scholarly journals A Model of a Zebrafish Avatar for Co-Clinical Trials

Cancers ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 677 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alice Usai ◽  
Gregorio Di Franco ◽  
Patrizia Colucci ◽  
Luca Emanuele Pollina ◽  
Enrico Vasile ◽  
...  

Animal “avatars” and co-clinical trials are being developed for possible use in personalized medicine in oncology. In a co-clinical trial, the cancer cells of the patient’s tumor are xenotransplanted into the animal avatar for drug efficacy studies, and the data collected in the animal trial are used to plan the best drug treatment in the patient trial. Zebrafish have recently been proposed for implementing avatar models, however the lack of a general criterion for the chemotherapy dose conversion from humans to fish is a limitation in terms of conducting co-clinical trials. Here, we validate a simple, reliant and cost-effective avatar model based on the use of zebrafish embryos. By crossing data from safety and efficacy studies, we found a basic formula for estimating the equivalent dose for use in co-clinical trials which we validated in a clinical study enrolling 24 adult patients with solid cancers (XenoZ, NCT03668418).

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alice Usai ◽  
Gregorio Di Franco ◽  
Patrizia Colucci ◽  
Luca Emanuele Pollina ◽  
Enrico Vasile ◽  
...  

ABSTRACTAnimal ‘‘Avatars’’ and co-clinical trials represent an emerging concept for implementing schemes of personalized medicine in oncology. In a co-clinical trial, the cancer cells of the patient tumor are xenotransplanted in the animal Avatar for drug efficacy studies and data collected in the animal trial are used to plan the best drug treatment in the patient trial. Recently, zebrafish has been proposed for implementing Avatar models but the lack of a general criterion for chemotherapy dose conversion from humans to fishes represents a limitation for conducting co-clinical trials.Here, we validate a simple, reliant and cost-effective Avatar model based on the use of zebrafish larvae; by crossing data from safety and efficacy studies, we found a basic formula for the estimation of the dose to be used for running co-clinical trials and we validate it in a clinical study enrolling 24 adult patients with solid cancers (XenoZ, NCT03668418).


2021 ◽  
Vol 13 ◽  
pp. 1759720X2110403
Author(s):  
Jean-Charles Rousseau ◽  
Roland Chapurlat ◽  
Patrick Garnero

In recent years, markers research has focused on the structural components of cartilage matrix. Specifically, a second generation of degradation markers has been developed against type II collagen neoepitopes generated by specific enzymes. A particular effort has been made to measure the degradation of minor collagens III and X of the cartilage matrix. However, because clinical data, including longitudinal controlled studies, are very scarce, it remains unclear whether they will be useful as an alternative to or in combination with current more established collagen biological markers to assess patients with osteoarthritis (OA). In addition, new approaches using high-throughput technologies allowed to detect new types of markers and improve the knowledge about the metabolic changes linked to OA. The relative advances coming from phenotype research are a first attempt to classify the heterogeneity of OA, and several markers could improve the phenotype characterization. These phenotypes could improve the selection of patients in clinical trials limiting the size of the studies by selecting patients with OA characteristics corresponding to the metabolic pathway targeted by the molecules evaluated. In addition, the inclusion of rapid progressors only in clinical trials would facilitate the demonstration of efficacy of the investigative drug to reduce joint degradation. The combination of selective biochemical markers appears as a promising and cost-effective approach to fulfill this unmet clinical need. Among the various potential roles of biomarkers in OA, their ability to monitor drug efficacy is probably one of the most important, in association with clinical and imaging parameters. Biochemical markers have the unique property to detect changes in joint tissue metabolism within a few weeks.


JMS SKIMS ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-17
Author(s):  
Haroon Rashid

Clinical trials are the only way of establishing the safety and efficacy of any new drug before its introduction in the market for human use. Clinical trials (with safeguards) are necessary for introduction of new drugs for a country like India, considering its disease burden and emergence of new variants of disease.The regulatory bodies need to frame guidelines and regulatory approval processes on a par with international standards. Many of the new laws, guidance documents, notifications and initiatives for regulating pharmaceutical industry were in the charts for quite a long time. Indian regulatory authorities have started looking into speedy implementation and providing support in terms ofnecessary infrastructure and investment. JMS 2017; 20(1):5-17


Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 5-6
Author(s):  
Israr Khan ◽  
Abdul Rafae ◽  
Anum Javaid ◽  
Zahoor Ahmed ◽  
Haifza Abeera Qadeer ◽  
...  

