scholarly journals An update on targeted therapies in systemic sclerosis based on a systematic review from the last 3 years

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Corrado Campochiaro ◽  
Yannick Allanore
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Systemic Sclerosis ◽  
Targeted Therapies ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Phase 2 ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Trial Drug

AbstractNew molecular mechanisms that can be targeted with specific drugs have recently emerged for the treatment of systemic sclerosis (SSc) patients. Over the past 3 years, the achievement of one large phase 3 trial has led to the approval by drug agencies of the first drug licenced for SSc-related interstitial lung disease. Given this exciting time in the SSc field, we aimed to perform a systemic literature review of phase 1, phase 2 and phase 3 clinical trials and large observational studies about targeted therapies in SSc. We searched MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov for clinical studies from 2016 with targeted therapies as the primary treatment in patients with SSc for skin or lung involvement as the primary clinical outcome measure. Details on the study characteristics, the trial drug used, the molecular target engaged by the trial drug, the inclusion criteria of the study, the treatment dose, the possibility of concomitant immunosuppression, the endpoints of the study, the duration of the study and the results obtained were reviewed. Of the 973 references identified, 21 (4 conference abstracts and 17 articles) were included in the systematic review. A total of 15 phase 1/phase 2 clinical trials, 2 phase 3 clinical trials and 2 observation studies were analysed. The drugs studied in phase 1/phase 2 studies included the following: inebilizumab, dabigatran, C-82, pomalidomide, rilonacept, romilkimab, tocilizumab, tofacitinib, pirfenidone, lenabasum, abatacept, belimumab, riociguat, SAR100842 and lanifibranor. All but 3 studies were performed in early diffuse SSc patients with different inclusion criteria, while 3 studies were performed in SSc patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD). Phase 3 clinical trials investigated nintedanib and tocilizumab. Nintedanib was investigated in SSc-ILD patients whereas tocilizumab focused on early diffuse SSc patients with inflammatory features. Two observational studies including > 50 patients with rituximab as the targeted drug were also evaluated. All these studies offer a real hope for SSc patients. The future challenges will be to customize patient-specific therapeutics with the goal to develop precision medicine for SSc.

scholarly journals Vaccine versus Variants (3Vs): Are the COVID-19 Vaccines Effective against the Variants? A Systematic Review

Vaccines ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (11) ◽  
pp. 1305
Author(s):  
Kadhim Hayawi ◽  
Sakib Shahriar ◽  
Mohamed Adel Serhani ◽  
Hany Alashwal ◽  
Mohammad M. Masud
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Case Control ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Case Control Studies ◽  
Negative Case ◽  
Prospective Cohorts ◽  
Location Type

Background: With the emergence and spread of new SARS-CoV-2 variants, concerns are raised about the effectiveness of the existing vaccines to protect against these new variants. Although many vaccines were found to be highly effective against the reference COVID-19 strain, the same level of protection may not be found against mutation strains. The objective of this study is to systematically review relevant studies in the literature and compare the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines against new variants. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of research published in Scopus, PubMed, and Google Scholar until 30 August 2021. Studies including clinical trials, prospective cohorts, retrospective cohorts, and test negative case-controls that reported vaccine effectiveness against any COVID-19 variants were considered. PRISMA recommendations were adopted for screening, eligibility, and inclusion. Results: 129 unique studies were reviewed by the search criteria, of which 35 met the inclusion criteria. These comprised of 13 test negative case-control studies, 6 Phase 1–3 clinical trials, and 16 observational studies. The study location, type, vaccines used, variants considered, and reported efficacies were highlighted. Conclusion: Full vaccination (two doses) offers strong protection against Alpha (B.1.1.7) with 13 out of 15 studies reporting more than 84% efficacy. The results are not conclusive against the Beta (B.1.351) variant for fully vaccinated individuals with 4 out of 7 studies reporting efficacies between 22 and 60% and 3 out of 7 studies reporting efficacies between 75 and 100%. Protection against Gamma (P.1) variant was lower than 50% according to two studies in fully vaccinated individuals. The data on Delta (B.1.617.2) variant is limited but indicates lower protection compared to other variants.

