Principles of Good Clinical Trial Design

The Draft Report by the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Healthcare Does Not Provide Any Evidence That Graded Exercise Therapy and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Are Safe and Effective Treatments for Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

The German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Healthcare (IQWiG) recently published its draft report to the government about myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS). The IQWiG concluded that graded exercise therapy (GET) and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) should be recommended in the treatment for mild and moderate ME/CFS based on two CBT and two GET studies. In this article, we reviewed the evidence used by IQWiG to support their claims, because their conclusion is diametrically opposed to the conclusion by the British National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in its recently updated ME/CFS guidelines. Our analysis shows that the trials IQWiG used in support suffered from serious flaws, which included badly designed control groups; relying on subjective primary outcomes in non-blinded studies; alliance and response shift bias, including patients in their trials who did not have the disease under investigation, selective reporting, making extensive endpoint changes and low to very low adherence of treatments. Our analysis also shows that the report itself used one CBT and one GET study that both examined a different treatment. The report also used a definition of CBT that does not reflect the way it is being used in ME/CFS or was tested in the studies. The report noted that one study used a wrong definition of post-exertional malaise (PEM), the main characteristic of the disease, according to the report. Yet, it ignored the consequence of this, that less than the required minimum percentage of patients had the disease under investigation in that study. It also ignored the absence of improvement on most of the subjective outcomes, as well as the fact that the IQWiG methods handbook states that one should use objective outcomes and not rely on subjective outcomes in non-blinded studies. The report concluded that both treatments did not lead to objective improvement in the six-minute walk test but then ignored that. The report did not analyze the other objective outcomes of the studies (step test and occupational and benefits status), which showed a null effect. Finally, the report states that the studies do not report on safety yet assumes that the treatments are safe based on a tendency towards small subjective improvements in fatigue and physical functioning, even though the adherence to the treatments was (very) low and the studies included many patients who did not have the disease under investigation and, consequently, did not suffer from exertion intolerance contrary to ME/CFS patients. At the same time, it ignored and downplayed all the evidence that both treatments are not safe, even when the evidence was produced by a British university. In conclusion, the studies used by the report do not provide any evidence that CBT and GET are safe and effective. Consequently, the report and the studies do not provide any support for the recommendation to use CBT and GET for ME/CFS or long COVID, which, in many cases, is the same or resembles ME/CFS, after an infection with SARS-CoV-2.

A Review of the Recent Advances in Alzheimer's Disease Research and the Utilization of Network Biology Approaches for Prioritizing Diagnostics and Therapeutics

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a polygenic multifactorial neurodegenerative disease that, after decades of research and development, is still without a cure. There are some symptomatic treatments to manage the psychological symptoms but none of these drugs can halt disease progression. Additionally, over the last few years, many anti-AD drugs failed in late stages of clinical trials and many hypotheses surfaced to explain these failures, including the lack of clear understanding of disease pathways and processes. Recently, different epigenetic factors have been implicated in AD pathogenesis; thus, they could serve as promising AD diagnostic biomarkers. Additionally, network biology approaches have been suggested as effective tools to study AD on the systems level and discover multi-target-directed ligands as novel treatments for AD. Herein, we provide a comprehensive review on Alzheimer's disease pathophysiology to provide a better understanding of disease pathogenesis hypotheses and decipher the role of genetic and epigenetic factors in disease development and progression. We also provide an overview of disease biomarkers and drug targets and suggest network biology approaches as new tools for identifying novel biomarkers and drugs. We also posit that the application of machine learning and artificial intelligence to mining Alzheimer's disease multi-omics data will facilitate drug and biomarker discovery efforts and lead to effective individualized anti-Alzheimer treatments.

Considerations for clinical trial design and conduct in the evaluation of novel advanced therapeutics in neurodegenerative disease

The recent advances in the development of potentially disease modifying cell and gene therapies for neurodegenerative disease has resulted in the production of a number of promising novel therapies which are now moving forward to clinical evaluation. The robust evaluation of these therapies pose a significant number of challenges when compared to more traditional evaluations of pharmacotherapy, which is the current mainstay of neurodegenerative disease symptom management. Indeed, there is an inherent complexity in the design and conduct of these trials at multiple levels. Here we discuss specific aspects requiring consideration in the context of investigating novel cell and gene therapies for neurodegenerative disease. This extends to overarching trial designs that could be employed and the factors that underpin design choices such outcome assessments, participant selection and methods for delivery of cell and gene therapies. We explore methods of data collection that may improve efficiency in trials of cell and gene therapy to maximize data sharing and collaboration. Lastly, we explore some of the additional context beyond efficacy evaluations that should be considered to ensure implementation across relevant healthcare settings.

Risk of selected gastrointestinal toxicities in metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients treated with immuno-TKI combinations: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Recent years have registered the advent of novel treatment options for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), including combination therapies with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). Immuno-TKI combinations have been suggested to improve clinical outcomes but may also result in increased toxicity, including gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events.

METHODS

Herein, we performed a meta-analysis aimed at comparing the risk of certain GI toxicities in mRCC patients treated with immuno-TKI combinations versus sunitinib monotherapy. Overall, four phase III trials (KEYNOTE-426, JAVELIN Renal 101, CheckMate 9ER, CLEAR) involving 3059 mRCC patients were available.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis suggested an increased risk of all-grade diarrhea, grade 3-4 diarrhea and grade 3-4 decreased appetite in patients treated with immuno-TKI combinations. Conversely, an apparently higher risk of all-grade nausea was observed in the sunitinib group.

CONCLUSION

The meta-analysis suggested that immuno-TKI combinations are associated with higher risk of GI toxicities compared with sunitinib. Beyond the efficacy of immuno-TKI combinations in mRCC patients, careful consideration should be given to treatment-related adverse events, including GI toxicities. Early recognition and treatment are critical to maximize recovery.

General data protection regulations (2018) and clinical research: perspectives of patients and doctors in an Irish university teaching hospital

Background

Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR, is a set of data protection rules on the acquisition, storage, use, and access of personal data. GDPR came into effect in May 2018 when it was introduced across all 27 European Union (EU) member states and the European Economic Area (EEA). Maintaining compliance with this legislation has presented significant new challenges for ongoing clinical research.

Aims

To evaluate the knowledge and expectations of patients and doctors regarding GDPR and implications for future clinical research.

Methods

An anonymous 12-item questionnaire was circulated to patients and doctors at a University Teaching Hospital. Data analysis included descriptive statistics.

Results

Five hundred nine participants were included: 261 females (51.3%) and 248 males (48.7%). Three hundred fifty were patients (68.8%) and 159 were doctors (31.2%). Three hundred thirty-four participants were aware of GDPR (65.7%): 116 doctors (73.0%) and 218 patients (62.3%, P = 0.018). 71.1% of doctors were willing to allow their personal data to be processed anonymously as part of a clinical research project compared to 43.4% of patients (P < 0.001). 80.2% of patients believed explicit consent is needed before using personal data in clinical research in comparison to 60.4% of doctors (P < 0.001). Level of education impacted awareness of GDPR (P < 0.001); a higher level of education among patients increased GDPR familiarity (P < 0.001), however failed to impact doctor familiarity (P = 0.117).

Conclusion

GDPR has introduced complexity to the processing and sharing of personal data among researchers. This study has identified differences in the perception of GDPR and willingness to consent to data being used in clinical research between doctors and patients. Measures to adequately inform prospective research participants on data processing and the evolving landscape of data protection regulation should be prioritised.