scholarly journals CURATE.AI: Optimizing Personalized Medicine with Artificial Intelligence

2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 95-105
Author(s):  
Agata Blasiak ◽  
Jeffrey Khong ◽  
Theodore Kee
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Personalized Medicine ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Small Data ◽  
Current Standard ◽  
Dose Selection ◽  
Support Tool ◽  
Combination Treatments ◽  
Multiple Challenges ◽  
Over Time

The clinical team attending to a patient upon a diagnosis is faced with two main questions: what treatment, and at what dose? Clinical trials’ results provide the basis for guidance and support for official protocols that clinicians use to base their decisions upon. However, individuals rarely demonstrate the reported response from relevant clinical trials, often the average from a group representing a population or subpopulation. The decision complexity increases with combination treatments where drugs administered together can interact with each other, which is often the case. Additionally, the individual’s response to the treatment varies over time with the changes in his or her condition, whether via the indication or physiology. In practice, the drug and the dose selection depend greatly on the medical protocol of the healthcare provider and the medical team’s experience. As such, the results are inherently varied and often suboptimal. Big data approaches have emerged as an excellent decision-making support tool, but their application is limited by multiple challenges, the main one being the availability of sufficiently big datasets with good quality, representative information. An alternative approach—phenotypic personalized medicine (PPM)—finds an appropriate drug combination (quadratic phenotypic optimization platform [QPOP]) and an appropriate dosing strategy over time (CURATE.AI) based on small data collected exclusively from the treated individual. PPM-based approaches have demonstrated superior results over the current standard of care. The side effects are limited while the desired output is maximized, which directly translates into improving the length and quality of individuals’ lives.

scholarly journals Co-Clinical Trials: An Innovative Drug Development Platform for Cholangiocarcinoma

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 51
Author(s):  
Brinda Balasubramanian ◽  
Simran Venkatraman ◽  
Kyaw Zwar Myint ◽  
Tavan Janvilisri ◽  
Kanokpan Wongprasert ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Targeted Therapy ◽  
Drug Development ◽  
Surgical Resection ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Time Data ◽  
Current Standard ◽  
Innovative Drug ◽  
Curative Intent

Cholangiocarcinoma (CCA), a group of malignancies that originate from the biliary tract, is associated with a high mortality rate and a concerning increase in worldwide incidence. In Thailand, where the incidence of CCA is the highest, the socioeconomic burden is severe. Yet, treatment options are limited, with surgical resection being the only form of treatment with curative intent. The current standard-of-care remains adjuvant and palliative chemotherapy which is ineffective in most patients. The overall survival rate is dismal, even after surgical resection and the tumor heterogeneity further complicates treatment. Together, this makes CCA a significant burden in Southeast Asia. For effective management of CCA, treatment must be tailored to each patient, individually, for which an assortment of targeted therapies must be available. Despite the increasing numbers of clinical studies in CCA, targeted therapy drugs rarely get approved for clinical use. In this review, we discuss the shortcomings of the conventional clinical trial process and propose the implementation of a novel concept, co-clinical trials to expedite drug development for CCA patients. In co-clinical trials, the preclinical studies and clinical trials are conducted simultaneously, thus enabling real-time data integration to accurately stratify and customize treatment for patients, individually. Hence, co-clinical trials are expected to improve the outcomes of clinical trials and consequently, encourage the approval of targeted therapy drugs. The increased availability of targeted therapy drugs for treatment is expected to facilitate the application of precision medicine in CCA.

scholarly journals Clinical and Echocardiographic Trends in Percutaneous Balloon Mitral Valvuloplasty

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ofir Koren ◽  
Asaf Israeli ◽  
Ehud Rozner ◽  
Nassem Darawshy ◽  
Yoav Turgeman
Keyword(s):  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Success Rates ◽  
Current Standard ◽  
Mitral Valvuloplasty ◽  
Patient Demographics ◽  
Percutaneous Balloon Mitral Valvuloplasty ◽  
Percutaneous Balloon ◽  
Male Patients ◽  
Over Time