Clinical Drug Development for the Treatment of Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension: Collaboration With the Pharmaceutical Industry and Regulatory Agencies

2010 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 214-219
Author(s):  
Robyn J. Barst
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension ◽  
Drug Development ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Preclinical Studies ◽  
Phase 2 ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Preclinical Testing ◽  
New Drug ◽  
Pulmonary Arterial

Drug development is the entire process of introducing a new drug to the market. It involves drug discovery, screening, preclinical testing, an Investigational New Drug (IND) application in the US or a Clinical Trial Application (CTA) in the EU, phase 1–3 clinical trials, a New Drug Application (NDA), Food and Drug Administration (FDA) review and approval, and postapproval studies required for continuing safety evaluation. Preclinical testing assesses safety and biologic activity, phase 1 determines safety and dosage, phase 2 evaluates efficacy and side effects, and phase 3 confirms efficacy and monitors adverse effects in a larger number of patients. Postapproval studies provide additional postmarketing data. On average, it takes 15 years from preclinical studies to regulatory approval by the FDA: about 3.5–6.5 years for preclinical, 1–1.5 years for phase 1, 2 years for phase 2, 3–3.5 years for phase 3, and 1.5–2.5 years for filing the NDA and completing the FDA review process. Of approximately 5000 compounds evaluated in preclinical studies, about 5 compounds enter clinical trials, and 1 compound is approved (Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development, 2011). Most drug development programs include approximately 35–40 phase 1 studies, 15 phase 2 studies, and 3–5 pivotal trials with more than 5000 patients enrolled. Thus, to produce safe and effective drugs in a regulated environment is a highly complex process. Against this backdrop, what is the best way to develop drugs for pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), an orphan disease often rapidly fatal within several years of diagnosis and in which spontaneous regression does not occur?

scholarly journals Assessing Sunscreen Protection Using UV Photography: Descriptive Study (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caitlin Horsham ◽  
Helen Ford ◽  
Jeremy Herbert ◽  
Alexander Wall ◽  
Sebastian Walpole ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Sun Protection ◽  
Trial Registration ◽  
Phase 2 ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
The Public ◽  
Uv Photography ◽  
Clinical Trials Registry

BACKGROUND Photography using a UV transmitting filter allows UV light to pass and can be used to illuminate UV blocking lotions such as sunscreens. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study is to compare currently available UV photography cameras and assess whether these devices can be used as visualization tools for adequate coverage of sun protection lotions. METHODS This study was conducted in 3 parts: in phase 1, 3 different UV cameras were tested; in phase 2, we explored whether UV photography could work on a range of sun protection products; and in phase 3, a UV webcam was developed and was field-tested in a beach setting. In phase 1, volunteers were recruited, and researchers applied 3 sun protection products (ranging from sun protection factor [SPF] 15 to 50+) to the participants’ faces and arms. UV photography was performed using 3 UV cameras, and the subsequent images were compared. In phase 2, volunteers were recruited and asked to apply their own SPF products to their faces in their usual manner. UV photographs were collected in the morning and afternoon to assess whether the coverage remained over time. Qualitative interviews were conducted to assess the participants’ level of satisfaction with the UV image. In phase 3, a small portable UV webcam was designed using a plug-and-play approach to enable the viewing of UV images on a larger screen. The developed webcam was deployed at a public beach setting for use by the public for 7 days. RESULTS The 3 UV camera systems tested during phase 1 identified the application of a range of sun protection lotions of SPF 15 to 50+. The sensitivity of the UV camera devices was shown to be adequate, with SPF-containing products applied at concentrations of 2 and 1 mg/cm<sup>2</sup> clearly visible and SPF-containing products applied at a concentration of 0.4 mg/cm<sup>2</sup> having lower levels of coverage. Participants in phase 2 reported high satisfaction with the UV photography images, with 83% (29/35) of participants likely to use UV photography in the future. During phase 2, it was noted that many participants used tinted SPF-containing cosmetics, and several tinted products were further tested. However, it was observed that UV photography could not identify the areas missed for all tinted products. During phase 3, the electrical components of the UV webcam remained operational, and the camera was used 233 times by the public during field-testing. CONCLUSIONS In this study, we found that UV photography could identify the areas missed by sun protection lotions with chemical filters, and participants were engaged with personalized feedback. CLINICALTRIAL Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) ACTRN12619000975190; http://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=377089 ; Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) ACTRN12619000145101; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=376672.

scholarly journals Parkinson’s Disease Drug Development Since 1999: A Story of Repurposing and Relative Success

