scholarly journals The use of remdesivir outside of clinical trials during the COVID-19 pandemic

Author(s):  
Vesa Halimi ◽  
Armond Daci ◽  
Nevenka Ridova ◽  
Irina Panovska-Stavridis ◽  
Milena Stevanovic ◽  
...  

Abstract With a scientific background from filoviruses, paramyxoviruses, SARS-CoV, and MERS-CoV, remdesivir entered into the COVID-19 battle to become one of the favorable therapeutic candidates with potential antiviral activity in the treatment of this disease. Globally, remdesivir was accessed and investigated through clinical research (clinical trials) and clinical practice (compassionate use, expanded access, early access scheme, and emergency use). Currently, remdesivir approval status differs between states. This paper aims to review and analyze regulatory approaches for accessing and investigating remdesivir, by communicating regulatory variability between countries in terms of terminology, modalities, and protocols.

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 166
Author(s):  
Salem D. Al Suwaidan ◽  
Aseel S. Alsuwaidan

<p class="abstract"><strong>Background:</strong> Conducting clinical research in accordance with the standards of regulatory authorities and within the guidelines of the good clinical practice (GCP) is a matter of concern.  It has been noticed that some increment in the conduction of clinical trials outside USA and European countries in the last two decades. The main objective of this study is to identify the magnitude of some obstacles that affect the conduction of clinical trials in accordance with the GCP.</p><p class="abstract"><strong>Methods:</strong> Developing questionnaire in accordance with the criteria of the GCP would make assessment on how to buildup infrastructure including policy and procedures of the research institution. Recommendation of the study is to perform this questionnaire every other year to assess the progress and development of the research institution.</p><p><strong>Conclusions:</strong> To identify good clinical researchers, what sort of obstacle(s) regarding conducting clinical trials, and from these obstacles how to resolve it and build up infrastructure for the research institution and also to establish the strategic plan for the research institution.</p>


Blood ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 122 (21) ◽  
pp. 4026-4026 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jorge E. Cortes ◽  
Rüdiger Hehlmann ◽  
Carlo Gambacorti-Passerini ◽  
Stuart Goldberg ◽  
H. Jean Khoury ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Oral BCR-ABL tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), including imatinib (IM), dasatinib (DAS) and nilotinib (NIL), have improved survival in chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukemia (CP-CML). Few data are available that compare TKIs in daily clinical practice across multiple regions. Methods SIMPLICITY is an ongoing observational cohort study of adult patients with newly diagnosed CP-CML receiving first-line treatment with IM, DAS or NIL in the USA and Europe (Eu) outside of clinical trials (NCT01244750). The primary objective is to assess effectiveness of these TKIs in clinical practice. The study includes three ‘prospective’ cohorts of patients treated with IM, DAS or NIL since 2010 (the study opened after first-line approval of all three TKIs) and a ‘historical’ cohort treated with IM since 2008. Preliminary baseline demographics are presented for prospective cohorts. Results 860 prospective patients (Eu: 32%, USA: 68%) were enrolled through June 20, 2013, receiving IM (n=399), DAS (n=229) or NIL (n=232). Median age at initiation of first-line TKI was 56 years, with significant differences in pairwise comparisons between DAS and IM and NIL and IM (Table). Demographics were consistent across cohorts. Only 30% of patients had Hasford or Sokal scores recorded. ECOG performance status (PS) was available in 54% of patients. The number of baseline comorbidities per patient (mean: 3.2 + 2.7) was balanced across cohorts; 51% of patients presented with ≥3 comorbidities. Patients in the IM cohort had a higher prevalence of gastrointestinal comorbidities (P=.006 and .007 for DAS vs IM and NIL vs IM, respectively), and the NIL cohort had a higher prevalence of musculoskeletal comorbidities than the DAS cohort (P=.015). The proportions of patients with cardiovascular comorbidities were 38%, 36% and 42% in the DAS, NIL and IM cohorts, respectively, consisting primarily of hypertension (31%) and hyperlipidemia (17%) (P>.05 across cohorts). Coronary artery disease was present in 9%, cardiac arrhythmias in 6%, myocardial infarction in 3% and peripheral arterial disease in 2% of patients. The proportion of patients with diabetes was 10%. Clinicians reported effectiveness as the most common reason for TKI selection; familiarity and cost were also cited as reasons for IM selection (P<.001 vs DAS and NIL). Comorbidities were not drivers of TKI selection in this analysis. Conclusions This is the first report from the prospective cohorts of SIMPLICITY. Demographics were consistent across cohorts. Overall, the SIMPLICITY population is older with potentially more comorbidities than patients enrolled in first-line clinical trials with restrictive inclusion criteria (NEJM 2003 348 994; NEJM 2010 362 2260; NEJM 2010 362 2251). Initial TKI selection does not appear to be driven by baseline comorbidity, rather by perceived effectiveness, cost and familiarity. Hasford/Sokal scores were not recorded in the majority of patients prior to starting first-line TKI therapy. Outcomes data are being collected across cohorts that will inform about a multi-region population treated outside clinical trials. Disclosures: Cortes: Ariad: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Teva: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Hehlmann:Novartis: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding. Gambacorti-Passerini:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding. Goldberg:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis Oncology: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Ariad: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Khoury:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Ariad: Honoraria; Teva: Honoraria. Mauro:Novartis Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Michallet:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genzyme: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Paquette:Ariad: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy. Foreman:ICON Clinical Research: Employment, My employer ICON Clinical Research receives research funding from pharmaceutical companies including manufacturers of CML drugs Other. Mohamed:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment. Zyczynski:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment. Hirji:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment. Davis:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment.


