Gentris Corporation is engaged in the development and rapid commercialization of innovative proprietary clinical pharmacogenomic products and services. The company provides global pharmaceutical research organizations with turn-key pharmacogenomic solutions to improve the efficiency and predictability of drug development. The ultimate benefit to these organizations is to shorten drug development cycles, improve new drug approval rates and allow marginal drugs to advance towards final approval. In the near future, the company will develop specialized, high quality, reliable diagnostic products, which will provide physicians and their patients with access to pharmacogenomic testing, as personalized medicine becomes the new standard of medical practice. (+info)
Surrogate end points in heart failure.
(10/348)
Because of the increasing number of pharmacologic strategies available for treatment of heart failure (HF), the time has come to reassess the adequacy of end points used to evaluate therapeutic efficacy. Interest in the use of surrogate end points in clinical studies is increasing. A surrogate end point is defined as a measurement that can substitute for a true end point for the purpose of comparing specific interventions or treatments in a clinical trial. A true end point is one that is of clinical importance to the patient (e.g., mortality or quality of life), whereas a surrogate end point is one biologically closer to the disease process (e.g., ejection fraction or left ventricular volume in HF). The prime motivation for the use of a surrogate end point concerns the possible reduction in sample size or trial duration. Such reductions have important cost implications and in some cases may influence trial feasibility. Another, perhaps more important, aspect of measuring surrogate end points is that they increase our understanding of the mechanism of action of drugs and thus may help physicians to take a more enlightened approach in managing their patients. In this article we have analyzed the possible potentials of the surrogate end points in clinical studies of patients with chronic HF. Other uses of possible surrogates are discussed, and the limitations in finding true surrogates are mentioned. At this time we conclude there is no well established surrogate in HF. (+info)
Relationship between objective responses in phase I trials and potential efficacy of non-specific cytotoxic investigational new drugs.
(11/348)
BACKGROUND: Although the evaluation of new investigational drugs in phase I, II and III trials requires considerable time and patient resources, only a few of these drugs are ultimately established as anticancer drugs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We collected papers of phase I trials by a Medline search using the key words 'Neoplasms/Drug Therapy in MeSH' and 'Phase I' for the period from 1976 to 1993. A drug was defined as 'effective' if a regimen including the drug produced positive results in at least one phase III trial. We analyzed the relationship between objective (complete and partial) responses in phase I trials and the effectiveness of agents in phase III trials. RESULTS: A total of 399 single-agent phase I trials of cytotoxic agents in adult patients with solid tumors were obtained. Further clinical investigation was not recommended in 36 trials (9%) because of severe toxicity. In the remaining 363 trials, 174 drugs were evaluated and the median number of trials for each drug was two (range one to nine). Objective responses were observed in 495 (4.1%) of 12 076 patients, 178 (49%) of 363 trials, and 115 (66%) of 174 drugs. Of the 174 drugs, 48 (28%) were considered to be effective. Percentages of effective drugs rose as the number of responders in phase I trials increased. Logistic regression analyses showed the number of responders to be significantly associated with drug effectiveness [odds ratio = 1.16 (1.06-1.27), P = 0.001 for 174 drugs; odds ratio = 1.16 (1.05-1.28), P = 0.0038 for 363 trials]. Although 10 active drugs failed to produce an objective response in phase I trials, seven of them produced a tumor regression of <50%, and three reportedly produced objective responses in phase I trials conducted before 1975. The numbers of responders among patients with lung, ovarian, breast or colorectal cancer, but not those among patients with lymphoma, melanoma, sarcoma or renal-cell carcinoma, were associated significantly with drug effectiveness against the respective tumors. CONCLUSIONS: Objective responses observed in phase I trials are important for determining the future development of an anticancer drug. (+info)
Anticancer drug discovery and development throughout the world.
(12/348)
This year's American Society of Clinical Oncology International Symposium devoted 2 hours to a lively discussion of various aspects of anticancer drug discovery and development throughout the world. The scientific program started with an overview of efforts directed toward promoting international collaboration in natural product-derived anticancer drug discovery. This was followed by a discussion on the importance of interethnic differences and pharmacogenetics in anticancer drug development. Thereafter, this part of the program was completed by a description of the activities of the newly created Singapore-Hong Kong-Australia Drug Development Consortium and an overview of the contribution of Japan to anticancer drug development. The logistics and regulatory aspects of clinical trials with new anticancer agents in different parts of the world were then presented, with an emphasis on Europe, North America, and Japan. The program was completed with a panel discussion of the efforts to harmonize the exchange of clinical data originating from one region of the globe with other territories, with input from official representatives of the United States Food and Drug Administration and the Medical Devices Evaluation Center of Japan. (+info)
New drugs with novel therapeutic characteristics. Have they been subject to randomized controlled trials?
