16 Summary of Clinical Trials with Biological Treatment Approaches for Spinal Disease

2017 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Biological Treatment ◽  
Spinal Disease ◽  
Treatment Approaches

Recent Updates in the Alzheimer’s Disease Etiopathology and Possible Treatment Approaches: A Narrative Review of Current Clinical Trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 273-294 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elahe Zarini-Gakiye ◽  
Javad Amini ◽  
Nima Sanadgol ◽  
Gholamhassan Vaezi ◽  
Kazem Parivar
Keyword(s):  
Alzheimer’S Disease ◽  
Alzheimer's Disease ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Small Molecules ◽  
Clinical Trial Design ◽  
Treatment Approaches ◽  
Drug Candidates ◽  
Novel Treatments ◽  
Approved Drugs ◽  
Tau Aggregation

Background: Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is the most frequent subtype of incurable neurodegenerative dementias and its etiopathology is still not clearly elucidated. Objective: Outline the ongoing clinical trials (CTs) in the field of AD, in order to find novel master regulators. Methods: We strictly reviewed all scientific reports from Clinicaltrials.gov and PubMed databases from January 2010 to January 2019. The search terms were “Alzheimer's disease” or “dementia” and “medicine” or “drug” or “treatment” and “clinical trials” and “interventions”. Manuscripts that met the objective of this study were included for further evaluations. Results: Drug candidates have been categorized into two main groups including antibodies, peptides or hormones (such as Ponezumab, Interferon β-1a, Solanezumab, Filgrastim, Levemir, Apidra, and Estrogen), and naturally-derived ingredients or small molecules (such as Paracetamol, Ginkgo, Escitalopram, Simvastatin, Cilostazo, and Ritalin-SR). The majority of natural candidates acted as anti-inflammatory or/and anti-oxidant and antibodies exert their actions via increasing amyloid-beta (Aβ) clearance or decreasing Tau aggregation. Among small molecules, most of them that are present in the last phases act as specific antagonists (Suvorexant, Idalopirdine, Intepirdine, Trazodone, Carvedilol, and Risperidone) or agonists (Dextromethorphan, Resveratrol, Brexpiprazole) and frequently ameliorate cognitive dysfunctions. Conclusion: The presences of a small number of candidates in the last phase suggest that a large number of candidates have had an undesirable side effect or were unable to pass essential eligibility for future phases. Among successful treatment approaches, clearance of Aβ, recovery of cognitive deficits, and control of acute neuroinflammation are widely chosen. It is predicted that some FDA-approved drugs, such as Paracetamol, Risperidone, Escitalopram, Simvastatin, Cilostazoand, and Ritalin-SR, could also be used in off-label ways for AD. This review improves our ability to recognize novel treatments for AD and suggests approaches for the clinical trial design for this devastating disease in the near future.

scholarly journals Biological Treatment Approaches for Degenerative Disk Disease: A Literature Review of in Vivo Animal and Clinical Data

2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (5) ◽  
pp. 497-518 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yu Moriguchi ◽  
Marjan Alimi ◽  
Thamina Khair ◽  
George Manolarakis ◽  
Connor Berlin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Literature Review ◽  
Clinical Data ◽  
Biological Treatment ◽  
Treatment Approaches ◽  
Degenerative Disk Disease

Factors affecting the offering and enrollment of patients on clinical trials in radiation oncology.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e17571-e17571
Author(s):  
Shayna Eliana Rich ◽  
Nancy Price Mendenhall
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
General Population ◽  
Proton Therapy ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
Patient Acceptance ◽  
Proton Radiation ◽  
Available N ◽  
Treatment Approaches ◽  
Factors Affecting

e17571 Background: Improvements in cancer treatment require significant patient involvement in research, which may be particularly limited for new technologies such as proton radiation therapy. Studies with biased referrals or enrollment may not be generalizable to a general population. This study examines the reasons why patients were not offered or refused enrollment in clinical trials at the University of Florida Proton Therapy Institute (UFPTI). Methods: All patients seen at UFPTI between April-October 2012 for proton therapy for tumor sites with a clinical trial available (N=463) had information collected prospectively regarding whether they were offered enrollment and consented for clinical trials, and the reasons for each decision. The majority of patients had already secured funding for proton therapy. Results: Seven percent (34/463) of patients were ineligible for an available clinical trial, due to study exclusion criteria, concerns for patient safety based on comorbidity, or concerns for data integrity (e.g., other non-skin cancer within five years). Only 3% (9/275) of eligible patients were not offered a clinical trial. Forty-four percent (99/226) of patients offered a clinical trial refused. The most common reasons for refusal included: discomfort with lack of mature data, dislike of protocol, fear that protocol is not best option for disease control, and fear of side effects. Although UFPTI treats a variety of malignancies, the overwhelming majority of those who refused consent were prostate adenocarcinoma patients, who often self-referred for proton therapy. Conclusions: Despite near universal availability of clinical trials at UFPTI, less than half of patients enroll in clinical trials. The greatest factor for non-enrollment appears to be patient acceptance. Despite the availability of non-randomized trials with fairly standard treatment approaches, 44% refused to enroll on clinical trials, suggesting discomfort for less well documented treatment approaches. Further studies should examine whether findings are similar among all US cancer patients, as patients seeking proton therapy may not resemble the general population.

