Adverse event load, onset, and maximum grade: A novel method of reporting adverse events in cancer clinical trials

Background Current adverse event reporting practices do not document longitudinal characteristics of adverse effects, and alternative methods are not easily interpretable and have not been employed by clinical trials. Introducing time parameters in the evaluation of safety that are comprehensive yet easily interpretable could allow for a better understanding of treatment quality. In this study, we developed and applied a novel adverse event reporting method based on longitudinal adverse event changes to aid describing, summarizing, and presenting adverse event profile. We termed it the “Adverse Event Load, Onset, and Maximum Grade” method. Methods We developed two adverse event summary metrics to complement the traditional maximum grade report. Onset time indicates the time period in which the maximum grade for a specific adverse event occurred and was defined as “early” (i.e. maximum grade happened for the first time before 6 weeks) or “late” (i.e. after the 6th week). Adverse event load indicates the overall severity of a specific adverse event over the entire treatment. Higher adverse event load indicates a worse overall experience. These metrics can be calculated for adverse events with different maximum grades, in treatments with planned changes (e.g. dosage changes), using data sets with different number of adverse event data points between treatments (e.g. treatments with longer cycle lengths may have less adverse event data points) and on data sets with different adverse event data availability (e.g. cycle basis and patient-outcome reports). We tested the utility of this method using individual patient data from two major backbone therapies (“Irinotecan” and “Oxaliplatin”) from the N9741 trial available in the Fondation ARCAD database ( fondationarcad.org ). We investigated profiles of diarrhea, neutropenia/leukopenia, and nausea/vomiting. Results Our method provided additional information compared to traditional adverse event reports. For example, for nausea/vomiting, while patients in Irinotecan had a higher risk of experiencing maximum grade 3–4 (15.6% vs 7.6%, respectively; p < 0.001), patients in both groups experienced similar severity over time (adverse effect load = 0.102 and 0.096, respectively; p = 0.26), suggesting that patients in Oxaliplatin experienced a lower-grade but more persistent nausea/vomiting. For neutropenia/leukopenia, more patients in Irinotecan experienced their maximum grade for the first time early in the treatment compared to patients in Oxaliplatin (67.9% vs 41.7%; p < 0.001), regardless of maximum grade. Longitudinal information can help compare treatments or guide clinicians on choosing appropriate interventions for low-grade but persistent adverse event or early adverse event onset. Conclusion We developed an adverse event reporting method that provides clinically relevant information about treatment toxicity by incorporating two longitudinal adverse event metrics to the traditional maximum grade approach. Future research should establish clinical benchmarks for metrics included in this adverse event reporting method.

Relationship between mirtazapine dose and incidence of adrenergic side effects: An exploratory analysis

Introduction Mirtazapine is an antidepressant with US Food and Drug Administration approval for management of major depressive disorder. Low doses of mirtazapine are often used for management of insomnia, with higher doses expected to provide more noradrenergic effect, and thus a higher degree of activation. If so, use of higher doses at bedtime may not be advisable and may worsen certain neuropsychiatric symptoms. No studies have been performed to evaluate these outcomes. Methods This study consisted of a retrospective review of data submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration's Adverse Event Reporting System from January 1, 1995, to August 1, 2015. Cases that were deemed by study authors to represent activation of the noradrenergic system, and for which other confounders could not be identified, were included in the final analysis. The frequency of each specific adverse event was evaluated based on dose and compared to recent prescribing rates to determine if likelihood of a side effect increased with higher dose. Results The study identified 308 incidences of anxiety, agitation, delusion, hallucination, hypertension, insomnia, nightmare, or tachycardia. After controlling for frequency of prescribing at a given dose, there was a statistically significant increase in rates of tachycardia which correlated with dose. However, after correction for multiple comparisons, results were no longer significant. Discussion This study failed to support the hypothesis that mirtazapine is more activating at higher doses and appears to support the safety of increasing dose without increasing risk of noradrenergic side effects. Prospective studies will be necessary to confirm these findings.

MiR-126: a novel route for natalizumab action?

Background: MicroRNAs (miRNAs) have emerged as a family of post-transcriptional regulators of gene expression that mediate diverse aspects of immunity. MiRNA dysregulation has been found in multiple sclerosis (MS), reflecting the growing need to identify disease-specific miRNA expression signatures. Our previous low-density array studies reveal differential miR-126 expression in the CD4+T cells of untreated relapsing–remitting MS (RRMS) patients. Here, we investigated miR-126 expression in natalizumab-treated patients. Methods: We isolated CD4+ T cells from untreated ( n = 12) and natalizumab-treated MS patients ( n = 24), and from healthy volunteers ( n = 12). We analyzed the expression of miRNAs and potential targets by real time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). We assessed specific inhibition of miR-126, in vitro. Results: MiR-126 was down-regulated in cells of patients under natalizumab treatment and up-regulated during relapse, supporting a regulatory role in MS immunopathogenesis. MiR-126 expression correlated with the expression of POU2AF1, a regulator of Spi-B that binds to the promoter/enhancer sequences of JC virus (JCV), the pathogen of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML), a rare complication of natalizumab treatment. The same trend was found for Spi-B. Strong up-regulation of both genes appeared to be treatment duration-dependent. Specific inhibition experiments supported the link between the expression of miR-126 and POU2AF1/Spi-B. Conclusions: Our findings provided deeper insight into the mode of action of natalizumab, with possible implications for understanding both the effects of natalizumab on MS activity and its specific adverse event profile.