(13/348)
OBJECTIVE: To determine how many randomized controlled trials on the safety or efficacy of new drugs are published when these drugs are first marketed in Canada, and to determine the quality of the information in those trials. DESIGN: A MEDLINE search was conducted on each drug identified as having novel therapeutic characteristics and first marketed between 1990 and 2000. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of trials dealing with the safety or efficacy of each drug published at the time the drug was marketed. Number of patients taking the study drug, length of the trial, and type of control. RESULTS: The number of trials varied substantially. For some drugs, there were more than 20 studies; for others only a single study. Many trials were small and short-term, and used placebo controls. CONCLUSION: Too few trials or inadequate trials on the safety and efficacy of new drugs are published when these drugs are first marketed in Canada. The lack of published trials means that physicians do not know whether results are generalizable to their patients, how to position the drug in relation to other treatments, or whether the drugs have long-term safety and efficacy. (+info)
Role of body surface area in dosing of investigational anticancer agents in adults, 1991-2001.
(14/348)
The prescribed dose of anticancer agents is most commonly calculated using body surface area as the only independent variable, and it has been shown that this approach still results in large interpatient variability in drug exposure. Here, we retrospectively assessed the pharmacokinetics of 33 investigational agents tested in phase I trials from 1991 through 2001, as a function of body surface area in 1650 adult cancer patients. Twelve of the drugs were administered orally, 19 were administered intravenously, and two were administered by both routes. Body surface area-based dosing was statistically significantly associated with a reduction in interpatient variability in drug clearance for only five of the 33 agents: docosahexaenoic acid (DHA)-paclitaxel, 5-fluorouracil/eniluracil, paclitaxel, temozolomide, and troxacitabine. These results do not support the use of body surface area in dose calculations and suggest that alternate dosing strategies should be evaluated. We conclude that body surface area should not be used to determine starting doses of investigational agents in future phase I studies. (+info)
Scientific and ethical considerations in trial design for investigational agents for the treatment of human immunodeficiency virus infection.
(15/348)
The design of clinical trials for new antiretroviral agents poses unique challenges, given the availability of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART). These challenges include the selection of appropriate populations, the methods used to partition the effects of the study drug under observation from those of the other concurrently administered medications in early studies, performance of dose-ranging studies for disease states in which suboptimal drug exposure may lead to the development of viral resistance that limits future treatment options, and the need to fulfill the obligations of international regulatory agencies. Throughout, science and ethics are tightly woven elements in study designs for antiretroviral drug trials. Fast-track drug approval status and successful lobbying by advocates for patients with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome aimed at the US Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, university teaching centers, pharmaceutical companies, and members of Congress undoubtedly contributed to the development and swift regulatory approvals of the 17 antiretroviral medications now available in the United States for the treatment of human immunodeficiency virus infection. (+info)
Smallpox vaccination and adverse reactions. Guidance for clinicians.
(16/348)
The guidance in this report is for evaluation and treatment of patients with complications from smallpox vaccination in the preoutbreak setting. Information is also included related to reporting adverse events and seeking specialized consultation and therapies for these events. The frequencies of smallpox vaccine-associated adverse events were identified in studies of the 1960s. Because of the unknown prevalence of risk factors among today's population, precise predictions of adverse reaction rates after smallpox vaccination are unavailable. The majority of adverse events are minor, but the less-frequent serious adverse reactions require immediate evaluation for diagnosis and treatment. Agents for treatment of certain vaccine-associated severe adverse reactions are vaccinia immune globulin (VIG), the first-line therapy, and cidofovir, the second-line therapy. These agents will be available under Investigational New Drug (IND) protocols from CDC and the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). Smallpox vaccination in the preoutbreak setting is contraindicated for persons who have the following conditions or have a close contact with the following conditions: 1) a history of atopic dermatitis (commonly referred to as eczema), irrespective of disease severity or activity; 2) active acute, chronic, or exfoliative skin conditions that disrupt the epidermis; 3) pregnant women or women who desire to become pregnant in the 28 days after vaccination; and 4) persons who are immunocompromised as a result of human immunodeficiency virus or acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, autoimmune conditions, cancer, radiation treatment, immunosuppressive medications, or other immunodeficiencies. Additional contraindications that apply only to vaccination candidates but do not include their close contacts are persons with smallpox vaccine-component allergies, women who are breastfeeding, those taking topical ocular steroid medications, those with moderate-to-severe intercurrent illness, and persons aged < 18 years. In addition, history of Darier disease is a contraindication in a potential vaccinee and a contraindication if a household contact has active disease. In the event of a smallpox outbreak, outbreak-specific