Safety of nateglinide as used in general practice in England: results of a prescription-event monitoring study

Discovery of Potent Agonists for the Predominant Variant of the Orphan MAS-Related G Protein-Coupled Receptor X4 (MRGPRX4)

The MAS-related Gq protein-coupled receptor X4 (MRGPRX4) is poorly investigated. MRGPRX4 has been proposed to be involved in pain transmission, itch, inflammation, wound healing, and cancer. However, so far only a few moderately potent, nonselective MRGPRX4 agonists have been described, most of which appear to preferably activate the minor receptor variant MRGPRX4-83L but not the main variant 83S. In the present study, we discovered a xanthine derivative bearing a phosphate substituent that activates the main variant of MRGPRX4. Optimization resulted in analogs with high potency and metabolic stability. The best compounds of the present series include 8-(m-methoxyphenethyl)-1-propargylxanthine substituted with a butyl linker in the 3-position containing a terminal phosphonate (30d, PSB-22034, EC50 Ca2+ assay/β-arrestin assay, 11.2 nM/32.0 nM) and its N7-methyl derivative 31d (PSB-22040, EC50, 19.2/30.0 nM) showing high selectivity versus all other MRGPRX subtypes. They present promising tool compounds for exploring the potential of MRGPRX4 as a future drug target.

Intensive Monitoring Studies for Assessing Medicines: A Systematic Review

Introduction: Intensive monitoring (IM) is one of the methods of post-marketing active surveillance based upon event monitoring, which has received interest in the current medicines regulatory landscape. For a specific period of time, IM involves primary data collection and is actively focused on gathering longitudinal information, mainly safety, since the first day of drug use. Objectives: To describe IM systems and studies' data published over 11-years period (2006-2016). Specifically, we reviewed study population/event surveillance, methodological approaches, limitations, and its applications in the real-world evidence generation data. Methods: We completed a systematic search of MEDLINE and EMBASE to identify studies published from 2006 to 2016, that used IM methodology. We extracted data using a standardized form and results were analyzed descriptively. The methodological quality of selected studies was assessed using the modified Downs and Black checklist. Results: From 1,400 screened citations, we identified 86 papers, corresponding to 69 different studies. Seventy percent of reviewed studies corresponded to established IM systems, of which, more than half were prescription event monitoring (PEM) and modified-PEM. Among non-established IM systems, vaccines were the most common studied drugs (n = 14). The median cohort size ranged from 488 (hospitals) to 10,479 (PEM) patients. Patients and caregivers were the event data source in 39.1% of studies. The mean overall quality score was similar between established and non-established IM. Conclusions: Over the study period, IM studies were implemented in 26 countries with different maturity levels of post-marketing surveillance systems. We identified two major limitations: only 20% of studies were conducted at hospital-level, which is a matter of concern, insofar as healthcare systems are facing a lack of access to new medicines at ambulatory care level. Additionally, IM access to data of drug exposure cohorts, either at identification or at follow-up stages, could somehow constitute a barrier, given the complexity of managerial, linkable, and privacy data issues.

PRESTO-Tango as an open-source resource for interrogation of the druggable human GPCRome

G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) are essential mediators of cellular signaling and are important targets of drug action. Of the approximately 350 nonolfactory human GPCRs, more than 100 are still considered to be 'orphans' because their endogenous ligands remain unknown. Here, we describe a unique open-source resource that allows interrogation of the druggable human GPCRome via a G protein-independent β-arrestin-recruitment assay. We validate this unique platform at more than 120 nonorphan human GPCR targets, demonstrate its utility for discovering new ligands for orphan human GPCRs and describe a method (parallel receptorome expression and screening via transcriptional output, with transcriptional activation following arrestin translocation (PRESTO-Tango)) for the simultaneous and parallel interrogation of the entire human nonolfactory GPCRome.

A review of methods used in assessing non-serious adverse drug events in observational studies among type 2 diabetes mellitus patients

Clinical drug trials are often conducted in selective patient populations, with relatively small numbers of patients, and a short duration of follow-up. Observational studies are therefore important for collecting additional information on adverse drug events (ADEs). Currently, there is no guidance regarding the methodology for measuring ADEs in such studies. Our aim was to evaluate whether the methodology used to assess non-serious ADEs in observational studies is adequate for detecting these ADEs, and for addressing limitations from clinical trials in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. We systematically searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for observational studies reporting non-serious ADEs (1999-2008). Methods to assess ADEs were classified as: 1) medical record review; 2) surveillance by health care professionals (HCP); 3) patient survey; 4) administrative data; 5) laboratory/clinical values; 6) not specified. We compared the range of ADEs identified, number and selection of patients included, and duration of follow-up. Out of 10,125 publications, 68 studies met our inclusion criteria. The most common methods were based on laboratory/clinical values (n = 25) and medical record review (n = 18). Solicited surveillance by HCP (n = 17) revealed the largest diversity of ADEs. Patient surveys (n = 15) focused mostly on hypoglycaemia and gastrointestinal ADEs, laboratory values based studies on hepatic and metabolic ADEs, and administrative database studies (n = 5) on cardiovascular ADEs. Four studies presented ADEs that were identified with the use of more than one method. The patient population was restricted to a lower risk population in 19% of the studies. Less than one third of the studies exceeded pre-approval regulatory requirements for sample size and duration of follow-up. We conclude that the current assessment of ADEs is hampered by the choice of methods. Many observational studies rely on methods that are inadequate for identifying all possible ADEs. Patient-reported outcomes and combinations of methods are underutilized. Furthermore, while observational studies often include unselective patient populations, many do not adequately address other limitations of pre-approval trials. This implies that these studies will not provide sufficient information about ADEs to clinicians and patients. Better protocols are needed on how to assess adverse drug events not only in clinical trials but also in observational studies.