2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (10) ◽  
pp. 627
Author(s):  
Carol Dillon ◽  
Patricio Pérez Leguizamon ◽  
Silvina Heisecke ◽  
Diego M. Castro ◽  
Jorge Lopez Camelo ◽  
...  

Background: The use of biomarkers in basic and clinical research as well as in clinical practice has become so common that their presence as primary endpoints in clinical trials is now accepted. A biomarker refers to a broad subcategory of medical signs. The aims of this article are to consider the of use biomarkers in Mild stages of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) in research and clinical settings, in addition to defining their utility in clinical practice relating this with nutritional and lifestyle factors as possible treatment. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, PubMed, and AgeLine databases using different keywords.Conclusions: A summary of the utility of biomarkers in AD and nutritional and lifestyle factors used as treatment in mild stages are described.Key words: Biomarkers, Alzheimer’s disease, Dementia, Utility, Clinical practice, Nutritional


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Javier Sánchez Ramírez ◽  
Yanelys Morera Díaz ◽  
Mónica Bequet-Romero ◽  
Francisco Hernández-Bernal ◽  
Yenima Martín Bauta ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: CIGB-247 is a cancer therapeutic vaccine that uses as antigen a variant of human vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) mixed with the bacterially-derived adjuvant VSSP. CIGB-247 has been already evaluated in two phase I clinical trials (CENTAURO and CENTAURO-2), showing to be safe and immunogenic in advanced cancer patients selected under well-defined and controlled clinical conditions. Surviving patients were submitted to monthly re-immunizations and some of them showed objective clinical benefits. Based on these results, a compassionate use program (CUP) with CIGB-247 was initiated for patients that did not meet the strict entry criteria applied for the CENTAURO and CENTAURO-2 clinical trials, but could potentially benefit from the application of this cancer therapeutic vaccine. Results: Polyclonal IgM, IgA and IgG antibodies specific for VEGF were detected by ELISA in serum samples from patients vaccinated with 400 µg of antigen combined with 200 µg of VSSP. Polyclonal antibody response showed no cross reactivity for other VEGF family member molecules like VEGF-C and VEGF-D. Serum from immunized individuals was able to block the binding of VEGF to its receptors VEGFR2 and VEGFR1. IgG fraction purified from immune sera shared the aforementioned characteristics and also inhibited the interaction between VEGF and the therapeutic recombinant antibody bevacizumab, an anti-angiogenic drug approved for the treatment of different tumors. No serious adverse events attributable to CIGB-247 have been documented yet in participants of the CIGB-247 CUP.The present paper is a first report of our findings concerning the humoral response and safety characteristics in treated CIGB-247 CUP cancer patients. The study has provided the unique opportunity of not only testing CIGB-247 in a broader clinical spectrum sample of Cuban cancer patients, but also within the context of the day-to-day clinical practice and treatment settings for these diseases in Cuban medical institutions. Conclusions: The CIGB-247 CUP has demonstrated that immunization and follow-up of a variety of cancer patients, under day-to-day clinical practice conditions in several Cuban medical institutions, replicate our previous findings in clinical trials: CIGB-247 is safe and immunogenic.