Background: Multiple myeloma (MM) is a plasma cell disorder and demonstrates overexpression of B cell maturation antigen (BCMA). Our objective is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of chimeric antigen receptor T cells (CAR-T) against BCMA in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Methods: We conducted a systematic literature search using PubMed, Cochrane, Clinicaltrials.gov, and Embase databases. We also searched for data from society meetings. A total of 935 articles were identified, and 610 were screened for relevance. Results: Data from thirty-one original studies with a total of 871 patients (pts) were included based on defined eligibility criteria, see Table 1. Hu et al. reported an overall response rate (ORR) of 100% in 33 pts treated with BCMA CAR-T cells including 21 complete response (CR), 7 very good partial response (VGPR), 4 partial response (PR). Moreover, 32 pts achieved minimal residual disease (MRD) negative status. Chen et al. reported ORR of 88%, 14% CR, 6% VGPR, and 82% MRD negative status with BCMA CAR-T therapy in 17 RRMM pts. In another clinical trial by Han et al. BCMA CAR-T therapy demonstrated an ORR of 100% among 7 evaluable pts with 43% pts having ≥ CR and 14% VGPR. An ORR of 100% with 64% stringent CR (sCR) and 36% VGPR was reported with novel anti-BCMA CART cells (CT103A). Similarly, Li et al. reported ORR of 87.5%, sCR of 50%, VGPR 12.5%, and PR 25% in 16 pts. BCMA targeting agent, JNJ-4528, showed ORR of 91%, including 4sCR, 2CR, 10MRD, and 7VGPR. CAR-T- bb2121 demonstrated ORR of 85%, sCR 36%, CR 9%, VGPR 57%, and MRD negativity of 100% (among 16 responsive pts). GSK2857916, a BCMA targeting CAR-T cells yielded ORR of 60% in both clinical trials. Three studies utilizing bispecific CART cells targeting both BCMA & CD38 (LCARB38M) reported by Zhao et al., Wang et al., and Fan et al. showed ORR of 88%, 88%, & 100% respectively. Topp et al. reported ORR of 31% along with 5 ≥CR and 5 MRD negative status in 42 pts treated with Bi T-cells Engager BiTE® Ab BCMA targeting antigen (AMG420). One clinical trial presented AUTO2 CART cells therapy against BCMA with an ORR of 43%, VGPR of 14%, and PR of 28%. CT053CAR-BCMA showed 14sCR and 5CR with a collective ORR of 87.5% and MRD negative status of 85% in 24 and 20 evaluable pts, respectively. Likewise, Mikkilineni et al. reported an ORR of 83%, sCR of 16.7%, and VGPR & PR of 25% and 41% in 12 pts treated with FHVH-BCMA T cells. Similar results are also reported in other clinical trials of BCMA targeting CART therapy (Table 1). The most common adverse effects exhibited were grade 1-3 hematologic (cytopenia) and cytokine release syndrome (CRS) (mostly reversible with tocilizumab). Conclusion: Initial data from ongoing clinical trials using BCMA targeting CAR-T therapy have yielded promising results both in terms of improved outcome and tolerable toxicity profiles. Although two phase 3 trails are ongoing, additional data is warranted to further ensure the safety and efficacy of anti-BCMA CAR-T cells therapy in pts with RRMM for future use. Disclosures Anwer: Incyte, Seattle Genetics, Acetylon Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie Pharma, Astellas Pharma, Celegene, Millennium Pharmaceuticals.: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.


2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 315-315
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Hutson ◽  
Bradley Curtis Carthon ◽  
Jeffrey Yorio ◽  
Sunil Babu ◽  
Heidi Ann McKean ◽  
...  