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Deirdre M. Boucherie ◽  
Gonçalo S. Duarte ◽  
Tiago Machado ◽  
Patrícia R. Faustino ◽  
Cristina Sampaio ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Parkinson’S Disease ◽  
Parkinson's Disease ◽  
Drug Development ◽  
Success Rate ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Phase 2 ◽  
Development Programs ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Heterogeneous Nature

Background: A global overview of drug development programs in Parkinson’s disease over the last few decades is lacking, while such programs are challenging given the multifaceted and heterogeneous nature of the disease. Objective: To indirectly assess drug development programs in Parkinson’s disease, exploring some factors associated with compound attrition at different trial phases. Methods: We assessed all Parkinson’s disease trials in the WHO trials portal, from inception (1999) to September 2019. Independent authors selected trials and extracted data. The success rate was the number of compounds that progressed to the next drug development phase divided by the number of compounds in that phase. Results: Overall, 357 trials (studying 152 compounds) fulfilled our inclusion criteria, with 62 (17.3%) phase 1 trials, 135 (37.8%) phase 2 trials, 85 (23.8%) phase 3 trials, and 53 (14.8%) phase 4 trials. The success rate was 42.4% from phase 2 to 3. Original compounds received regulatory approval by the FDA in 21.4% of cases, compared with 6.7% of repurposed compounds, representing an overall success rate of 14.9%. We found 172 trials (48.2%) conducted for repurposing previously licensed compounds. These figures were approximately the same regarding approval by the EMA. Most compounds were approved to treat parkinsonism and motor fluctuations. Conclusion: We found a moderate-to-high success rate in all phases of drug development. This was largely based on the success of original compounds, despite almost half of the identified trials attempting compound repurposing.

scholarly journals Metatarsal Head Resections in Diabetic Foot Patients: A Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. 1845 ◽  
Author(s):  
Irene Sanz-Corbalán ◽  
Aroa Tardáguila-García ◽  
Josep M. García-Alamino ◽  
Yolanda García-Álvarez ◽  
Francisco Javier Álvaro-Afonso ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Diabetic Foot ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Metatarsal Head ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Heterogeneity Test ◽  
Meta Analyses

A systematic review and proportional meta-analysis were carried out to investigate the complications that occur after surgical metatarsal head resection in diabetic foot patients. The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) checklist recommendations were applied, and the selected studies were evaluated using a Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist. PubMed (Medline) and Embase (Elsevier) were searched in December 2019 to find clinical trials, cohort studies, or case series assessing the efficacy of the metatarsal head resection technique in diabetic foot patients. The systematic review covered 21 studies that satisfied the inclusion criteria and included 483 subjects. The outcomes evaluated were the time to heal, recurrence, reulceration, amputation, and other complications. The proportion of recurrence was 7.2% [confidence interval (CI) 4.0–10.4, p < 0.001], that of reulceration was 20.7% (CI 11.6–29.8, p < 0.001), and that of amputation was 7.6% (CI 3.4–11.8, p < 0.001). A heterogeneity test indicated I2 = 72.6% (p < 0.001) for recurrences, I2 = 94% (p < 0.001) for reulcerations, and I2 = 79% (p < 0.001) for amputations. We conclude that metatarsal head resections in diabetic foot patients are correlated with significant complications, especially reulceration.

scholarly journals Free of charge medicine schemes in the NHS. A local and regional Drug and Therapeutic Committees (DTC) experience.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon O'Callaghan ◽  
Robin Ferner ◽  
Andrew Barron ◽  
Katherine Saxby ◽  
Reecha Sofat (CURRENTLY UNAVAILABLE)
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Clinical Trial Data ◽  
Access To Medicines ◽  
Pharmaceutical Companies ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Regulatory Oversight ◽  
Early Access ◽  
Drug And Therapeutics Committee