Blood ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (21) ◽  
pp. 1853-1853 ◽  
Author(s):  
Regina García ◽  
Dunia De Miguel ◽  
Joan Bargay ◽  
Teresa Bernal ◽  
José Ramón Gonzalez ◽  
...  

Abstract Abstract 1853 Introduction: Azacitidine (AZA), an hypomethylating agent approved in Europe for the treatment of MDS, prolongs the median survival time of patients included in clinical trials (Fenaux et al., 2009). AZA was available for clinical trials or compassionate use in Spain before receiving marketing authorization in Spain in May 2009. The dosage regimen of AZA in routine clinical practice (not in clinical trials) may have been adapted to the care environment at each center. We hereby present the results of the final analysis from a longitudinal, multicenter Spanish patient registry. Materials and Methods: This analysis retrospectively gathers clinical data about the treatment and disease progression of patients with MDS who had received AZA in compassionate use conditions, and for whom the dosage regimen was documented. AZA doses were administered to patients in three different dosage regimens at the beginning of each 28-day cycle; group A: days 1–5 (M-F)/group B: days 1–5, 8–9 (M-F, M-Tu)/group C: days 1–7 (M-Su). Patients who received an initial dose other than 75mg/m2 were excluded from this analysis. Treatment assignment was based on the patient's condition and on the viability of the care environment for drug administration during weekends. Treatment effectiveness and tolerance were analyzed based on the patients’ basal conditions, stratified by the dosage schedule. Results: Data were collected from 181 patients with MDS according to the WHO diagnostic criteria. Their demographic characteristics were similar at the beginning of the study, except for their ECOG performance status, with a statistically-significant higher prevalence of an ECOG ≥ 2 in the administration group C (table 1). The three dosage regimens of AZA were applied in the following proportions: group A 32.3%, group B 27.5% and group C 36.5%. The median number of administered cycles was similar for all groups (6 cycles). The overall response rates for the treatment (IWG 2006 criteria) were as follows: group A 38%, group B 71% and group C 52% (p group A vs. B=0.0005, p group A vs. C=0.0982, p group B vs. C =0.0418). No differences were observed in survival between chromosome 7 abnormalities and an intermediate abnormal karyotype (HR 1.11; p=0.83). AZA treatment was well tolerated. Most of the adverse events were hematological. The adverse event profile varied based on the dose regimen group (Table). Conclusions: The data of the 181 patients evaluated shows that in routine clinical practice effectiveness and tolerance differ when different dosage regimens are used. A better effectiveness/tolerance profile is observed in those regimens with a lower period of time to next cycle. Disclosures: García: Celgene : Research Funding.


2021 ◽  
pp. 01-04
Author(s):  
Samir Malhotra

GCP has become the gold-standard for clinical research; initiated as a guideline pertaining to new drug development, it became a law in many countries, extending its scope to include all research. GCP is an excellent document that outlines the responsibilities of stakeholders involved in clinical research. Widely acclaimed, and deservedly so, it is considered as the “go-to” document whenever questions arise during the conduct of a clinical trial. This article presents another narrative, one that has not been articulated so far. Irrespective of whether we consider GCP as a law or a guideline, it is viewed as an “official” document, without the overt realisation that this was actually an initiative of the pharmaceutical industry, the “masters of mankind”. While the stress on documentation and monitoring in GCP was justified, its over-interpretation led to increased costs of clinical trials, with the result that smaller companies find it difficult to conduct the already expensive trials. GCP as an idea is now so entrenched within the scientific community that the real aims which led to its birth and that can be mined from the ICH website, like the need for market expansion, have remained largely unnoticed and undocumented, and are being expressed here.


