Search

The SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) 2013 Statement was developed to provide guidance for inclusion of key methodological components in clinical trial protocols. However, these standards do not include guidance specific to pathology input in clinical trials. This systematic review aims to synthesise existing recommendations specific to pathology practice in clinical trials for implementation in trial protocol design. Articles were identified from database searches and deemed eligible for inclusion if they contained: (1) guidance and/or a checklist, which was (2) pathology‐related, with (3) content relevant to clinical trial protocols or could influence a clinical trial protocol design from a pathology perspective and (4) were published in 1996 or later. The quality of individual papers was assessed using the AGREE‐GRS (Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch & Evaluation – Global Rating Scale) tool, and the confidence in cumulative evidence was evaluated using the GRADE‐CERQual (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation–Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach. Extracted recommendations were synthesised using the best fit framework method, which includes thematic analysis followed by a meta‐aggregative approach to synthesis within the framework. Of the 10 184 records screened and 199 full‐text articles reviewed, only 40 guidance resources met the eligibility criteria for inclusion. Recommendations extracted from 22 guidance documents were generalisable enough for data synthesis. Seven recommendation statements were synthesised as follows: (1) multidisciplinary collaboration in trial design with early involvement of pathologists, particularly with respect to the use of biospecimens and associated biomarker/analytical assays and in the evaluation of pathology‐related parameters; (2) funding and training for personnel undertaking trial work; (3) selection of an accredited laboratory with suitable facilities to undertake scheduled work; (4) quality assurance of pathology‐related parameters; (5) transparent reporting of pathology‐related parameters; (6) policies regarding informatics and tracking biospecimens across trial sites; and (7) informed consent for specimen collection and retention for future research.

Introduction Superior cognitive performance in older adults may reflect underlying resistance to age-associated neurodegeneration. While elevated amyloid β (Aβ) deposition (Aβ+) has been associated with increased cortical atrophy, it remains unknown whether “SuperAgers” may be protected from Aβ-associated neurodegeneration. Methods Neuropsychologically defined SuperAgers (n = 172) and cognitively normal for age (n = 172) older adults from the Australian Imaging, Biomarkers and Lifestyle study were case matched. Rates of cortical atrophy over 8 years were examined by SuperAger classification and Aβ status. Results Of the case-matched SuperAgers and cognitively normal for age older adults, 40.7% and 40.1%, respectively, were Aβ+. Rates of age- and Aβ-associated atrophy did not differ between the groups on any measure. Aβ− individuals displayed the slowest rates of atrophy. Discussion Maintenance of superior memory in late life does not reflect resistance to age- or Aβ-associated atrophy. However, those individuals who reached old age without cognitive impairment nor elevated Aβ deposition (i.e. Aβ−) displayed reduced rates of cortical atrophy.

Attribution of adverse events (AEs) is critical to oncology drug development and the regulatory process. However, processes for determining the causality of AEs are often sub-optimal, unreliable, and inefficient. Thus, we conducted a toxicity-attribution workshop in Silver Springs MD to develop guidance for improving attribution of AEs in oncology clinical trials. Attribution stakeholder experts from regulatory agencies, sponsors and contract research organizations, clinical trial principal investigators, pre-clinical translational scientists, and research staff involved in capturing attribution information participated. We also included patients treated in oncology clinical trials and academic researchers with expertise in attribution. We identified numerous challenges with AE attribution, including the non-informative nature of and burdens associated with the 5-tier system of attribution, increased complexity of trial logistics, costs and time associated with AE attribution data collection, lack of training in attribution for early-career investigators, insufficient baseline assessments, and lack of consistency in the reporting of treatment-related and treatment-emergent AEs in publications and clinical scientific reports. We developed recommendations to improve attribution: we propose transitioning from the present 5-tier system to a 2-3 tier system for attribution, more complete baseline information on patients' clinical status at trial entry, and mechanisms for more rapid sharing of AE information during trials. Oncology societies should develop recommendations and training in attribution of toxicities. We call for further harmonization and synchronization of recommendations regarding causality safety reporting between FDA, EMA and other regulatory agencies. Finally, we suggest that journals maintain or develop standardized requirements for reporting attribution in oncology clinical trials.