Introduction: Free-of-charge (FoC) medicine schemes are increasingly available and allow access to investigational treatments outside clinical trials or in advance of licensing or NHS commissioning. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed FoC medicine schemes evaluated between 2013 and 2019 by a single NHS trust and a regional drug and therapeutics committee (DTC). The details of each locally reviewed FoC scheme, and any nationally available MHRA Early Access to Medicines Scheme (MHRA EAMS) in the same period, were recorded and categorised. Results: Most FoC schemes (95%) allowed access to medicines intended to address an unmet clinical need. Over 7 years, 90% were company-FoC schemes and 10% were MHRA EAMS that were locally reviewed. Phase 3 clinical trial data were available for 44% of FoC schemes; 37% had phase 2 data; and 19% were supported only by phase 1, retrospective observational studies, or pre-clinical data. Utilisation of company-FoC schemes increased on average by 50% per year, while MHRA EAMS showed little growth. Conclusion: Company-FoC medicine schemes are increasingly common. This may indicate a preference for pharmaceutical companies to independently co-ordinate schemes. Motivations for company-FoC schemes remain unclear and many provide access to treatments that are yet to be evaluated in appropriately conducted clinical trials, and whose efficacy and risk of harm remain uncertain. There is no standardisation of this practice and there is no regulatory oversight. Moreover, no standardised data collection framework is in place that could demonstrate the utility of such programmes in addressing unmet clinical need or allow generation of further evidence.

scholarly journals Assessing Sunscreen Protection Using UV Photography: Descriptive Study

10.2196/24653 ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. e24653
Author(s):  
Caitlin Horsham ◽  
Helen Ford ◽  
Jeremy Herbert ◽  
Alexander Wall ◽  
Sebastian Walpole ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Sun Protection ◽  
Trial Registration ◽  
Phase 2 ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
The Public ◽  
Uv Photography ◽  
Clinical Trials Registry

Background Photography using a UV transmitting filter allows UV light to pass and can be used to illuminate UV blocking lotions such as sunscreens. Objective The aim of this study is to compare currently available UV photography cameras and assess whether these devices can be used as visualization tools for adequate coverage of sun protection lotions. Methods This study was conducted in 3 parts: in phase 1, 3 different UV cameras were tested; in phase 2, we explored whether UV photography could work on a range of sun protection products; and in phase 3, a UV webcam was developed and was field-tested in a beach setting. In phase 1, volunteers were recruited, and researchers applied 3 sun protection products (ranging from sun protection factor [SPF] 15 to 50+) to the participants’ faces and arms. UV photography was performed using 3 UV cameras, and the subsequent images were compared. In phase 2, volunteers were recruited and asked to apply their own SPF products to their faces in their usual manner. UV photographs were collected in the morning and afternoon to assess whether the coverage remained over time. Qualitative interviews were conducted to assess the participants’ level of satisfaction with the UV image. In phase 3, a small portable UV webcam was designed using a plug-and-play approach to enable the viewing of UV images on a larger screen. The developed webcam was deployed at a public beach setting for use by the public for 7 days. Results The 3 UV camera systems tested during phase 1 identified the application of a range of sun protection lotions of SPF 15 to 50+. The sensitivity of the UV camera devices was shown to be adequate, with SPF-containing products applied at concentrations of 2 and 1 mg/cm2 clearly visible and SPF-containing products applied at a concentration of 0.4 mg/cm2 having lower levels of coverage. Participants in phase 2 reported high satisfaction with the UV photography images, with 83% (29/35) of participants likely to use UV photography in the future. During phase 2, it was noted that many participants used tinted SPF-containing cosmetics, and several tinted products were further tested. However, it was observed that UV photography could not identify the areas missed for all tinted products. During phase 3, the electrical components of the UV webcam remained operational, and the camera was used 233 times by the public during field-testing. Conclusions In this study, we found that UV photography could identify the areas missed by sun protection lotions with chemical filters, and participants were engaged with personalized feedback. Trial Registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) ACTRN12619000975190; http://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=377089 ; Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) ACTRN12619000145101; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=376672.

scholarly journals A systematic review of COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection and disease

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melissa M Higdon ◽  
Brian Wahl ◽  
Carli B Jones ◽  
Joseph G Rosen ◽  
Shaun A Truelove ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Evaluation Process ◽  
Asymptomatic Infection ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Degree Of Protection ◽  
Protection Against Infection ◽  
High Degree ◽  
Virus Strains

