as ethics and scientific ones in the pharmaceutical research phase after the authorization of a drug. Traditionally, Phase IV studies, after the authorization of a drug to be marketed by the Competent Authority like the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (in Europe, European Medicine Agency - EMA- through National Procedures or Community Procedures) have been considered mainly aimed to the assessment of the new drug safety profile. However, the sample size calculation for such aim is still an open issue. Moreover, the benefit/risk assessment is a compelling global need. METHODS: This editorial aims to give a fairly exhaustive overview of the main topics currently present in the pharmaceutical research phase after the authorization of a drug. FDA and EMA guidelines are considered under a comparative perspective with a focus on the perspective of "Post Authorization Safety Studies (PASS)" and "Post Authorization Efficacy Studies (PAES)" with critical considerations. Then, the approach of "Explanatory Trials" and "Pragmatic Trials" is proposed under the horizon of Health Technology Assessment (HTA). CONCLUSION: Critical remarks are raised against the pure commercial perspective in the proposal of PASS and PAES and on the design of registries which should be planned with relevant objectives to be pursued by appropriate statistical analyses reported in the Statistical Analysis Plan (SAP) of the study protocol. Finally, a particular focus is placed on the work of the Ethical Committees regarding the approval of the observational studies on the safety and the efficacy of the drugs in their pragmatic clinical use.

Non-commercial vs. commercial clinical trials: a retrospective study of the applications submitted to a research ethics committee.

There are many difficulties in undertaking independent clinical research without support from the pharmaceutical industry. In this retrospective observational study, some design characteristics, the clinical trial public register and the publication rate of noncommercial clinical trials were compared to those of commercial clinical trials. A total of 809 applications of drug-evaluation clinical trials were submitted from May 2004 to May 2009 to the research ethics committee of a tertiary hospital, and 16.3% of trials were noncommercial. They were mainly phase IV, multicentre national, and unmasked controlled trials, compared to the commercial trials that were mainly phase II or III, multicentre international, and double-blind masked trials. The commercial trials were registered and published more often than noncommercial trials. More funding for noncommercial research is still needed. The results of the research, commercial or noncommercial, should be disseminated in order not to compromise either its scientific or its social value.

Using routinely recorded data in the UK to assess outcomes in a randomised controlled trial: The Trials of Access.

BACKGROUND: In the UK, routinely recorded data may benefit prospective studies including randomised controlled trials (RCTs). In an on-going study, we aim to assess the feasibility of access and agreement of routinely recorded clinical and non-clinical data compared to data collected during a RCT using standard prospective methods. This paper will summarise available UK routinely recorded data sources and discuss our experience with the feasibility of accessing routinely recorded data for participants of a RCT before finally proposing recommendations for improving the access and implementation of routinely recorded data in RCTs. METHODS: Setting: the case study RCT is the Standard and New Antiepileptic Drugs II (SANAD II) trial, a pragmatic, UK, multicentre, phase IV RCT assessing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of antiepileptic drug treatments for newly diagnosed epilepsy. PARTICIPANTS: 98 participants have provided written consent to permit the request of routinely recorded data. Study procedures: routinely recorded clinical and non-clinical data were identified and data requested through formal applications from available data holders for the duration that participants have been recruited into SANAD II. The feasibility of accessing routinely recorded data during a RCT is assessed and recommendations for improving access proposed. RESULTS: Secondary-care clinical and socioeconomic data is recorded on a national basis and can be accessed, although there are limitations in the application process. Primary-care data are recorded by a number of organisations on a de-identified basis but access for specific individuals has not been feasible. Access to data recorded by non-clinical sources, including The Department for Work and Pensions and The Driving and Vehicle Licensing Agency, was not successful. CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations discussed include further research to assess the attributes of routinely recorded data, an assessment of public perceptions and the development of strategies to collaboratively improve access to routinely recorded data for research. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials, ISRCTN30294119 . Registered on 3 July 2012. EudraCT No: 2012-001884-64. Registered on 9 May 2012.

Evaluating the Cardiovascular Safety of Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs.