Age-related gait dysfunction and balance disorders are a major cause of falls and injury in the elderly population. Epidemiological studies have shown that disturbances in gait coordination which manifest with age are associated with increased morbidity and mortality, impaired cognitive capacity, as well as reduced level of function and loss of independence. In geroscience, mice are the most frequently used model system to test efficiency of antiaging interventions. Despite the clinical importance of age-related gait abnormalities in older adults, the impact of aging on mouse gait coordination is not well documented in the literature. To characterize the effect of aging on mouse gait, we assessed gait function in young (3-month-old) and aged (24-month-old) freely moving C57BL/6 mice using the semiautomated, highly sensitive CatWalk XT system for quantitative assessment of footfall and motor performance. We found that aged mice exhibited significantly decreased cadence and increased stride time variability. Aging also tended to alter footfall patterns. In aged mice, speed, swing speed, stride length, duty cycle, base of support, terminal dual stance, the regularity index, and the gait symmetry index were unaltered. Thus, aging is associated with characteristic alterations in gait function in C57BL/6 mice, which could potentially be assessed as clinically relevant endpoints in geroscience studies testing the effects of antiaging interventions.

BACKGROUND: A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. \ud \ud \ud METHODS: This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. \ud \ud \ud FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0-75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4-97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8-80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3-4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. \ud \ud \ud INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials. \ud \ud \ud FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca.

BACKGROUND: Older adults (aged ≥70 years) are at increased risk of severe disease and death if they develop COVID-19 and are therefore a priority for immunisation should an efficacious vaccine be developed. Immunogenicity of vaccines is often worse in older adults as a result of immunosenescence. We have reported the immunogenicity of a novel chimpanzee adenovirus-vectored vaccine, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, in young adults, and now describe the safety and immunogenicity of this vaccine in a wider range of participants, including adults aged 70 years and older. METHODS: In this report of the phase 2 component of a single-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 2/3 trial (COV002), healthy adults aged 18 years and older were enrolled at two UK clinical research facilities, in an age-escalation manner, into 18-55 years, 56-69 years, and 70 years and older immunogenicity subgroups. Participants were eligible if they did not have severe or uncontrolled medical comorbidities or a high frailty score (if aged ≥65 years). First, participants were recruited to a low-dose cohort, and within each age group, participants were randomly assigned to receive either intramuscular ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (2·2 × 1010 virus particles) or a control vaccine, MenACWY, using block randomisation and stratified by age and dose group and study site, using the following ratios: in the 18-55 years group, 1:1 to either two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or two doses of MenACWY; in the 56-69 years group, 3:1:3:1 to one dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, one dose of MenACWY, two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, or two doses of MenACWY; and in the 70 years and older, 5:1:5:1 to one dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, one dose of MenACWY, two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, or two doses of MenACWY. Prime-booster regimens were given 28 days apart. Participants were then recruited to the standard-dose cohort (3·5-6·5 × 1010 virus particles of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) and the same randomisation procedures were followed, except the 18-55 years group was assigned in a 5:1 ratio to two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or two doses of MenACWY. Participants and investigators, but not staff administering the vaccine, were masked to vaccine allocation. The specific objectives of this report were to assess the safety and humoral and cellular immunogenicity of a single-dose and two-dose schedule in adults older than 55 years. Humoral responses at baseline and after each vaccination until 1 year after the booster were assessed using an in-house standardised ELISA, a multiplex immunoassay, and a live severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) microneutralisation assay (MNA80). Cellular responses were assessed using an ex-vivo IFN-γ enzyme-linked immunospot assay. The coprimary outcomes of the trial were efficacy, as measured by the number of cases of symptomatic, virologically confirmed COVID-19, and safety, as measured by the occurrence of serious adverse events. Analyses were by group allocation in participants who received the vaccine. Here, we report the preliminary findings on safety, reactogenicity, and cellular and humoral immune responses. This study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04400838, and ISRCTN, 15281137. FINDINGS: Between May 30 and Aug 8, 2020, 560 participants were enrolled: 160 aged 18-55 years (100 assigned to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, 60 assigned to MenACWY), 160 aged 56-69 years (120 assigned to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19: 40 assigned to MenACWY), and 240 aged 70 years and older (200 assigned to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19: 40 assigned to MenACWY). Seven participants did not receive the boost dose of their assigned two-dose regimen, one participant received the incorrect vaccine, and three were excluded from immunogenicity analyses due to incorrectly labelled samples. 280 (50%) of 552 analysable participants were female. Local and systemic reactions were more common in participants given ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 than in those given the control vaccine, and similar in nature to those previously reported (injection-site pain, feeling feverish, muscle ache, headache), but were less common in older adults (aged ≥56 years) than younger adults. In those receiving two standard doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, after the prime vaccination local reactions were reported in 43 (88%) of 49 participants in the 18-55 years group, 22 (73%) of 30 in the 56-69 years group, and 30 (61%) of 49 in the 70 years and older group, and systemic reactions in 42 (86%) participants in the 18-55 years group, 23 (77%) in the 56-69 years group, and 32 (65%) in the 70 years and older group. As of Oct 26, 2020, 13 serious adverse events occurred during the study period, none of which were considered to be related to either study vaccine. In participants who received two doses of vaccine, median anti-spike SARS-CoV-2 IgG responses 28 days after the boost dose were similar across the three age cohorts (standard-dose groups: 18-55 years, 20 713 arbitrary units [AU]/mL [IQR 13 898-33 550], n=39; 56-69 years, 16 170 AU/mL [10 233-40 353], n=26; and ≥70 years 17 561 AU/mL [9705-37 796], n=47; p=0·68). Neutralising antibody titres after a boost dose were similar across all age groups (median MNA80 at day 42 in the standard-dose groups: 18-55 years, 193 [IQR 113-238], n=39; 56-69 years, 144 [119-347], n=20; and ≥70 years, 161 [73-323], n=47; p=0·40). By 14 days after the boost dose, 208 (>99%) of 209 boosted participants had neutralising antibody responses. T-cell responses peaked at day 14 after a single standard dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (18-55 years: median 1187 spot-forming cells [SFCs] per million peripheral blood mononuclear cells [IQR 841-2428], n=24; 56-69 years: 797 SFCs [383-1817], n=29; and ≥70 years: 977 SFCs [458-1914], n=48). INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 appears to be better tolerated in older adults than in younger adults and has similar immunogenicity across all age groups after a boost dose. Further assessment of the efficacy of this vaccine is warranted in all age groups and individuals with comorbidities. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midlands NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca.