2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 5-24
Author(s):  
Daria Jadreškić

The article presents the advantages and limitations of adaptive clinical trials for assessing the effectiveness of medical interventions and specifies the conditions that contributed to their development and implementation in clinical practice. I advance two arguments by discussing different cases of adaptive trials. The normative argument is that responsible adaptation should be taken seriously as a new way of doing clinical research insofar as a valid justification, sufficient understanding, and adequate operational conditions are provided. The second argument is historical. The development of adaptive trials can be related to lessons learned from research in cases of urgency and to the decades-long efforts to end the productivity crisis of pharmaceutical research, which led to the emergence of translational, personalized, and, recently, precision medicine movements.


2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 8-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas P. Shanley ◽  
Nancy A. Calvin-Naylor ◽  
Ruthvick Divecha ◽  
Michelle M. Wartak ◽  
Karen Blackwell ◽  
...  

IntroductionThe translation of discoveries to drugs, devices, and behavioral interventions requires well-prepared study teams. Execution of clinical trials remains suboptimal due to varied quality in design, execution, analysis, and reporting. A critical impediment is inconsistent, or even absent, competency-based training for clinical trial personnel.MethodsIn 2014, the National Center for Advancing Translational Science (NCATS) funded the project, Enhancing Clinical Research Professionals’ Training and Qualifications (ECRPTQ), aimed at addressing this deficit. The goal was to ensure all personnel are competent to execute clinical trials. A phased structure was utilized.ResultsThis paper focuses on training recommendations in Good Clinical Practice (GCP). Leveraging input from all Clinical and Translational Science Award hubs, the following was recommended to NCATS: all investigators and study coordinators executing a clinical trial should understand GCP principles and undergo training every 3 years, with the training method meeting the minimum criteria identified by the International Conference on Harmonisation GCP.ConclusionsWe anticipate that industry sponsors will acknowledge such training, eliminating redundant training requests. We proposed metrics to be tracked that required further study. A separate task force was composed to define recommendations for metrics to be reported to NCATS.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Javier Sánchez Ramírez ◽  
Yanelys Morera Díaz ◽  
Mónica Bequet-Romero ◽  
Francisco Hernández-Bernal ◽  
Yenima Martín Bauta ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: CIGB-247 is a cancer therapeutic vaccine that uses as antigen a variant of human vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) mixed with the bacterially-derived adjuvant VSSP. CIGB-247 has been already evaluated in two phase I clinical trials (CENTAURO and CENTAURO-2), showing to be safe and immunogenic in advanced cancer patients selected under well-defined and controlled clinical conditions. Surviving patients were submitted to monthly re-immunizations and some of them showed objective clinical benefits. Based on these results, a compassionate use program (CUP) with CIGB-247 was initiated for patients that did not meet the strict entry criteria applied for the CENTAURO and CENTAURO-2 clinical trials, but could potentially benefit from the application of this cancer therapeutic vaccine. Results: Polyclonal IgM, IgA and IgG antibodies specific for VEGF were detected by ELISA in serum samples from patients vaccinated with 400 µg of antigen combined with 200 µg of VSSP. Polyclonal antibody response showed no cross reactivity for other VEGF family member molecules like VEGF-C and VEGF-D. Serum from immunized individuals was able to block the binding of VEGF to its receptors VEGFR2 and VEGFR1. IgG fraction purified from immune sera shared the aforementioned characteristics and also inhibited the interaction between VEGF and the therapeutic recombinant antibody bevacizumab, an anti-angiogenic drug approved for the treatment of different tumors. No serious adverse events attributable to CIGB-247 have been documented yet in participants of the CIGB-247 CUP. The present paper is a first report of our findings concerning the humoral response and safety characteristics in treated CIGB-247 CUP cancer patients. The study has provided the unique opportunity of not only testing CIGB-247 in a broader clinical spectrum sample of Cuban cancer patients, but also within the context of the day-to-day clinical practice and treatment settings for these diseases in Cuban medical institutions. Conclusions: The CIGB-247 CUP has demonstrated that immunization and follow-up of a variety of cancer patients, under day-to-day clinical practice conditions in several Cuban medical institutions, replicate our previous findings in clinical trials: CIGB-247 is safe and immunogenic.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document