scholarly journals Challenges and Future Perspectives of Immunotherapy in Pancreatic Cancer

Cancers ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (16) ◽  
pp. 4235
Author(s):  
Anna Maxi Wandmacher ◽  
Anne Letsch ◽  
Susanne Sebens
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Treatment Strategies ◽  
Tumour Microenvironment ◽  
Ductal Adenocarcinoma ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Full Potential ◽  
Treatment Approaches ◽  
Treatment Regimens ◽  
Combinatorial Treatment

To date, extensive efforts to harness immunotherapeutic strategies for the treatment of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) have yielded disappointing results in clinical trials. These strategies mainly focused on cancer vaccines and immune checkpoint inhibitors alone or in combination with chemotherapeutic or targeted agents. However, the growing preclinical and clinical data sets from these efforts have established valuable insights into the immunological characteristics of PDAC biology. Most notable are the immunosuppressive role of the tumour microenvironment (TME) and PDAC’s characteristically poor immunogenicity resulting from tumour intrinsic features. Moreover, PDAC tumour heterogeneity has been increasingly well characterized and may additionally limit a “one-fits-all” immunotherapeutic strategy. In this review, we first outline mechanisms of immunosuppression and immune evasion in PDAC. Secondly, we summarize recently published data on preclinical and clinical efforts to establish immunotherapeutic strategies for the treatment of PDAC including diverse combinatorial treatment approaches aiming at overcoming this resistance towards immunotherapeutic strategies. Particularly, these combinatorial treatment approaches seek to concomitantly increase PDAC antigenicity, boost PDAC directed T-cell responses, and impair the immunosuppressive character of the TME in order to allow immunotherapeutic agents to unleash their full potential. Eventually, the thorough understanding of the currently available data on immunotherapeutic treatment strategies of PDAC will enable researchers and clinicians to develop improved treatment regimens and to design innovative clinical trials to overcome the pronounced immunosuppression of PDAC.

scholarly journals Animal models of regenerative medicine for biological treatment approaches of degenerative disc diseases

2020 ◽  
pp. 153537022096912
Author(s):  
Demissew Shenegelegn Mern ◽  
Tanja Walsen ◽  
Anja Beierfuß ◽  
Claudius Thomé
Keyword(s):  
Animal Models ◽  
Biological Treatment ◽  
Chronic Back Pain ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Treatment Strategies ◽  
Current Treatment ◽  
Disc Disease ◽  
Treatment Approaches ◽  
Degenerative Disc ◽  
And Function

Degenerative disc disease (DDD) is a painful, chronic and progressive disease, which is characterized by inflammation, structural and biological deterioration of the intervertebral disc (IVD) tissues. DDD is specified as cell-, age-, and genetic-dependent degenerative process that can be accelerated by environmental factors. It is one of the major causes of chronic back pain and disability affecting millions of people globally. Current treatment options, such as physical rehabilitation, pain management, and surgical intervention, can provide only temporary pain relief. Different animal models have been used to study the process of IVD degeneration and develop therapeutic options that may restore the structure and function of degenerative discs. Several research works have depicted considerable progress in understanding the biological basis of disc degeneration and the therapeutic potentials of cell transplantation, gene therapy, applications of supporting biomaterials and bioactive factors, or a combination thereof. Since animal models play increasingly significant roles in treatment approaches of DDD, we conducted an electronic database search on Medline through June 2020 to identify, compare, and discuss publications regarding biological therapeutic approaches of DDD that based on intradiscal treatment strategies. We provide an up-to-date overview of biological treatment strategies in animal models including mouse, rat, rabbit, porcine, bovine, ovine, caprine, canine, and primate models. Although no animal model could profoundly reproduce the clinical conditions in humans; animal models have played important roles in specifying our knowledge about the pathophysiology of DDD. They are crucial for developing new therapy approaches for clinical applications.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document