Study Design: Retrospective cohort study. Objectives: Sarcopenia is a risk factor for medical complications following spine surgery. However, the role of sarcopenia as a risk factor for proximal junctional disease (PJD) remains undefined. This study evaluates whether sarcopenia is an independent predictor of proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK) and proximal junctional failure (PJF) following adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery. Methods: ASD patients who underwent thoracic spine to pelvis fusion with 2-year clinical and radiographic follow-up were reviewed for development of PJK and PJD. Average psoas cross-sectional area on preoperative axial computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging at L4 was recorded. Previously described PJD risk factors were assessed for each patient, and multivariate linear regression was performed to identify independent risk factors for PJK and PJF. Disease-specific thresholds were calculated for sarcopenia based on psoas cross-sectional area. Results: Of 32 patients, PJK and PJF occurred in 20 (62.5%) and 12 (37.5%), respectively. Multivariate analysis demonstrated psoas cross-sectional area to be the most powerful independent predictor of PJK ( P = .02) and PJF ( P = .009). Setting ASD disease–specific psoas cross-sectional area thresholds of 2 in men and 2 in women resulted in a PJF rate of 69.2% for patients below these thresholds, relative to 15.8% for those above the thresholds. Conclusions: Sarcopenia is an independent, modifiable predictor of PJK and PJF, and is easily assessed on standard preoperative computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging. Surgeons should include sarcopenia in preoperative risk assessment and consider added measures to avoid PJF in sarcopenic patients.