Some drugs used to treat noncardiovascular conditions may adversely impact the cardiovascular status of individuals both with and without known cardiovascular disease. When the US Food and Drug Administration judges the potential cardiovascular safety signal to be of sufficient concern, it may require the pharmaceutical manufacturer of the drug in question to conduct a postmarketing (phase 4) randomized controlled trial (RCT). Although historically many phase 4 RCTs focused on efficacy (using a superiority design), contemporary phase 4 RCTs often are focused on safety and use a noninferiority design. The choices made by investigators during the planning stage of a postmarketing phase 4 RCT dedicated to the evaluation of cardiovascular safety can influence the ability to compare the standard and test agents. Multiple factors reflecting the conduct of a phase 4 RCT for a general medical condition may influence interpretation of a cardiovascular safety signal. The higher the rates of failure to adhere to the protocol and dropout from the study, the greater the risk of bias. Trials evaluating the cardiovascular safety of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) when used for arthritis are difficult to conduct and even more challenging to interpret. Concerns include the comparison of drug regimens that do not provide comparable analgesic efficacy and problems with adherence to the protocol and retention in the study. On the basis of phase 4 RCTs of NSAIDs to date, it appears that a comparatively low dose of celecoxib administered to low-risk subjects is associated with approximately the same cardiovascular risk as NSAIDs with less cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitory activity, but at the cost of not controlling arthritic pain as effectively.

Genomic Alteration-Driven Clinical Trial Designs in Oncology.

The established molecular heterogeneity of human cancers necessitates the development of new paradigms to serve as a reliable basis for precision medicine. The assumptions underlying some of the conventional approaches to clinical trial design and analysis are no longer appropriate because of the molecular heterogeneity of tumors of a given primary site. This article reviews some clinical trial designs that have been actively applied in the codevelopment of therapeutics and predictive biomarkers to inform their use in oncology. These include the enrichment design, the basket design, and the umbrella design. Oncology leads most other therapeutic areas in development of personalized or precision medicine. Personalized or precision medicine is practiced daily in oncology on the basis of tumor genomics and may evolve in other therapeutic areas as it has in oncology, rather than according to inherited polymorphisms as so often imagined. Consequently, some of the clinical trial designs described here may serve as a possible blueprint for therapeutic development in fields other than oncology.

The Add-Arm Design for Unimodal Response Curve with Unknown Mode.

In a classical drop-loser (or drop-arm) design, patients are randomized into all arms (doses) and at the interim analysis, inferior arms are dropped. Therefore, compared to the traditional dose-finding design, this adaptive design can reduce the sample size by not carrying over all doses to the end of the trial or dropping the losers earlier. However, all the doses have to be explored. For unimodal (including linear or umbrella) response curves, we proposed an effective dose-finding design that allows adding arms at the interim analysis. The trial design starts with two arms, depending on the response of the two arms and the unimodality assumption; we can decide which new arms to be added. This design does not require exploring all arms (doses) to find the best responsive dose; therefore, it can further reduce the sample size from the drop-loser design by as much as 10-20%.

Phase IV implementation studies. The forgotten finale to the complex intervention methodology framework.

The complex intervention methodology framework defines the iterative process for developing and evaluating complex interventions in healthcare, but advice on implementation research was not included until the 2008 update. Our recent systematic review of implementation studies identified significant problems with reporting standards, including inconsistent terminology and crucial information that was missing or unclear. Introduction of reporting checklists has standardized the reporting of randomized controlled trials and other types of studies, and there is a need for similar guidance for reporting implementation studies. Key standards might include an explicit evidence base from a randomized controlled trial or guideline recommendation; recruitment to the clinical service, not the research; at least some outcomes at the population level using routinely collected data; and a description of the setting and the process of implementing the service. The complex intervention framework currently illustrates a cycle of development and evaluation, which includes implementation as a final step. We propose that the research underpinning implementation should be visualized as a second interrelated cycle. Just as the "phase III cycle" includes the iterative steps of development and piloting, a similar process may be needed to translate the intervention into a practical service that can be tested in a phase IV implementation study.

