Healthcare Professionals' Preferred Efficacy Endpoints and Minimal Clinically Important Differences in the Assessment of New Medicines for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Mechanisms and Assessment of Genotoxicity of Metallic Engineered Nanomaterials in the Human Environment

Engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) have a broad array of applications in agriculture, engineering, manufacturing, and medicine. Decades of toxicology research have demonstrated that ENMs can cause genotoxic effects on bacteria, mammalian cells, and animals. Some metallic ENMs (MENMs), e.g., metal or metal oxide nanoparticles TiO2 and CuO, induce genotoxicity via direct DNA damage and/or reactive oxygen species-mediated indirect DNA damage. There are various physical features of MENMs that may play an important role in promoting their genotoxicity, for example, size and chemical composition. For a valid genotoxicity assessment of MENMs, general considerations should be given to various factors, including, but not limited to, NM characterization, sample preparation, dosing selection, NM cellular uptake, and metabolic activation. The recommended in vitro genotoxicity assays of MENMs include hprt gene mutation assay, chromosomal aberration assay, and micronucleus assay. However, there are still knowledge gaps in understanding the mechanisms underlying the genotoxicity of MENMs. There are also a variety of challenges in the utilization and interpretation of the genotoxicity assessment assays of MENMs. In this review article, we provide mechanistic insights into the genotoxicity of MENMs in the human environment. We review advances in applying new endpoints, biomarkers, and methods to the genotoxicity assessments of MENMs. The guidance of the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union on the genotoxicity assessments of MENMs is also discussed.

Revefenacin Area Under the Curve Spirometry in Patients with Moderate to Very Severe COPD

Purpose

Several lung function endpoints are utilized in clinical trials of inhaled bronchodilators for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) is a commonly reported endpoint in COPD trials and can be complemented by area under the FEV1 vs time curve (FEV1 AUC), which provides information on duration and consistency of bronchodilation over a dosing interval. Revefenacin, a once-daily bronchodilator, significantly improved lung function in patients with COPD when measured by trough FEV1 in two replicate Phase 3 trials. Here, we report an FEV1 AUC substudy using data from these trials.

Patients and Methods

This post hoc analysis examined substudy data from 12-week replicate Phase 3 trials (NCT02459080/NCT02512510); patients with moderate to very severe COPD were randomized 1:1 to revefenacin 175 μg or placebo once daily. The substudy patients had FEV1 AUC0-2h assessed on Day 1, and those who continued to Day 84 also underwent 24-hour serial spirometry postdose where FEV1 AUC0-2h, AUC0-12h, AUC12-24h, and AUC0-24h were evaluated.

Results

Fifty and 47 patients who received revefenacin and placebo underwent 24-hour serial spirometry; most baseline characteristics were aligned between groups. At Day 84 postdose, revefenacin demonstrated sustained improvements in bronchodilation over 24 hours; differences in least squares mean vs placebo were 282, 220, 205, and 212 mL for FEV1 AUC0-2h, AUC0-12h, AUC12-24h, and AUC0-24h (all P <0.001), respectively.

Conclusion

This substudy analysis supplements previous findings that revefenacin provides sustained bronchodilation over 24 hours. Assessing additional complementary COPD clinical trial endpoints can help clinicians make treatment decisions.

An Update on Outcomes for COPD Pharmacological Trials: A COPD Investigators Report - Reassessment of the 2008 American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society Statement on Outcomes for COPD Pharmacological Trials

Background: In 2008, a dedicated American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society task force published a paper on the possible use and limitations of clinical outcomes and biomarkers to evaluate the impact of pharmacological therapy in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Since then, our scientific understanding of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease has increased considerably; there has been a progressive shift from a one-size-fits-all diagnostic and therapeutic approach to a personalized approach; and many new treatments currently in development will require new endpoints to evaluate their efficacy adequately. Objectives: The emergence of several new relevant outcome measures motivated the authors to review advances in the field and highlight the need to update the content of the original report. Methods: The authors separately created search strategies for the literature, primarily based on their opinions and assessments supported by carefully chosen references. No centralized examination of the literature or uniform criteria for including or excluding evidence were used. Measurements and Main Results: Endpoints, outcomes, and biomarkers have been revisited. The limitations of some of those reported in the American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society task force document have been highlighted. In addition, new tools that may be useful, especially in evaluating personalized therapy, have been described. Conclusions: Because the "label-free" treatable traits approach is becoming an important step toward precision medicine, future clinical trials should focus on highly prevalent treatable traits, and this will influence the choice of outcomes and markers to be considered. The use of the new tools, particularly combination endpoints, could help better identify the right patients to be treated with the new drugs.

Alignment between outcomes and minimal clinically important differences in the Dutch type 2 diabetes mellitus guideline and healthcare professionals' preferences

To evaluate the clinical benefit of new medicines for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), the Dutch guideline committee T2DM in primary care established the importance of outcomes and minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs). The present study used an online questionnaire to investigate healthcare professionals' opinions about the importance of outcomes and preferences for MCIDs. A total of 211 physicians, pharmacists, practice nurses, diabetes nurses, nurse practitioners and physician assistants evaluated the importance of mortality, macro- and microvascular morbidity, HbA1c, body weight, quality of life, (overall) hospital admissions and severe and other hypoglycemia on a 9-point scale. All outcomes were considered critical (mean scores 7-9), except for body weight and other hypoglycemia (mean scores 4-6). Only HbA1c and hospital admissions were valued differently by the guideline committee (not critical). Other relevant outcomes according to the respondents were adverse events, ease of use and costs. Median MCIDs were 4 mmol/mol for HbA1c (guideline: 5 mmol/mol) and 3 kg for body weight (guideline: 5 kg weight gain and 2,5 kg weight loss). Healthcare professionals preferred relative risk reductions of 20% for mortality (guideline: 10%) and macrovascular morbidity (guideline: 25%) and 50% for other hypoglycaemia (guideline: 25%). The MCID of 25% for microvascular morbidity, hospital admissions and severe hypoglycaemia corresponded to the guideline-MCID. Healthcare professionals' preferences were thus comparable to the views of the guideline committee. However, healthcare professionals had a stricter view on the importance of HbA1c and hospital admissions and the MCIDs for mortality and other hypoglycemia.