Billions of doses of COVID-19 vaccines have been administered around the world, dramatically reducing SARS-CoV-2 incidence in some settings. Many studies suggest vaccines provide a high degree of protection against infection and disease, but precise estimates vary and studies differ in design, outcomes measured, dosing regime, location, and circulating virus strains. Here we conduct a systematic review of COVID-19 vaccines as of August 2021. We included efficacy data from Phase 3 clinical trials for 13 vaccines within the WHO Emergency Use Listing evaluation process and real-world effectiveness for 5 vaccines with observational studies meeting inclusion criteria. Vaccine metrics collected include effects against asymptomatic infection, any infection, symptomatic COVID-19, and severe outcomes including hospitalization and death, for both partial and complete vaccination, and against SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern. In addition, we review the epidemiological principles behind the design and interpretation of vaccine effects, and explain important sources of heterogeneity between studies.

scholarly journals Immunogenicity of clinically relevant SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in nonhuman primates and humans

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (12) ◽  
pp. eabe8065 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. J. Klasse ◽  
Douglas F. Nixon ◽  
John P. Moore
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Nonhuman Primates ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Phase 2 ◽  
Press Releases ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Virus Challenge ◽  
Efficacy Trials ◽  
Phase 2 Clinical Trials ◽  
Do So

Multiple preventive vaccines are being developed to counter the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. The leading candidates have now been evaluated in nonhuman primates (NHPs) and human phase 1 and/or phase 2 clinical trials. Several vaccines have already advanced into phase 3 efficacy trials, while others will do so before the end of 2020. Here, we summarize what is known of the antibody and T cell immunogenicity of these vaccines in NHPs and humans. To the extent possible, we compare how the vaccines have performed, taking into account the use of different assays to assess immunogenicity and inconsistencies in how the resulting data are presented. We also review the outcome of challenge experiments with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in immunized macaques, while noting variations in the protocols used, including but not limited to the virus challenge doses. Press releases on the outcomes of vaccine efficacy trials are also summarized.

scholarly journals A brief diagnostic screen for cluster headache: Creation and initial validation of the Erwin Test for Cluster Headache

Cephalalgia ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 033310242110181
Author(s):  
Randika Parakramaweera ◽  
Randolph W Evans ◽  
Larry I Schor ◽  
Stuart M Pearson ◽  
Rebecca Martinez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Cluster Headache ◽  
Screening Tool ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Screening Tools ◽  
Trigeminal Autonomic Cephalalgias ◽  
Phase 2 ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Diagnostic Screening

Objective To use 1) newly generated data, 2) existing evidence, and 3) expert opinion to create and validate a new cluster headache screening tool. Methods In phase 1 of the study, we performed a prospective study of an English translation of an Italian screen on 95 participants (45 with cluster headache, 17 with other trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias, 30 with migraine, and 3 with trigeminal neuralgia). In phase 2, we performed a systematic review in PubMed of all studies until September 2019 with diagnostic screening tools for cluster headache. In phase 3, a 6-person panel of cluster headache patients, research coordinators, and headache specialists analyzed the data from the first two phases to generate a new diagnostic screening tool. Finally, in phase 4 this new screen was validated on participants at a single headache center (all diagnoses) and through research recruitment (trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias only, as recruitment was essential but was otherwise low). Results In total, this study included 319 unique participants including 109 cluster headache participants (95 total participants/45 cluster headache participants in phase 1, and 224 total participants/64 cluster headache participants in phase 4). It also found 123 articles on potential screening tools in our systematic review. In phase 1, analysis of the English translation of an Italian screen generated 7 questions with high sensitivity and specificity against migraine, trigeminal neuralgia, and other trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias, but had grammatical and other limitations as a general screening tool. In phase 2, the systematic review revealed nine studies that met inclusion criteria as diagnostic screening tools for cluster headache, including four where sensitivity and specificity were available for individual questions or small groups of questions. In phase 3, this data was reviewed by the expert panel to generate a brief (6-item), binary (yes/no), written screening test. In phase 4, a total of 224 participants completed the new 6-item screening test (81 migraine, 64 cluster headache, 21 other trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias, 35 secondary headaches, 7 neuralgias, 5 probable migraine, and 11 other headache disorders). Answers to the 6 items were combined in a decision tree algorithm and three items had a sensitivity of 84% (confidence interval or 95% confidence interval 73–92%), specificity of 89% (95% confidence interval 84–94%), positive predictive value of 76% (95% confidence interval 64-85%), and negative predictive value of 93% (95% confidence interval 88–97%) for the diagnosis of cluster headache. These three items focused on headache intensity, duration, and autonomic features. Conclusion The 3-item Erwin Test for Cluster Headache is a promising diagnostic screening tool for cluster headache.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document