Phase 4 research: what happens when the rubber meets the road?

Approval of a novel drug is oftentimes seen as the end of the development pathway. However, the appearance of rare but serious side effects in patients taking approved drugs has led to increased attention to phase 4, or postmarketing, research. Traditionally, postmarketing research relied on reports from clinicians to monitor for unexpected toxicity. However, such reporting will produce a biased assessment of risk due to underreporting of toxic effects in older medications. The availability of large, representative databases and more flexible analysis tools has led to comprehensive and near "real-time" surveillance programs. These programs have been used by the US Food and Drug Administration to explore toxicities of approved medications. The need for effective tools with which to monitor clinically relevant outcome events has been further increased by the development of accelerated pathways to drug approval. In areas without effective treatments, such pathways lead to licensure without rigorous clinical efficacy data. Continued approval is frequently made contingent on the availability of postmarketing surveillance data demonstrating improvements in clinical end points and these data can also be used to monitor for unexpected toxicity.

Utilización de adhesivos biológicos a base de fibrina en la prevención de fugas anastomóticas en anastomosis del tubo digestivo de alto riesgo: resultados preliminares del ensayo clínico fase iv multicéntrico, prospectivo, aleatorizado y controlado simple ciego: Protissucol001 / Use of fibrin based biological adhesives in the prevention of anastomotic leaks in the high risk digestive tract: preliminary results of the multicentre, prospective, randomised, controlled, and simple blind phase IV clinical trial: Protissucol001

Introducción: Con el objetivo de demostrar la eficacia de los adhesivos biológicos a base de fibrina en la prevención de fugas anastomóticas, en enero de 2007 iniciamos un estudio multicéntrico, prospectivo, aleatorizado, controlado, simple ciego, sobre la prevención de fugas anastomóticas en anastomosis del tubo digestivo de alto riesgo mediante la utilización de adhesivos biológicos a base de fibrina. Material y métodos En enero de 2007 iniciamos un ensayo clínico multicéntrico en el que participan los hospitales Gregorio Marañón, Universitario de San Carlos y Hospital del Sureste, de Madrid sobre la prevención de defectos de cicatrización anastomótica mediante la aplicación de adhesivos biológicos a base de fibrina en la linea de sutura. Los pacientes reclutados se aleatorizan asignando al paciente en función de esta aleatorización a uno de los 2 grupos: grupo de estudio en el que se aplica adhesivo en la línea de sutura y grupo control en el que no se aplica. La variable principal del estudio es la presencia o ausencia de fugas. El ensayo ha sido aprobado por los correspondientes Comités de Ética e Investigación Clínica, por la Agencia Española del Medicamento y registrado en www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01306851). Ninguno de los autores manifiesta tener conflicto de interés con la empresa Baxter, que comercializa el producto en España. Resultados Desde enero de 2007 hasta noviembre de 2010, se ha reclutado a 104 pacientes que han sido asignados tras aleatorización, 52 al grupo de estudio y 52 al grupo control. Se han registrado 22 fugas anastomóticas de las cuales 7 en el grupo de estudio (13, 4%) y 15 en el grupo control (28, 8%) con un valor de la P de 0,046. El índice de riesgo de fugas fue de 0,384, es decir, se produce una reducción del 61% en las fugas de los pacientes a los que se aplica adhesivo biológico a (..) (AU)

Introduction: A multicentre, prospective, randomised, controlled, and simple blind clinicaltrial was started in January 2007, with the aim of demonstrating the eficacy of fibrin-based biological adhesives in the prevention of anastomotic leaks in the high risk digestive tract. Material and methods: A study on the prevention of anastomotic healing defects by applying biological adhesives along the suture line began in January 2007, and included the hospitals, Gregorio Marañón, Universitario de San Carlos, and Hospital del Sureste, in Madrid. The enrolled patients were randomised to one of 2 groups: the study group in which the adhesive was applied to the suture line, and a control group in which it was not applied. The primary outcome of the study was the presence or absence of leaks. The trial was approved by the corresponding Clinical Research Ethics Committees and the Spanish Medicines Agency(AEMPS) and registered www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01306851). The authors declared not to have any (..) (AU)

B cell memory to a serogroup C meningococcal conjugate vaccine in childhood and response to booster: little association with serum IgG antibody.