315 Background: Combination therapy with nivolumab + ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) has demonstrated long-term efficacy and tolerability for patients (pts) with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). Most pivotal clinical trials in pts with aRCC have excluded pts with low Karnofsky performance status (KPS; < 70%). CheckMate 920 is a multi-arm, phase IIIb/IV, open-label clinical trial of NIVO+IPI treatment in pts enrolled in a community practice setting with aRCC and a high unmet medical need. We present safety and efficacy results for the cohort of pts with aRCC of any histology and KPS 50%–60% from CheckMate 920 (NCT02982954). Methods: Pts with previously untreated advanced/metastatic RCC and KPS 50%–60% received NIVO 3 mg/kg + IPI 1 mg/kg Q3W × 4 doses followed by 480 mg NIVO Q4W for ≤ 2 years or until disease progression/unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was incidence of grade ≥ 3 immune-mediated adverse events (imAEs) within 100 days of last dose of study drug. Key secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) by RECIST v1.1 (both per investigator). Exploratory endpoints included overall survival (OS). Results: Of 25 treated pts with KPS 50%–60%, 76% were men; median age was 67 years (range, 34–81). IMDC risk was favorable in 0%, intermediate in 32%, and poor in 68% of pts; 84% had clear cell and 16% had non-clear cell RCC histology. With a minimum follow-up of 25 months, median duration of therapy (95% CI) was 2.3 months (2.1–7.7) for NIVO and 2.1 months (2.1–2.1) for IPI. The median number of doses (range) received was 4 (1–27) for NIVO and 4 (1–4) for IPI; 76% of pts received ≥ 4 NIVO doses and 68% received all 4 IPI doses. The only grade 3–4 imAEs by category were hepatitis (4.0%) and adrenal insufficiency (4.0%). No grade 5 imAEs occurred. Overall, 4 (16%) pts discontinued due to any-grade adverse events (n = 1 each for elevated AST, malignant neoplasm progression, back pain, and acetabulum fracture). Of 18 evaluable pts, ORR was 33.3% (95% CI, 13.3–59.0); no pts had a complete response and 6 had partial response. Median time to objective response was 4.5 months (range, 2.5–24.7). Median duration of objective response was 20.6 months (range, 0.03+–24.2+). Median PFS was 4.6 months (95% CI, 2.5–14.8). Median OS was 15.6 months (95% CI, 5.3–25.1). Conclusions: NIVO+IPI demonstrated an acceptable safety profile and promising antitumor activity in pts with previously untreated aRCC and KPS 50%–60%. The combination was tolerated at a dose intensity similar to that observed in clinical trials conducted in pts with higher KPS (≥ 70%). These data support the value of NIVO+IPI in pts who may not be considered ideal candidates for this therapy and consequently may have limited treatment options. Clinical trial information: NCT02982954 .


1997 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 385-396 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason H. T. Karlawish ◽  
John Lantos

Equipoise is an essential condition to justify a clinical trial. The term, describes a state of uncertainty: the data suggest but do not prove a drug's safety and efficacy The only way to resolve this uncertainty is further study In many cases, a clinical trial seems to be the most efficient way to prove safety and efficacy Equipoise is therefore not an esoteric philosophic construct applied to research ethics. Rather, since it is vital for the justification of clinical trials, it is part of how society regulates medical progress. Where there is equipoise, drug design and development proceeds according to Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Health and Human Services (HHS) regulations. When that equipoise ends, a drug is either not approved or becomes standard care.


Author(s):  
Jamie I. Forrest ◽  
Angeli Rawat ◽  
Felipe Duailibe ◽  
Christina M. Guo ◽  
Sheila Sprague ◽  
...  

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, clinical research groups across the world developed trial protocols to evaluate the safety and efficacy of treatments for COVID-19. Despite this initial enthusiasm, only a small portion of these protocols were implemented. Of those implemented, a fraction successfully recruited their target sample size to analyze and disseminate findings. More than a year and a half into the COVID-19 pandemic, only a few clinical trials evaluating treatments for COVID-19 have generated new evidence. Productive randomized platform clinical trials evaluating COVID-19 treatments may attribute their success to intentional investments in developing resilient clinical trial infrastructures. Health system resiliency discourse provides a conceptual framework for characterizing attributes for withstanding shocks. This framework may also be useful for contextualizing the attributes of productive clinical trials evaluating COVID-19 therapies. We characterize the successful attributes and lessons learned in developing the TOGETHER Trial infrastructure using a health system resiliency framework. This framework may be considered by clinical trialists aiming to build resilient trial infrastructures capable of responding rapidly and efficiently to global health threats.


2017 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-84
Author(s):  
Katarzyna Syroka-Marczewska

A clinical trial is each trial conducted in humans to discover or confirm the clinical, pharmacological, including pharmacodynamic, effects of action of one or more investigational medicinal products, or to identify the adverse reactions to one or more investigational medicinal products, or to monitor absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion of one or more investigational medicinal products, taking into consideration their safety and efficacy. It ought to be remembered that clinical trials may be conducted with the use of medicinal products. Clinical trials must be conducted in a way which is in line with the primary principle that clinical trial participants’ rights, safety, health, and welfare override the interest of science and society.


2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4517-4517 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hamid Emamekhoo ◽  
Mark Olsen ◽  
Bradley Curtis Carthon ◽  
Alexandra Drakaki ◽  
Ivor John Percent ◽  
...  