Background: The pandemic of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) might be curtailed by vaccination. We assessed the safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity of a viral vectored coronavirus vaccine that expresses the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2. Methods: We did a phase 1/2, single-blind, randomised controlled trial in five trial sites in the UK of a chimpanzee adenovirus-vectored vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) expressing the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein compared with a meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MenACWY) as control. Healthy adults aged 18–55 years with no history of laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection or of COVID-19-like symptoms were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 at a dose of 5 × 10 10 viral particles or MenACWY as a single intramuscular injection. A protocol amendment in two of the five sites allowed prophylactic paracetamol to be administered before vaccination. Ten participants assigned to a non-randomised, unblinded ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 prime-boost group received a two-dose schedule, with the booster vaccine administered 28 days after the first dose. Humoral responses at baseline and following vaccination were assessed using a standardised total IgG ELISA against trimeric SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, a muliplexed immunoassay, three live SARS-CoV-2 neutralisation assays (a 50% plaque reduction neutralisation assay [PRNT 50]; a microneutralisation assay [MNA 50, MNA 80, and MNA 90]; and Marburg VN), and a pseudovirus neutralisation assay. Cellular responses were assessed using an ex-vivo interferon-γ enzyme-linked immunospot assay. The co-primary outcomes are to assess efficacy, as measured by cases of symptomatic virologically confirmed COVID-19, and safety, as measured by the occurrence of serious adverse events. Analyses were done by group allocation in participants who received the vaccine. Safety was assessed over 28 days after vaccination. Here, we report the preliminary findings on safety, reactogenicity, and cellular and humoral immune responses. The study is ongoing, and was registered at ISRCTN, 15281137, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606. Findings: Between April 23 and May 21, 2020, 1077 participants were enrolled and assigned to receive either ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (n=543) or MenACWY (n=534), ten of whom were enrolled in the non-randomised ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 prime-boost group. Local and systemic reactions were more common in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and many were reduced by use of prophylactic paracetamol, including pain, feeling feverish, chills, muscle ache, headache, and malaise (all p80 and in 35 (100%) participants when measured in PRNT 50. After a booster dose, all participants had neutralising activity (nine of nine in MNA 80 at day 42 and ten of ten in Marburg VN on day 56). Neutralising antibody responses correlated strongly with antibody levels measured by ELISA (R 2=0·67 by Marburg VN; p

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as symptoms, function, and other health-related quality-of-life aspects, are increasingly evaluated in cancer randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to provide information about treatment risks, benefits, and tolerability. However, expert opinion and critical review of the literature showed no consensus on optimal methods of PRO analysis in cancer RCTs, hindering interpretation of results. The Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints Data Consortium was formed to establish PRO analysis recommendations. Four issues were prioritised: developing a taxonomy of research objectives that can be matched with appropriate statistical methods, identifying appropriate statistical methods for PRO analysis, standardising statistical terminology related to missing data, and determining appropriate ways to manage missing data. This Policy Review presents recommendations for PRO analysis developed through critical literature reviews and a structured collaborative process with diverse international stakeholders, which provides a foundation for endorsement; ongoing developments of these recommendations are also discussed.

Given the limited evidence about the benefits of orthodontic treatment, many health care systems have rationed access to orthodontic care with the Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need (IOTN) being one tool used to attempt to allocate resources based on need. However, it is not clear whether patient and public valuations of different levels of need (as described by the IOTN) reflect the resource allocation decisions. The aim of this project was therefore to determine the values parents placed on correction of malocclusions at different IOTN levels using the willingness to pay (WTP) technique.401 parents of children attending hospital-based orthodontic clinics in the North of England were recruited to complete a questionnaire eliciting WTP for the correction of seven malocclusions with different IOTN scores. In addition demographic and orthodontic history characteristics were collected. Results were analysed with appropriate pairwise significance tests and regression.A significant difference in WTP was noted between all the possible pairs of malocclusions with the exception of overjets with moderate versus great need of treatments. At moderate levels, correction of crowding was valued less than overjet but this was reversed at great need levels. Very little of the variance in WTP was explained by the variables collected. When looking at factors affecting percentage difference between values for different pairs of malocclusions, in general, no factors predicted the magnitude of difference.Median valuations for correction of malocclusions vary significantly for different levels of need (as judged by IOTN), with increasing levels of need generating higher values. However, there was a limited effect of demographic or orthodontic characteristics on the magnitude of percentage difference in values for correcting malocclusions different levels of need.

Rare cancers affect one in five new patients with cancer and this second special edition highlights some of the continued activity in the field (first special edition[1]). Of note since the first s...

The International Rare Diseases Research Consortium (IRDiRC) has created a Guidebook to facilitate drug development for rare diseases by organizing available tools into a standardized framework. The International Rare Diseases Research Consortium (IRDiRC) has created a Guidebook to facilitate drug development for rare diseases by organizing available tools into a standardized framework.