The maintenance of adequate serum Ab levels following immunization has been identified as the most important mechanism for individual long-term protection against rapidly invading encapsulated bacteria. The mechanisms for maintaining adequate serum Ab levels and the relationship between Ag-specific memory B cells and Ab at steady state are poorly understood. We measured the frequency of circulating serogroup C meningococcal (MenC)-specific memory B cells in 250 healthy 6- to 12-y-old children 6 y following MenC conjugate vaccine priming, before a booster of a combined Haemophilus influenzae type b-MenC conjugate vaccine and then 1 wk, 1 mo, and 1 y after the booster. We investigated the relationship between circulating MenC-specific memory B cell frequencies and Ab at baseline and following the booster vaccine. We found very low frequencies of circulating MenC-specific memory B cells at steady state in primary school-aged children and little association with MenC IgG Ab levels. Following vaccination, there were robust memory B cell booster responses that, unlike Ab levels, were not dependent on age at priming with MenC. Measurement of B cell memory in peripheral blood does not predict steady state Ab levels nor the capacity to respond to a booster dose of MenC Ag.

Vaccine trials in the developing world: operational lessons learnt from a phase IV poliomyelitis vaccine trial in South Africa.

BACKGROUND: Conducting vaccine trials in developing nations is necessary but operationally complex. We describe operational lessons learnt from a phase IV poliomyelitis vaccine trial in a semi-rural region of South Africa. METHODS: We reviewed operational data collected over the duration of the trial with respect to staff recruitment and training, participant recruitment and retention, and cold chain maintenance. RESULTS-LESSONS LEARNT: The recruitment model we used that relied on the 24h physical presence of a team member in the birthing unit was expensive and challenging to manage. Forecasting of enrolment rates was complicated by incomplete baseline data and by the linear nature of forecasts that do not take into account changing variables. We found that analyzing key operational data to monitor progress of the trial enabled us to identify problem areas timeously, and to facilitate a collegial problem-solving process by the extended trial team. Pro-actively nurturing a working relationship with the public sector health care system and the community was critical to our success. Despite the wide geographical area and lack of fixed addresses, we maintained an excellent retention rate through community assistance and the use of descriptive residential information. Training needs of team members were ongoing and dynamic and we discovered that these needs that were best met by an in-house, targeted and systemized training programme. The use of vaccine refrigerators instead of standard frost-free refrigerators is cost-effective and necessary to maintain the cold-chain. CONCLUSION: Operational challenges of a vaccine trial in developing world populations include inexperienced staff, the close liaison required between researchers and public health care services, impoverished participants that require complex recruitment and retention strategies, and challenges of distance and access. These challenges can be overcome by innovative strategies that allow for the unique characteristics of the setting, trial population, and trial team.

Validation and long term performance characteristics of a quantitative enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for human anti-PA IgG.

