Xina Grählert

Common definition for categories of clinical research: a prerequisite for a survey on regulatory requirements by the European Clinical Research Infrastructures Network (ECRIN)

BackgroundThorough knowledge of the regulatory requirements is a challenging prerequisite for conducting multinational clinical studies in Europe given their complexity and heterogeneity in regulation and perception across the EU member states.MethodsIn order to summarise the current situation in relation to the wide spectrum of clinical research, the European Clinical Research Infrastructures Network (ECRIN) developed a multinational survey in ten European countries. However a lack of common classification framework for major categories of clinical research was identified, and therefore reaching an agreement on a common classification was the initial step in the development of the survey.ResultsThe ECRIN transnational working group on regulation, composed of experts in the field of clinical research from ten European countries, defined seven major categories of clinical research that seem relevant from both the regulatory and the scientific points of view, and correspond to congruent definitions in all countries: clinical trials on medicinal products; clinical trials on medical devices; other therapeutic trials (including surgery trials, transplantation trials, transfusion trials, trials with cell therapy, etc.); diagnostic studies; clinical research on nutrition; other interventional clinical research (including trials in complementary and alternative medicine, trials with collection of blood or tissue samples, physiology studies, etc.); and epidemiology studies. Our classification was essential to develop a survey focused on protocol submission to ethics committees and competent authorities, procedures for amendments, requirements for sponsor and insurance, and adverse event reporting following five main phases: drafting, consensus, data collection, validation, and finalising.ConclusionThe list of clinical research categories as used for the survey could serve as a contribution to the, much needed, task of harmonisation and simplification of the regulatory requirements for clinical research in Europe.

Effects of dopaminergic treatment on striatal dopamine turnover in de novo Parkinson disease

Objective: To evaluate the effects of levodopa and the dopamine D2 agonist cabergoline on striatal dopamine turnover estimated as the inverse of the effective dopamine distribution volume ratio (EDVR) measured by 18F-dopa PET in de novo Parkinson disease (PD). Methods: Single-center, parallel-group, randomized, observer-blinded study of cabergoline (3 mg/day) and levodopa (300 mg/day) over 12 weeks in patients with de novo PD. Primary efficacy measure was the change of the side-to-side averaged putaminal EDVR comparing baseline and end-of-maintenance period. Results: Thirty-five out of 39 randomized patients were assigned to the primary efficacy analysis (cabergoline, n = 17; levodopa, n = 18). At the end of treatment period, mean EDVRs were significantly lower compared to baseline solely in the levodopa group (relative change −1.0 ± 13.0% in cabergoline [p = 0.525 when compared to baseline], −8.3 ± 11.8% in levodopa group [p = 0.006]) with a nonsignificant trend between groups (mean relative difference: 7.3% (95% confidence interval −1.2% to 15.8%; p = 0.091). There was significant clinical improvement in both groups at 12 weeks compared to baseline, but no significant differences between groups in clinical and PET secondary outcome measures. Both pharmacologic treatments and PET scanning were well-tolerated and safe. Conclusion: Putaminal dopamine turnover is increased by levodopa treatment in de novo PD. The nonsignificant trend toward a larger influence by levodopa compared to cabergoline is supported by ancillary statistical analyses. This augmentation of early compensatory events by levodopa might contribute not only to its symptomatic effects, but also to its induction of motor complications.

Treatment Following an Evidence-Based Algorithm versus Individualised Symptom-Oriented Treatment for Atopic Eczema

Background: Evidence-based treatment algorithms, successfully established for asthma, are missing for atopic eczema (AE). Objectives: To investigate whether treatment according to an evidence-based algorithm is an effective and applicable concept for the management of AE. Methods: Based on a systematic literature review, we developed an evidence-based severity-score-oriented treatment algorithm for AE and compared its effectiveness to that of an individualised symptom-oriented treatment (individual therapy) in a randomised controlled trial. Sixty-three participants were randomised to algorithm (n = 32) or individual therapy (n = 31) and treated accordingly for 12 months. Study end points included difference between baseline SCORAD and mean SCORAD under treatment (primary end point), quality of life and treatment utilisation. Analysis was by intention to treat (registration: ClinicalTrials.gov:NCT00148746). Results: No statistically significant differences in clinical or subjective response were observed between groups. Treatment following the algorithm and individual treatment both effectively controlled AE. Mean SCORAD reductions were 47% (95% confidence interval, CI = 38–55; algorithm) and 42% (95% CI = 29–54; individual). Clinical response was paralleled by improved quality of life in both groups. Physicians adhered to the algorithm option in 93% of their treatment decisions. Conclusion: Treatment following an evidence-based algorithm is an effective and applicable concept for the management of AE but does not show clear advantages compared to individualised treatment in a dermatological setting.

Interaction of clopidogrel and statins in secondary prevention after cerebral ischaemia - a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy crossover study.