Tremendous progress in treatment and outcomes has been achieved across the spectrum of haematologic malignancies over the last two decades. While cure rates for aggressive malignancies have risen, nowhere has progress been more impactful than in the management of typically incurable forms of haematologic cancer. Population-based data have demonstrated substantial improvement in five-year survival rates for chronic myelogenous and chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, indolent B-cell lymphomas, and multiple myeloma. This has resulted from substantial changes in disease management strategies in these malignancies. Several haematologic malignancies are now experienced by patients as chronic illnesses treated with chronically administered therapies that bear unique side effects over time. In this Commission, an international panel of clinicians, clinical investigators, methodologists, regulators and patient advocates representing a broad range of academic and clinical cancer expertise examine adverse events (AEs) in haematologic malignancies. The issues pertaining to AE assessment examined here are relevant across a spectrum of malignancies and have been, to date, underexplored in the context of hematology. This international collaborative effort aims to improve toxicity assessment in clinical trials in haematologic malignancies by critically examining the current process of AE assessment, highlighting the need to incorporate patient reported outcomes, addressing issues unique to stem cell transplantation and survivorship, appraising challenges in regulatory approval and evaluating toxicity in real world patients. This Commission identifies a range of priority issues in these areas and defines proposed solutions to challenges of AE assessment in the current treatment landscape of haematologic malignancies world-wide.

The US Food and Drug Administration and the Critical Path Institute's Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) Consortium convened a cosponsored workshop on the use of PRO measures to inform the assessment of safety and tolerability in cancer clinical trials. A broad array of international stakeholders involved in oncology drug development and PRO measurement science provided perspectives on the role of PRO measures to provide complementary clinical data on the symptomatic side effects of anticancer agents. Speakers and panelists explored the utility of information derived from existing and emerging PRO measures, focusing on the PRO version of the National Cancer Institute's Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. Panelists and speakers discussed potential ways to improve the collection, analysis, and presentation of PRO data describing symptomatic adverse events to support drug development and better inform regulatory and treatment decisions. Workshop participants concluded the day with a discussion of possible approaches to the patient-reported assessment of an investigational drug's overall side effect burden as a potential clinical trial end point. The Food and Drug Administration reiterated its commitment to collaborate with international drug development stakeholders to identify rigorous methods to incorporate the patient perspective into the development of cancer therapeutics.

Introduction: Ten years of the Paediatric Regulation in Europe has resulted in progress in drug development for children. Nonetheless, drug development remains a challenge, particularly in the area of pediatric oncology, as cited by the European Commission's 10-year Report published in 2017. Areas covered: In order to further improve the timely availability of novel medicines for children with cancer, further collaborative efforts are needed. Whilst the regulatory framework might present challenges, it provides key tools necessary to support pediatric drug development. Expert Opinion: It is the regulators together with all stakeholders who need to apply these tools by means of concerted, innovative, and inclusive ways of thinking in order to make it a true success. This requires all stakeholders to reflect on their individual responsibilities in this process, not only to create a level of understanding amongst each other but also to push their own boundaries and challenge established ways of thinking for the benefit of the patient, a principle which holds true for pediatric drug development in general. This paper reflects on these challenges and the opportunities for regulators and key stakeholders.

There is correlative evidence that impaired cerebral blood flow (CBF) regulation, in addition to promoting cognitive impairment, is also associated with alterations in gait and development of falls in elderly people. CBF is adjusted to neuronal activity via neurovascular coupling (NVC) and this mechanism becomes progressively impaired with age. To establish a direct cause-and-effect relationship between impaired NVC and gait abnormalities, we induced neurovascular uncoupling pharmacologically in young C57BL/6 mice by inhibiting the synthesis of vasodilator mediators involved in NVC. Treatment of mice with the epoxygenase inhibitor MSPPOH, the NO synthase inhibitor L-NAME, and the COX inhibitor indomethacin significantly decreased NVC mimicking the aging phenotype. Pharmacologically induced neurovascular uncoupling significantly decreased the dynamic gait parameter duty cycle, altered footfall patterns, and significantly increased phase dispersion, indicating impaired interlimb coordination. Impaired NVC also tended to increase gait variability. Thus, selective experimental disruption of NVC causes subclinical gait abnormalities, supporting the importance of CBF in both cognitive function and gait regulation.