Accurate, reliable and standardized quantification of anti-protective antigen (PA) IgG antibody levels is essential for comparative analyses of anti-toxin immune responses in anthrax cases, recipients of PA-based anthrax vaccines and for evaluation of anti-PA based immunotherapies. We have previously reported the early performance characteristics and application of a quantitative anti-PA IgG enzyme linked immunosorbent assay. The principal application of this assay was in a Phase 4 human clinical trial of anthrax vaccine adsorbed (AVA, BioThrax), the central component of the CDC Anthrax Vaccine Research Program (AVRP) and in humans following bioterrorism associated Bacillus anthracis infection (Quinn et al., 2002; Quinn et al., 2004; Marano et al., 2008). The objective of the AVRP was to determine the feasibility of reducing the number of priming series and booster doses of the licensed Anthrax Vaccine Adsorbed (AVA) (BioThrax®; Emergent BioSolutions, Lansing, MI) and changing the route of administration from subcutaneous (SC) to intramuscular (IM) (Marano et al., 2008). In this paper we report the validation and long term performance characteristics of the assay during its six year application in the AVRP (2002-2008). The critical features are 1) extensive validation of the assay using two standard reference sera; 2) long term stability and 3) consistency of the data for quantitative analysis of human long term anti-PA IgG responses. The reportable value (RV) of the assay was expressed as anti-PA IgG concentration (µg/ml). Accuracy of the assay was high with a percent error (%ER) range of 1.6-11.4%. Overall intra-operator and intermediate precision were high with Coefficients of Variation (%CVs) of 2.5-15.4% and 6.3-13.2%, respectively. The assay demonstrated excellent dilutional linearity for human sera using log(10) transformed data with the slope=0.95 to 0.99, intercept=0.02 to 0.06 and r(2)=0.980-0.987. The assay was robust, tolerating changes in serum incubation temperatures from 35 to 39°C, serum incubation times from 55 to 65min and changes in key reagents. The long-term assay stability over 6years using consecutive reference sera AVR414 and AVR801 demonstrated sustained high accuracy and precision for the assay, confirming its suitability for long term studies of PA protein-based anthrax vaccines.

Pitavastatin: clinical effects from the LIVES Study.

Although clinical trials provide useful information on drug safety and efficacy, results do not always reflect those observed in the real world. The Japanese long-term prospective post-marketing surveillance LIVALO Effectiveness and Safety (LIVES) Study was designed to assess the efficacy and safety of pitavastatin in clinical practice in ~20,000 patients. After 104 weeks, pitavastatin was associated with significant reductions in low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) (29.1%) that largely occurred within 4 weeks of treatment initiation. In patients with abnormal triglyceride (TG) and high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (HDL-C) levels at baseline, pitavastatin reduced TG and increased HDL-C by 22.7% and 19.9%, respectively. Overall, 88.2% of the primary prevention low-risk patients attained their Japan Atherosclerosis Society LDL-C target, compared with 82.7% of intermediate-risk patients, 66.5% of high-risk patients and 50.3% of secondary prevention patients. Only 10.4% of pitavastatin-treated patients experienced adverse events (AEs), of which approximately 84% were mild and around 1% was severe. Increases in blood creatine phosphokinase (2.7%), alanine aminotransferase (1.8%), myalgia (1.1%), aspartate aminotransferase (1.5%) and gamma-glutamyltransferase (1.0%) were the most common AEs and only 7.4% of patients discontinued pitavastatin due to AEs. Regression analysis demonstrated that age was not a significant factor for the incidence of any AE or myopathy-associated events. A subanalysis of initial LIVES data focussing on the effects of pitavastatin on HDL-C levels showed that HDL-C was elevated by 5.9% in all patients and by 24.6% in those with low (

Semiparametric bayesian testing procedure for noninferiority trials with binary endpoints.

A semiparametric testing approach based on the Bayes factor is developed for non-inferiority trials with binary endpoints. The proposed method is shown to work for a broad class of hypotheses by accommodating a variety of dissimilarity measures between two binomial parameters. Two of the unique features of the proposed testing procedure include: (i) construction of a flexible class of conjugate priors using a mixture of beta densities to maintain approximate equality of prior probabilities of the competing hypotheses; and (ii) automatic determination of the cutoff value of the Bayes factor to facilitate the decision making process. In contrast to the use of Jeffreys's rule of thumb, two forms of total weighted average error criteria are used to determine the cutoff value. Through several simulation studies it is demonstrated that the proposed Bayesian procedure has competitive frequentist properties of controlling type I error as compared to the default frequentist test and meanwhile the proposed criterion improves the statistical power, especially in small samples. The method is further illustrated using the data from a streptococcal pharyngitis clinical trial.

Informed consent and phase IV non-interventional drug research.

