PROVE—Phase IV Study of Perampanel in Real-World Clinical Care of Patients with Epilepsy: Interim Analysis in Pediatric Patients

PROVE is a retrospective, phase IV study assessing retention, dosing, efficacy, and safety of perampanel when administered to patients during routine clinical care. We report an interim analysis of preadolescent (1 to <12 years) and adolescent (12 to <18 years) patients. Data were obtained from medical records of patients with epilepsy initiating perampanel after January 1, 2014; cut-off date for this analysis was October 10, 2018. Overall, 151 preadolescent and 183 adolescent patients were included. Retention rates following 24 months on perampanel were 42.5% (preadolescent subgroup; n = 31/73) and 55.7% (adolescent subgroup; n = 54/97). Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 53 (35.1%) preadolescent (most common: aggression, irritability, and somnolence) and 78 (42.6%) adolescent patients (most common: somnolence, aggression, and dizziness). These data indicate that daily oral doses of perampanel are generally well tolerated during routine clinical care, with favorable retention rates for ≤2 years, in patients aged 1 to <18 years.

Clinicians’ Views and Experiences with Offering and Returning Results from Exome Sequencing to Parents of Infants with Hearing Loss

Exome sequencing (ES) is an effective method for identifying the genetic cause of hearing loss in infants diagnosed through newborn hearing screening programs. ES has the potential to be integrated into routine clinical care, yet little is known about the experiences of clinicians offering this test to families. To address this gap, clinicians involved in a clinical study using ES to identify the cause of infants’ hearing loss were interviewed to explore their experiences with offering and returning results to parents. Interview transcripts were analysed using inductive content analysis. Twelve clinicians participated: seven genetic counsellors, four clinical geneticists, and one paediatrician. Most clinicians were supportive of offering ES to infants with hearing loss, primarily because results may inform the child’s clinical management. However, some expressed concerns, questioning the utility of this information, particularly for isolated hearing loss. Clinicians had differing views regarding the optimal time to offer ES to families; while some felt that families can manage everything at once, others recommended delaying testing until parents have come to terms with their child’s diagnosis. These findings show the complexity involved in determining how ES should be offered to families following the diagnosis of a child with hearing loss, particularly with regards to when testing is suggested.

Safety of Insulin Degludec/Insulin Aspart in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus over a Period of 1 Year during Routine Clinical Care in India: SMART (Study of Management of Diabetes with Ryzodeg™ Treatment)

This post-authorization study was conducted to evaluate the safety of insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) in adult patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) during routine clinical care under a real-world setting in India. Eligible patients received IDegAsp for a minimum of 12 months during routine clinical management. Data were collected at 0, 3, 6, and 12 months. In total, 1029 adult patients with DM were included; 65.2% (n = 671) were men; mean age was 55.0 ± 12.2 years, and the mean duration of diabetes mellitus was 10.8 ± 7.4 years. Thirty adverse events were reported in 23 patients (2.2%) during the follow-up: two adverse events in two patients were serious with fatal outcomes, which were unrelated to IDegAsp use. At baseline, there were 176 confirmed hypoglycemic events in 67 (6.7%) patients while they were on their previous treatment options. At 12 months of treatment with IDegAsp, 11 confirmed hypoglycemic events were reported in 11 (1.1%) patients since the previous visit; there were no reported episodes of severe hypoglycemia. Mean glycosylated hemoglobin value reduced from 9.5% ± 1.8% at baseline to 7.7% ± 1.1% at 12 months. This study showed the safety of IDegAsp in patients with diabetes mellitus over a period of 1 year during routine clinical care.

Clinical challenges in the management of endocrine side effects of immuno-oncological therapies

SummaryGiven the growing use of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy in oncology, the prevalence of endocrine side effects is rapidly increasing. As clinicians are nowadays frequently confronted with these side effects in routine clinical care, awareness, better knowledge of endocrine irAEs and their clinical presentation and diagnosis is crucial for an adequate management. In this short-review we give a compact overview of the recent recommendations for the management of endocrine irAE related to ICIs and highlight difficulties and uncertainties in current clinical practice.

HbA1c measurements from UK Biobank are different to those in linked primary care records: implications for combining biochemistry data from research studies and routine clinical care

Data linkage of cohort or RCT data with routinely collected data is becoming increasingly commonplace, and this often involves combining biomarker measurements from different sources. However, sources may have different biases due to differences in assay method and calibration. Combining these measurements, or diagnoses based on these measurements, is therefore not always valid. We highlight an example using glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) test results from two different sources in UK Biobank data.

Syndromic Monogenic Diabetes Genes Should be Tested in Patients With a Clinical Suspicion of MODY

At present, outside of infancy, genetic testing for monogenic diabetes is typically for mutations in MODY genes that predominantly result in isolated diabetes. Monogenic diabetes syndromes are usually only tested when this is supported by specific syndromic clinical features. It is not known how frequently patients with suspected MODY have a mutation in a monogenic syndromic diabetes gene and thus missed by present testing regimes. We performed<b> </b>genetic testing of 27 monogenic diabetes genes (including 18 associated with syndromic diabetes) for 1280 patients with a clinical suspicion of MODY from routine clinical care that were not suspected of having monogenic syndromic diabetes. We confirmed monogenic diabetes in 297 (23%) patients. Mutations in 7 different syndromic diabetes genes accounted for 19% (95%CI 15-24%) of all monogenic diabetes. The mitochondrial m.3243A>G and mutations in <i>HNF1B</i> were responsible for the majority of mutations in syndromic diabetes genes. They were also the 4^th and 5^th most common causes of monogenic diabetes overall. These patients lacked typical features and their diabetes phenotypes overlapped with non-syndromic monogenic diabetes patients. Syndromic monogenic diabetes genes (particularly m.3243A>G and <i>HNF1B</i>) should be routinely tested in patients with suspected MODY that do not have typical features of a genetic syndrome.

Syndromic Monogenic Diabetes Genes Should be Tested in Patients With a Clinical Suspicion of MODY

At present, outside of infancy, genetic testing for monogenic diabetes is typically for mutations in MODY genes that predominantly result in isolated diabetes. Monogenic diabetes syndromes are usually only tested when this is supported by specific syndromic clinical features. It is not known how frequently patients with suspected MODY have a mutation in a monogenic syndromic diabetes gene and thus missed by present testing regimes. We performed<b> </b>genetic testing of 27 monogenic diabetes genes (including 18 associated with syndromic diabetes) for 1280 patients with a clinical suspicion of MODY from routine clinical care that were not suspected of having monogenic syndromic diabetes. We confirmed monogenic diabetes in 297 (23%) patients. Mutations in 7 different syndromic diabetes genes accounted for 19% (95%CI 15-24%) of all monogenic diabetes. The mitochondrial m.3243A>G and mutations in <i>HNF1B</i> were responsible for the majority of mutations in syndromic diabetes genes. They were also the 4^th and 5^th most common causes of monogenic diabetes overall. These patients lacked typical features and their diabetes phenotypes overlapped with non-syndromic monogenic diabetes patients. Syndromic monogenic diabetes genes (particularly m.3243A>G and <i>HNF1B</i>) should be routinely tested in patients with suspected MODY that do not have typical features of a genetic syndrome.