4517 Background: Previous clinical trials of patients (pts) with aRCC, including CheckMate 214, have mostly excluded pts with brain metastases. However, antitumor activity in pts with brain metastases has been observed in pts with melanoma treated with NIVO 1 mg/kg + IPI 3mg/kg and pts with non-small cell lung cancer treated with NIVO 240 mg + IPI 1mg/kg. CheckMate 920 is an ongoing, phase 3b/4 clinical trial of NIVO + IPI treatment in pts with aRCC with a high unmet medical need. Here, we present the safety and efficacy interim results for the cohort of pts with brain metastases. Methods: Pts with previously untreated aRCC of any histology, with asymptomatic brain metastases (not on corticosteroids or receiving radiation), and Karnofsky performance status ≥70% were assigned to treatment with NIVO 3 mg/kg + IPI 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks for 4 doses, followed by NIVO 480 mg every 4 weeks. Pts were treated until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or for a maximum of 2 years. The primary endpoint was the incidence of high-grade immune-mediated adverse events (IMAEs). Key secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) by RECIST v1.1 per investigator. Exploratory endpoints included additional safety analyses and overall survival (OS). Results: Overall, 28 patients were enrolled in the brain metastases cohort. With a minimum follow-up of 6.47 months, grade 3-4 IMAEs within 100 days of last dose were reported in 6 cases. The grade 3-4 IMAEs observed in ≥ 1 patient were diarrhea, colitis, diabetic ketoacidosis, immune-mediated hepatitis, hypophysitis, and rash of any type (n = 1 each). No treatment-related grade 5 IMAEs were reported. ORR by RECIST v1.1 per investigator in all treated subjects was 28.6% (95% CI 13.2–48.7). Median PFS in all treated subjects was 9.0 months (95% CI 2.9–not estimable [NE]). Median OS has not been reached (95% CI 13.1–NE). Conclusions: In pts with aRCC and brain metastases who are often excluded from clinical trials, NIVO + IPI treatment showed a safety profile consistent with previous reports of this dosing regimen, with encouraging antitumor activity. Clinical trial information: NCT02982954.


2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4515-4515
Author(s):  
Hamid Emamekhoo ◽  
Mark R Olsen ◽  
Bradley Curtis Carthon ◽  
Alexandra Drakaki ◽  
Ivor John Percent ◽  
...  

4515 Background: Combination therapy with nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) has demonstrated long-term efficacy and tolerability in patients with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). Previous phase 3 clinical trials of patients with advanced or metastatic cancers have mostly excluded patients with brain metastases. CheckMate 920 is an ongoing, phase 3b/4 clinical trial of NIVO+IPI treatment in patients with aRCC with a high unmet medical need. We present updated safety and efficacy results for the cohort of patients with aRCC of any histology and brain metastases from CheckMate 920 (NCT02982954). Methods: Patients with previously untreated advanced/metastatic aRCC of any histology, with asymptomatic brain metastases (not currently receiving corticosteroids or radiation), and Karnofsky performance status ≥ 70% were assigned to treatment with NIVO 3 mg/kg + IPI 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks × 4 doses followed by NIVO 480 mg every 4 weeks for ≤ 2 years or until disease progression/unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was incidence of grade ≥ 3 immune-mediated adverse events (imAEs) within 100 days of last dose of study drug. Key secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) by RECIST v1.1 (both per investigator). Exploratory endpoints included overall survival (OS). Results: Of 28 treated patients with brain metastases, 85.7% were men; median (range) age was 60 (38–87) years, and 14.3% had sarcomatoid features. With 24.5 months minimum follow-up of the 28 patients enrolled, median duration of therapy (range) was 3.4 (0.0–23.3) months for NIVO and 2.1 (0.0–3.3) months for IPI. No grade 5 imAEs occurred. Grade 3–4 imAEs by category were diarrhea/colitis (7.1%), hypophysitis (3.6%), rash (3.6%), hepatitis (3.6%), and diabetes mellitus (3.6%). Of the 25 patients who were evaluable for ORR, the ORR was 32.0% (95% CI, 14.9–53.5). No patients achieved complete response, 8 achieved partial response, and 10 patients had stable disease. Median time to response (range) was 2.8 (2.4–3.0) months. Median duration (range) of response was 24.0 (3.9–not estimable [NE]) months; 4 of 8 responders remain without reported progression. Of 28 patients, 7 (25%) had intracranial progression. Median PFS (n = 28) was 9.0 (95% CI, 2.9–12.0) months. Median OS (n = 28) was still not reached (95% CI, 14.1 months–NE). Conclusions: In patients with previously untreated aRCC and brain metastases, a population with high unmet medical need that is often underrepresented in clinical trials, the approved treatment regimen of NIVO+IPI followed by NIVO for aRCC showed no new safety signals and continues to show encouraging antitumor activity with longer follow-up. Clinical trial information: NCT02982954.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document