AIMS Variability in responsiveness to clopidogrel is a clinical problem in secondary prevention after cerebral ischaemia which has been suggested to be linked to competitive metabolization of clopidogrel and cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4-oxidated statins such as simvastatin. We assessed the hypothesis that simvastatin, in contrast to CYP 2C9-metabolized fluvastatin, reduces clopidogrel-mediated platelet inhibition. METHODS We performed a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, two period crossover study in 13 patients with cerebral ischaemia (8F, 5 M), aged 64.1 ± 8.0 years (mean ± SD). After a 14 day period in which all patients received 75 mg clopidogrel day(-1) , patients additionally received either 20 mg simvastatin day(-1) or 80 mg fluvastatin day(-1) for 14 days. Regimens were crossed over after a 14 day wash-out period and switched regimens were continued for another 14 days. Platelet aggregation, clopidogrel active metabolite (CAM) plasma concentrations and routine laboratory parameters including prothrombin time (PT) Quick percent value were assessed at baseline and following each treatment phase. RESULTS Clopidogrel reduced platelet aggregation in all patients as expected. Platelet aggregation and CAM plasma concentrations were unaltered when simvastatin or fluvastatin was added to clopidogrel. Simvastatin decreased PT Quick percent value (decrease from 109 ± 10.5% to 103 ± 11%, P < 0.05) when combined with clopidogrel but there was no such change following treatment with fluvastatin and clopidogrel. CONCLUSIONS Our data indicate that treatment with CYP 3A4-metabolized simvastatin does not jeopardize clopidogrel-mediated inhibition of platelet aggregation. After co-administration of simvastatin and clopidogrel we observed a decrease in the PT Quick percent value which could be due to simvastatin-induced reduction of activity of prothrombin fragment 1 + 2.

Study protocol for a randomized controlled pilot-trial on the semiocclusive treatment of fingertip amputation injuries using a novel finger cap

Introduction: Fingertip amputation injuries are common in all ages. Conservatively treated fingertips can regenerate skin and soft tissues to form a functionally and cosmetically excellent new fingertip. Little is known about this ability that, in humans, is confined to the fingertips. Even less is known about the role of the bacteria that regularly colonize these wounds without negative impact on regeneration and healing. As an alternative to surgery, self-adhesive film dressings are commonly used to establish a wet chamber around the injury. These dressings leak malodorous wound fluid eventually until the wound is dry. Having that into consideration, we have therefore developed a silicone finger cap that forms a mechanically protected, wet chamber around the injury for optimal regeneration conditions. It contains a puncturable reservoir for excess wound fluid, which can be thus routinely analyzed for diagnostic and research purposes. This study protocol explains the first randomized controlled trial (RCT) on the semiocclusive treatment of fingertip amputations in both children and adults comparing traditional film dressings with the novel silicone finger cap. Being the first RCT using 2 medical devices not yet certified for this indication, it will gather valuable information for the understanding of fingertip regeneration and the design of future definitive studies. Methods and analysis: By employing an innovative pseudo-cross-over-design with a dichotomous primary endpoint based on patients preference, this pilot study will gain statistically significant data with a very limited sample size. Our RCT will investigate acceptance, safety, effectiveness, and efficacy of this novel medical device while gathering information on the clinical course and outcome of conservatively treated fingertip injuries. A total of 22 patients older than 2 years will be randomly assigned to start the conservative treatment with either the traditional film-dressing or the novel finger cap. The treatment will be changed to the other alternative for another 2 weeks before the patient or the guardian is confronted with the decision of which method they would prefer for the rest of the treatment (if required). Ethics and dissemination: Ethical approval (EK 148042015) of the study protocol has been obtained from Institutional Review Board at the TU Dresden. The trial is registered at the European Database on Medical Devices (EUDAMED-No.: CIV-15-03-013246) and at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03089060).

Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of oral budesonide for prophylaxis of acute intestinal graft-versus-host disease after allogeneic stem cell transplantation (PROGAST)

BackgroundGastrointestinal graft–versus-host disease (GvHD) is a potentially life-threatening complication after allogeneic stem cell transplantation (SCT). Since therapeutic options are still limited, a prophylactic approach seems to be warranted.MethodsIn this randomised, double-blind-phase III trial, we evaluated the efficacy of budesonide in the prophylaxis of acute intestinal GvHD after SCT. The trial was registered at https://clinicaltrials.gov, number NCT00180089.Patients were randomly assigned to receive either 3 mg capsule three times daily oral budesonide or placebo. Budesonide was applied as a capsule with pH-modified release in the terminal ileum. Study medication was administered through day 56, follow-up continued until 12 months after transplantation. If any clinical signs of acute intestinal GvHD appeared, an ileocolonoscopy with biopsy specimens was performed.ResultsThe crude incidence of histological or clinical stage 3–4 acute intestinal GvHD until day 100 observed in 91 (n =48 budesonide, n =43 placebo) evaluable patients was 12.5% (95% CI 3-22%) under treatment with budesonide and 14% (95% CI 4-25%) under placebo (p = 0.888). Histologic and clinical stage 3–4 intestinal GvHD after 12 months occurred in 17% (95% CI 6-28%) of patients in the budesonide group and 19% (CI 7-32%) in the placebo group (p = 0.853). Although budesonide was tolerated well, we observed a trend towards a higher rate of infectious complications in the study group (47.9% versus 30.2%, p = 0.085). The cumulative incidences at 12 months of intestinal GvHD stage >2 with death as a competing event (budesonide 20.8% vs. placebo 32.6%, p = 0.250) and the cumulative incidence of relapse (budesonide 20.8% vs. placebo 16.3%, p = 0.547) and non-relapse mortality (budesonide 28% (95% CI 15-41%) vs. placebo 30% (95% CI 15-44%), showed no significant difference within the two groups (p = 0.911). The trial closed after 94 patients were enrolled because of slow accrual. Within the limits of the final sample size, we were unable to show any benefit for the addition of budesonide to standard GvHD prophylaxis.ConclusionsBudesonide did not decrease the occurrence of intestinal GvHD in this trial. These results imply most likely that prophylactic administration of budenoside with pH-modified release in the terminal ileum is not effective.