guidance will be disseminated by CDC regarding populations to be vaccinated and specific contraindications to vaccination. Vaccinia can be transmitted from a vaccinee's unhealed vaccination site to other persons by close contact and can lead to the same adverse events as in the vaccinee. To avoid transmission of vaccinia virus (found in the smallpox vaccine) from vaccinees to their close contacts, vaccinees should wash their hands with warm soapy water or hand rubs containing > or = 60% alcohol immediately after they touch their vaccination site or change their vaccination site bandages. Used bandages should be placed in sealed plastic bags and can be disposed of in household trash. Smallpox vaccine adverse reactions are diagnosed on the basis of clinical examination and history, and certain reactions can be managed by observation and supportive care. Adverse reactions that are usually self-limited include fever, headache, fatigue, myalgia, chills, local skin reactions, nonspecific rashes, erythema multiforme, lymphadenopathy, and pain at the vaccination site. Other reactions are most often diagnosed through a complete history and physical and might require additional therapies (e.g., VIG, a first-line therapy and cidofovir, a second-line therapy). Adverse reactions that might require further evaluation or therapy include inadvertent inoculation, generalized vaccinia (GV), eczema vaccinatum (EV), progressive vaccinia (PV), postvaccinial central nervous system disease, and fetal vaccinia. Inadvertent inoculation occurs when vaccinia virus is transferred from a vaccination site to a second location on the vaccinee or to a close contact. Usually, this condition is self-limited and no additional care is needed. Inoculations of the eye and eyelid require evaluation by an ophthalmologist and might require therapy with topical antiviral or antibacterial medications, VIG, or topical steroids. GV is characterized by a disseminated maculopapular or vesicular rash, frequently on an erythematous base, which usually occurs 6-9 days after first-time vaccination. This condition is usually self-limited and benign, although treatment with VIG might be required when the patient is systemically ill or found to have an underlying immunocompromising condition. Infection-control precautions should be used to prevent secondary transmission and nosocomial infection. EV occurs among persons with a history of atopic dermatitis (eczema), irrespective of disease severity or activity, and is a localized or generalized papular, vesicular, or pustular rash, which can occur anywhere on the body, with a predilection for areas of previous atopic dermatitis lesions. Patients with EV are often systemically ill and usually require VIG. Infection-control precautions should be used to prevent secondary transmission and nosocomial infection. PV is a rare, severe, and often fatal complication among persons with immunodeficiencies, characterized by painless progressive necrosis at the vaccination site with or without metastases to distant sites (e.g., skin, bones, and other viscera). This disease carries a high mortality rate, and management of PV should include aggressive therapy with VIG, intensive monitoring, and tertiary-level supportive care. Anecdotal experience suggests that, despite treatment with VIG, persons with cell-mediated immune deficits have a poorer prognosis than those with humoral deficits. Infection-control precautions should be used to prevent secondary transmission and nosocomial infection. Central nervous system disease, which includes postvaccinial encephalopathy (PVE) and postvaccinial encephalomyelitis (or encephalitis) (PVEM), occur after smallpox vaccination. PVE is most common among infants aged < 12 months. Clinical symptoms of central nervous system disease indicate cerebral or cerebellar dysfunction with headache, fever, vomiting, altered mental status, lethargy, seizures, and coma. PVE and PVEM are not believed to be a result of replicating vaccinia virus and are diagnoses of exclusion. Although no specific therapy exists for PVE or PVEM, supportive care, anticonvulsants, and intensive care might be required. Fetal vaccinia, resulting from vaccinial transmission from mother to fetus, is a rare, but serious, complication of smallpox vaccination during pregnancy or shortly before conception. It is manifested by skin lesions and organ involvement, and often results in fetal or neonatal death. No known reliable intrauterine diagnostic test is available to confirm fetal infection. Given the rarity of congenital vaccinia among live-born infants, vaccination during pregnancy should not ordinarily be a reason to consider termination of pregnancy. No known indication exists for routine, prophylactic use of VIG in an unintentionally vaccinated pregnant woman; however, VIG should not be withheld if a pregnant woman develops a condition where VIG is needed. Other less-common adverse events after smallpox vaccination have been reported to occur in temporal association with smallpox vaccination, but causality has not been established. Prophylactic treatment with VIG is not recommended for persons or close contacts with contraindications to smallpox vaccination who are inadvertently inoculated or exposed. These persons should be followed closely for early recognition of adverse reactions that might develop, and clinicians are encouraged to enroll these persons in the CDC registry by calling the Clinician Information Line at 877-554-4625. To request clinical consultation and IND therapies for vaccinia-related adverse reactions for civilians, contact your state health department or CDC's Clinician Information Line (877-554-4625). Clinical evaluation tools are available at http.//www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/smallpox/vaccination/clineval. Clinical specimen-collection guidance is available at http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/smallpox/vaccination/vaccinia-specimen-collection.asp . Physicians at military medical facilities can request VIG or cidofovir by calling the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) at 301-619-2257 or 888-USA-RIID. (+info)