Abstract Background Percutaneous balloon mitral valvuloplasty (PBMV) is the current standard of care for selected patients with rheumatic mitral stenosis. We examined trends in patient demographics, Wilkins score and additional echocardiographic characteristics, success rates, and complications over a 30-year period.Methods We conducted a retrospective observational descriptive study. The study population consists of patients hospitalized in intensive cardiac care (ICCU) due to significant symptomatic MS, from January 1990 to May 2019.Results 417 patients who underwent PBMV were eligible. Age did not change significantly over time. Male patients who were smoking and had multiple comorbidities such as hypertension, dyslipidemia, ischemic heart disease, and chronic kidney disease became more prevalence (p=0.02, p=0.02, p=0.001, p=0.01, p=0.02, and p=0.001 respectively). Wilkins score and all its components increased over time, which was higher in females (p=0.01), and was not correlated with age (p=0.95). Severe leaflets immobility (Grade 4) predicted complications (p=0.03, respectively). Wilkins over 9 successfully predicted the occurrence of complications, conversely, no efficient cutoff was found in the following decades. Wilkins score managed to predict a technically successful procedure (p=0.02), but not complications (p=0.12). Lastly, complication rates did not significantly change over the years.Conclusion Our research covers three decades of experience in PBMV and shows several trends: We see more male patients, who have multiple comorbidities. The Wilkins score increased over the years and was predictive of successful operations as opposed to complications who were predicted mainly by the leaflet mobility index.

scholarly journals Curcumin in Autoimmune and Rheumatic Diseases

Nutrients ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 1004 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melissa Yang ◽  
Umair Akbar ◽  
Chandra Mohan
Keyword(s):  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Ulcerative Colitis ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Therapeutic Agent ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Cohort Size ◽  
Lipid Levels ◽  
Current Standard

Over recent decades, many clinical trials on curcumin supplementation have been conducted on various autoimmune diseases including osteoarthritis, type 2 diabetes, and ulcerative colitis patients. This review attempts to summarize the highlights from these clinical trials. The efficacy of curcumin either alone or in conjunction with existing treatment was evaluated. Sixteen clinical trials have been conducted in osteoarthritis, 14 of which yielded significant improvements in multiple disease parameters. Eight trials have been conducted in type 2 diabetes, all yielding significant improvement in clinical or laboratory outcomes. Three trials were in ulcerative colitis, two of which yielded significant improvement in at least one clinical outcome. Additionally, two clinical trials on rheumatoid arthritis, one clinical trial on lupus nephritis, and two clinical trials on multiple sclerosis resulted in inconclusive results. Longer duration, larger cohort size, and multiple dosage arm trials are warranted to establish the long term benefits of curcumin supplementation. Multiple mechanisms of action of curcumin on these diseases have been researched, including the modulation of the eicosanoid pathway towards a more anti-inflammatory pathway, and the modulation of serum lipid levels towards a favorable profile. Overall, curcumin supplementation emerges as an effective therapeutic agent with minimal-to-no side effects, which can be added in conjunction to current standard of care.

scholarly journals Photodynamic therapy in the treatment of intracranial gliomas: A review of current practice and considerations for future clinical directions

2015 ◽  
Vol 08 (01) ◽  
pp. 1530005 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carl J. Fisher ◽  
Lothar Lilge
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Photodynamic Therapy ◽  
Survival Time ◽  
Malignant Gliomas ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Therapeutic Index ◽  
Current Standard ◽  
Significant Survival ◽  
Tumor Volume Reduction

Invasive grade III and IV malignant gliomas remain difficult to treat with a typical survival time post-diagnosis hovering around 16 months with only minor extension thereof seen in the past decade, whereas some improvements have been obtained towards five-year survival rates for which completeness of resection is a prerequisite. Optical techniques such as fluorescence guided resection (FGR) and photodynamic therapy (PDT) are promising adjuvant techniques to increase the tumor volume reduction fraction. PDT has been used in combination with surgical resection or alternatively as standalone treatment strategy with some success in extending the median survival time of patients compared to surgery alone and the current standard of care. This document reviews the outcome of past clinical trials and highlights the general shift in PDT therapeutic approaches. It also looks at the current approaches for interstitial PDT and research options into increasing PDT's glioma treatment efficacy through exploiting both physical and biological-based approaches to maximize PDT selectivity and therapeutic index, particularly in brain adjacent to tumor (BAT). Potential reasons for failing to demonstrate a significant survival advantage in prior PDT clinical trials will become evident in light of the improved understanding of glioma biology and PDT dosimetry.

scholarly journals Updates on clinical trials evaluating the regenerative potential of allogenic mesenchymal stem cells in COVID-19

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dhavan Sharma ◽  
Feng Zhao
Keyword(s):  
Stem Cells ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Mesenchymal Stem Cells ◽  
Therapeutic Potential ◽  
Adaptive Immune Response ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Multiple Organ ◽  
Current Standard ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Standard Of Care Treatment

AbstractSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has infected nearly 118 million people and caused ~2.6 million deaths worldwide by early 2021, during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Although the majority of infected patients show mild-to-moderate symptoms, a small fraction of patients develops severe symptoms. Uncontrolled cytokine production and the lack of substantive adaptive immune response result in hypoxia, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), or multiple organ failure in severe COVID-19 patients. Since the current standard of care treatment is insufficient to alleviate severe COVID-19 symptoms, many clinics have been prompted to perform clinical trials involving the infusion of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) due to their immunomodulatory and therapeutic properties. Several phases I/II clinical trials involving the infusion of allogenic MSCs have been performed last year. The focus of this review is to critically evaluate the safety and efficacy outcomes of the most recent, placebo-controlled phase I/II clinical studies that enrolled a larger number of patients, in order to provide a statistically relevant and comprehensive understanding of MSC’s therapeutic potential in severe COVID-19 patients. Clinical outcomes obtained from these studies clearly indicate that: (i) allogenic MSC infusion in COVID-19 patients with ARDS is safe and effective enough to decreases a set of inflammatory cytokines that may drive COVID-19 associated cytokine storm, and (ii) MSC infusion efficiently improves COVID-19 patient survival and reduces recovery time. These findings strongly support further investigation into MSC-infusion in larger clinical trials for COVID-19 patients with ARDS, who currently have a nearly 50% of mortality rate.

scholarly journals OP0154-HPR EFFECT OF NURSE-LED-CARE ON PATIENT OUTCOMES IN RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS IN GERMANY: A MULTICENTRE RANDOMISED CONTROLLED TRIAL

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 97-98
Author(s):  
J. R. Hoeper ◽  
G. Gauler ◽  
D. Meyer-Olson ◽  
K. Rockwitz ◽  
P. Steffens-Korbanka ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Disease Activity ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Current Standard ◽  
Clinical Nurse ◽  
Clinical Nurse Specialists ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Secondary Outcomes ◽  
Over Time

Background:Inflammatory rheumatic disorders are very complex and require high medical resources. However, there is a shortage of care for these patients, which results in suboptimal reach of therapy objectives. Nevertheless, these very objectives need to be pursued quickly to prevent permanent joint damage. In order to ensure adequate care, multidisciplinary teams which include clinical nurse specialists are required. These clinical nurse specialists play an important role in improving standard-of-care in addition to the rheumatologist. The current standard of care ensures that essential medical provision remains intact, however, psychological, social, rehabilitative and educational needs are often skipped due to time constraints. While studies from e.g. the UK and Denmark have already supported the non-inferiority of nurse-led care (NLC)1, no such studies have yet been published in Germany.Objectives:To demonstrate the non-inferiority of NLC to the current standard-of-care, rheumatologist-led care (RLC), for patients with seropositive rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with induction, escalation or change of therapy regarding disease activity as well as different patient reported outcomes (PROs).Methods:This trial was conducted as a prospective multi-centered RCT with a non-inferiority design over the course of 12 months. Based on power calculations, 236 adults with RA were included in the study and randomized to either NLC or RLC. The primary outcome measure is disease activity (DAS28), assessed at baseline (T0), 6 weeks (T1), 3,6, 9, and 12 months (T3, T6, T9, T12). Secondary measures are health related quality of life (RAID), functionality (FFbH) and depression (PHQ9).Results:There are no significant differences between intervention group (IG) (n=117) and control group (CG) (n=119) at baseline. The mean age of the IG is 58.80 years (SD=12.09) and of the CG 58.34 years (SD=11.72). 72.4% of the IG and 78.1% of the CG are female. The mean duration of symptoms was 147 months (SD=144.63) for the IG and 116 months (108.89) for the CG. The mean DAS28 for the IG is 4.36 (SD=1.24) and 4.51 (SD=1.24) for the CG.A mixed one-way repeated measures ANOVA showed that the DAS28 improves significantly over time, Huyn-FeldtF(4.42, 751.72) = 105.701,p< .001, partialη2= 0.383, but the interaction of the DAS28 and the randomization is not significant, Huyn-FeldtF(4.42, 751.72) = 1.464,p= 0.260, partialη2= 0.009. No main effect for randomization was found, meaning that the IG and CG did not differ significantly,F(1, 170) = 1.005,p= 0.317, partialη2= 0.006.The Mann-Whitney-Test showed that the change of the secondary outcomes does not depend on the randomization FFbHU= 4978.50,Z= -.755,p=.450. RAIDU= 5121.00,Z= -.539,p=.590. PHQ9U= 4800.50,Z= -1.281,p=.200. The secondary outcomes improve significantly over time, as shown by a Wilcoxon Signed Rank test for the FFbHZ= -5.589,p< .001, the RAIdZ= -9.884,p< .001 and the PHQ9Z= -7.960,p< .001.Conclusion:The results support the non-inferiority of NLC in the management of RA regarding the primary and secondary outcome measures and provide first evidence that NLC could improve care and help carry the doctors’ workflow.Figure 1.Figure 2.References:[1]de Thurah A, Esbensen BA, Roelsgaard IK, et al. Efficacy of embedded nurse-led versus conventional physician-led follow-up in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. RMD Open 2017;3:e000481.Disclosure of Interests:Juliana R Hoeper: None declared, Georg Gauler Consultant of: Abbvie, Lilly, MSD, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Celgene, Novartis, Sanofi,, Dirk Meyer-Olson Grant/research support from: Novartis, Sandoz Hexal, Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chugai, Lilly, Mylan, Novartis, Sandoz Hexal, Sanofi, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chugai, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz Hexal, Sanofi, Karin Rockwitz Consultant of: Janssen Cilag, Speakers bureau: Janssen Cilag, Patricia Steffens-Korbanka Consultant of: Abbvie, Chugai, Novartis, Sanofi, Mylan, Lilly, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Chugai, Novartis, Sanofi, Lilly, Carsten Stille: None declared, Jochen Walter Consultant of: Pfizer, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Frauenhofer Institut, Gilead, Janssen-Cilag, Medac, Novartis, Pfizer, Martin Welcker Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Novartis, UCB, Hexal, BMS, Lilly, Roche, Celgene, Sanofi, Consultant of: Abbvie, Actelion, Aescu, Amgen, Celgene, Hexal, Janssen, Medac, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, UCB, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Aescu, Amgen, Biogen, Berlin Chemie, Celgene, GSK, Hexal, Mylan, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Joerg Wendler Consultant of: Janssen, AbbVie, Sanofi, Speakers bureau: Roche, Chugai, Janssen, AbbVie, Novartis, Jan Zeidler: None declared, Kirsten Hoeper Consultant of: AbbVie, Celgene,, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Chugai, Novartis, Lilly, Celgene, Sandoz Hexal