Most of the literature on informed consent in pharmaceutical drug research works on the assumption that informed consent is something that is homogeneous and thus can be rendered procedurally universal. This may be justifiable to a certain extent owing to the fact these are all drug trials anyway. Nevertheless, in spite of this general similarity, we also know that the clinical drug development phases are characteristically different, and that phase IV is very different from the other phases because, owing to its postmarketing nature, it is much more varied in scope and in type. Thus, it is worthwhile looking into the ethical nuances relevant to the informed consent process in phase IV non-interventional drug research. We shall deal with the issues on the necessity of informed consent for this type of research and then discuss the possibilities for an opt-out system. We conclude that informed consent is necessary for non-interventional studies, and thus any form of waiving of rights of participants to informed consent must have a valid substantial justification. The distinct character of phase IV accounts for the difference in content of the informed consent document compared to that of earlier phases, and both opt-in and opt-out procedures are ethically justifiable as long as the participant's participation remains informed and voluntary.

Design and rationale for the non-interventional Global Investigation of Therapeutic DEcisions in Hepatocellular Carcinoma and Of its Treatment with Sorafenib (GIDEON) study.

BACKGROUND: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a complicated condition influenced by multiple confounding factors, making optimum patient management extremely challenging. Ethnicity, stage at diagnosis, comorbidities and tumour morphology affect outcomes and vary from region to region, and there is no common language to assess patient prognosis and make treatment recommendations. Despite recent efforts to reduce the incidence of HCC, most patients present with unresectable disease. Non-surgical treatments include ablation, transarterial chemoembolisation and the multikinase inhibitor, sorafenib, but their effects in all patient subgroups are not known and further information is needed to optimise the use of these treatments. AIMS: The Global Investigation of Therapeutic DEcisions in Hepatocellular Carcinoma and Of its Treatment with SorafeNib (GIDEON) study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00812175; http://clinicaltrials.gov/) is an ongoing global, prospective, non-interventional study of patients with unresectable HCC who are eligible for systemic therapy and for whom the decision has been taken to treat with sorafenib under real-life practice conditions. The aim of this study is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of sorafenib in different subgroups, especially Child-Pugh B where data are limited. DISCUSSION: This study will recruit 3000 patients from > 40 countries and follow them for approximately 5 years to compile a large and robust database of information that will be used to analyse local, regional and global differences in baseline characteristics, disease aetiology, treatment practice patterns and treatment outcomes, with a view to improve the knowledge base used to guide physician treatment decisions and to improve patient outcomes.

Summarizing historical information on controls in clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Historical information is always relevant when designing clinical trials, but it might also be incorporated in the analysis. It seems appropriate to exploit past information on comparable control groups. PURPOSE: Phase IV and proof-of-concept trials are used to discuss aspects of summarizing historical control data as prior information in a new trial. The importance of a fair assessment of the similarity of control parameters is emphasized. METHODS: The methodology is meta-analytic-predictive. Heterogeneity of control parameters is expressed via the between-trial variation, which is the key parameter determining the prior effective sample size and its upper bound (prior maximum sample size). RESULTS: For a Phase IV trial (930 control patients in 11 historical trials) between-trial heterogeneity was fairly small, resulting in a prior effective sample size of approximately 90 patients. For a proof-of-concept trial (363 patients in four historical trials) heterogeneity was moderate to substantial, resulting in a prior effective sample size of approximately 20. For another proof-of-concept trial (14 patients in one historical trial), assuming substantial heterogeneity implied a prior effective sample size of 7. The prior effective sample size can only be large if the amount of historical data is large and between-trial heterogeneity is small. The prior effective sample size is bounded by the prior maximum sample size (ratio of within- to between-trial variance), irrespective of the amount of historical data. LIMITATIONS: The meta-analytic-predictive approach assumes exchangeability of control parameters across trials. Due to the difficulty to quantify between-trial variability, sensitivity of conclusions regarding assumptions and type of inference should be assessed. CONCLUSIONS: The use of historical control information is a valuable option and may lead to more efficient clinical trials. The proposed approach is attractive for nonconfirmatory trials, but under certain circumstances extensions to the confirmatory setting could be envisaged as well.