Rare disease research involves small numbers of patients, and this presents challenges in the design, conduct, analysis and interpretation of clinical studies. There are no special methods for coping with small populations of patients in clinical trials; however, there are many different types of clinical study designs and approaches to increase the efficiency and utility of clinical trials. Common to all approaches is the requirement for rigorous planning to ensure that every patient participating in a clinical study contributes as much information as possible. Current approaches aimed at generating the best possible evidence base are discussed, including a focus on regulatory considerations and research initiatives.

According to a report by RARECAREnet, rare cancers accounted for 24% of all cancers diagnosed between 2000 and 2007, and the challenges in diagnosing and treating rare cancer patients are increasin...

Patient access to new cancer drugs in the EU involves centralised licensing decisions by regulators as well as reimbursement recommendations in the context of national healthcare systems. Differences in assessment criteria and evidence requirements may result in divergent decisions at central and national levels, ultimately compromising effective access to patients. Early access decisions are particularly challenging due to the limited clinical evidence available to conclude on the benefit-risk and relative (cost-) effectiveness of new high-priced cancer drugs. We describe mechanisms to accelerate approval of promising anticancer drugs that fulfil an unmet medical need, review the experience from the European Medicines Agency, compare timelines and outcomes of reimbursement decisions in major EU markets, and discuss shortcomings of the current system, ongoing initiatives, and future steps to facilitate effective early access.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to characterize the radiologic changes that are seen in the first 24 to 48 hours after head injury and to correlate those changes with clinical findings, to determine which children are at greatest risk for progression of their neurologic injury. Methods: The authors identified 104 children ([le ]17 years of age) who had a second computed tomography (CT) scan of the head within 24 to 48 hours of admission. CT scans were evaluated systematically in a blinded fashion. Mechanism of injury, findings on physical examination, therapeutic measures, and changes in management were recorded from hospital medical records. The 50 children whose second CT scan showed progression of injury were compared with the 54 patients whose intracranial injuries were unchanged or improved on their second CT. Results: Twenty-six percent of patients (13 of 50) with radiographic progression of injury had an admission Glasgow coma score of 15. Progression of injury was more common, however, in patients with lower Glasgow coma scores, averaging 9 on admission and 10 at the time of the second CT. Progression of injury also was more common if the initial head CT showed 3 or more intracranial injuries, mass effect, intraventricular hemorrhage, or an epidural hematoma. Conclusions: Children with an intracranial injury identified on their initial head CT scan should undergo a second scan 24 hours after injury, especially if the initial CT shows 3 or more intracranial injuries, mass effect, intraventricular hemorrhage, or an epidural hematoma.

The Early Access to Medicines Scheme (EAMS) was launched in the UK in April 2014 following a public consultation and government response, which outlined the scope of a potential scheme. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) is responsible for two pivotal milestone decisions in the EAMS process: the Promising Innovative Medicine (PIM) designation and the EAMS scientific opinion, described in an EAMS public assessment report and 3 EAMS treatment protocols. In the 3 years since its launch, hundreds of patients with life-threatening or seriously debilitating conditions have benefited from EAMS medicines in a variety of mainly oncology indications. This editorial describes some of the achievements of the scheme over the past 3 years and provides insight into how the scheme may evolve over the coming years.

On September 5, 2011, abiraterone was approved in the European Union in combination with prednisone or prednisolone for the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) in adult men whose disease has progressed on or after a docetaxel-based chemotherapy regimen. On December 18, 2012, the therapeutic indication was extended to include the use of abiraterone in combination with prednisone or prednisolone for the treatment of metastatic CRPC in adult men who are asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic after failure of androgen deprivation therapy in whom chemotherapy is not yet clinically indicated. Abiraterone is a selective, irreversible inhibitor of cytochrome P450 17α, an enzyme that is key in the production of androgens. Inhibition of androgen biosynthesis deprives prostate cancer cells from important signals for growth, even in cases of resistance to castration. At the time of European Union approval and in a phase III trial in CRPC patients who had failed at least one docetaxel-based chemotherapy regimen, median overall survival for patients treated with abiraterone was 14.8 months versus 10.9 months for those receiving placebo (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% confidence interval 0.54-0.77; p < .0001). In a subsequent phase III trial in a similar but chemotherapy-naive patient population, median radiographic progression-free survival was 16.5 months for patients in the abiraterone treatment arm versus 8.3 months for patients in the placebo arm (hazard ratio, 0.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.45-0.62; p < .0001). Abiraterone was most commonly associated with adverse reactions resulting from increased or excessive mineralocorticoid activity. These were generally manageable with basic medical interventions. The most common side effects (affecting more than 10% of patients) were urinary tract infection, hypokalemia, hypertension, and peripheral edema.