ASCO 21 - Recommended Abstracts in Kidney Cancer

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Figlin
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Kidney Cancer ◽  
Renal Cancer ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Current Standard

These recommended abstracts have been selected by Robert A. Figlin, MD, Editor-in- Chief. The chosen abstracts provided here highlight some of the most important trends in ongoing trials and reflect the foremost research and strategies from latest clinical trials that impact the current standard of care in renal cancer

Präzisionsonkologie und molekulare Tumorboards – Konzepte, Chancen und Herausforderungen

2017 ◽  
Vol 142 (22) ◽  
pp. 1676-1684 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julian Holch ◽  
Christoph Westphalen ◽  
Wolfgang Hiddemann ◽  
Volker Heinemann ◽  
Andreas Jung ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Genetic Analysis ◽  
Treatment Strategies ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Tumor Board ◽  
Precision Oncology ◽  
Current Standard ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Tumor Types ◽  
New Strategies

AbstractRecent developments in genomics allow a more and more comprehensive genetic analysis of human malignancies, and have sparked hopes that this will contribute to the development of novel targeted, effective and well-tolerated therapies.While targeted therapies have improved the prognosis of many cancer patients with certain tumor types, “precision oncology” also brings along new challenges. Highly personalized treatment strategies require new strategies for clinical trials and translation into routine clinical practice. We review the current technical approaches for “universal genetic testing” in cancer, and potential pitfalls in the interpretation of such data. We then provide an overview of the available evidence supporting treatment strategies based on extended genetic analysis. Based on the available data, we conclude that “precision oncology” approaches that go beyond the current standard of care should be pursued within the framework of an interdisciplinary “molecular tumor board”, and preferably within clinical trials.

scholarly journals Overall Survival As the Outcome for Randomized Clinical Trials With Effective Subsequent Therapies

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (17) ◽  
pp. 2439-2442 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward L. Korn ◽  
Boris Freidlin ◽  
Jeffrey S. Abrams
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Benefit ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Experimental Treatment ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Current Standard ◽  
End Point

We review how overall survival (OS) comparisons should be interpreted with increasing availability of effective therapies that can be given subsequently to the treatment assigned in a randomized clinical trial (RCT). We examine in detail how effective subsequent therapies influence OS comparisons under varying conditions in RCTs. A subsequent therapy given after tumor progression (or relapse) in an RCT that works better in the standard arm than the experimental arm will lead to a smaller OS difference (possibly no difference) than one would see if the subsequent therapy was not available. Subsequent treatments that are equally effective in the treatment arms would not be expected to affect the absolute OS benefit of the experimental treatment but will make the relative improvement in OS smaller. In trials in which control arm patients cross over to the experimental treatment after their condition worsens, a smaller OS difference could be observed than one would see without cross-overs. In particular, use of cross-over designs in the first definitive evaluation of a new agent in a given disease compromises the ability to assess clinical benefit. In disease settings in which there is not an intermediate end point that directly measures clinical benefit, OS should be the primary end point of an RCT. The observed difference in OS should be considered the measure of clinical benefit to the patients, regardless of subsequent therapies, provided that the subsequent therapies used in both treatment arms follow the current standard of care.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document