Learning Objectives: After completing this course, the reader will be able to: Summarize the efficacy outcomes of cabazitaxel pivotal trials in the treatment of hormone-refractory metastatic prostate cancer.Describe the safety profile and most common adverse effects of cabazitaxel in patients with hormone-refractory metastatic prostate cancer. CME This article is available for continuing medical education credit at CME.TheOncologist.com On March 17, 2011 the European Commission issued a marketing authorization valid throughout the European Union for Jevtana® (Sanofi-Aventis, Paris, France) for the treatment of patients with hormone-refractory metastatic prostate cancer previously treated with a docetaxel-containing regimen. The active substance of Jevtana® is cabazitaxel acetone solvate, an antineoplastic agent that acts by disrupting the microtubular network in cells. The recommended dose of cabazitaxel is 25 mg/m2 administered as a 1-hour i.v. infusion every 3 weeks in combination with oral prednisone or prednisolone, 10 mg, administered daily throughout treatment. In the main study submitted for this application, a 2.4-month longer median overall survival time and a 30% lower risk for death were observed for cabazitaxel, compared with mitoxantrone. The most common side effects with cabazitaxel were anemia, leukopenia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and diarrhea. This paper summarizes the scientific review of the application leading to approval in the European Union. The detailed scientific assessment report and product information, including the summary of product characteristics, are available on the European Medicines Agency Web site (http://www.ema.europa.eu).

Background: Alzheimer's drugs are believed to have limited availability and to be unaffordable in low- and middle-income countries compared to high-income countries. The price, availability and affordability of Alzheimer's drugs have not been reported before.Methods: During 2007 an international survey was conducted in 21 countries in six continents (Argentina, Australia, Brazil, the Dominican Republic, France, India, Japan, Macedonia, Mexico, New Zealand, Nigeria, the Philippines, Portugal, Serbia, South Korea, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, Uganda, the U.K. and the U.S.A.). Prices of Alzheimer's drugs were compared using the affordability index (the total number of units purchasable with one's daily income) derived from purchasing power parity (PPP) converted prices as well as raw prices.Results: Donepezil is available in all 21 countries, whereas the newer drugs are less available. A 5 mg tablet of branded originator donepezil costs just US$0.26 in India and US$0.31 in Mexico, whereas it costs US$6.64 in the U.S.A. Pricing conditions of rivastigmine, galantamine and memantine appear to be similar to that of donepezil. The cheapest branded originators are from India and Mexico. However, in terms of PPP, Alzheimer's drugs in other low- and middle-income countries are much more expensive than in high-income countries. Most people in low- and middle-income countries cannot afford Alzheimer's drugs.Conclusions: Alzheimer's drugs, albeit available, are often unaffordable for those who need them most. It is hoped that equitable differential pricing will be applied to Alzheimer's drugs.

Background Tissue compression to enhance lesion visibility on radiography of needle-localized breast biopsy specimens is widely used. We hypothesized that compression is not necessary for detection of lesions on specimen radiography. Methods Forty-nine consecutive patients underwent needle-localization biopsies of 59 mammographic targets. All specimens were radiographed without and with compression. The films were later independently reviewed and compared with preoperative mammograms by 2 surgeons and a breast-imaging radiologist. The primary end point was identification of mammographic targets in noncompressed specimen radiographs. Results Twenty-nine targets were masses, 36 contained calcifications, and 14 contained previously placed clips. All mammographically localized lesions were identified on noncompressed views. Overall concordance for the 2 images was 100% for all 3 reviewers and 98% among reviewers. Conclusions Tissue compression before specimen radiography is not routinely necessary for target lesion identification.