VEGF Gene Therapy Fails to Improve Perfusion of Ischemic Myocardium in Patients With Advanced Coronary Disease: Results of the NORTHERN Trial

Despite the promise of proangiogenic gene therapy most clinical trials have failed to show benefit for the primary end point analysis. The NOGA angiogenesis Revascularization Therapy: assessment by RadioNuclide imaging (NORTHERN) trial was a double-blind, placebo-controlled study of intramyocardial vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF165) gene therapy versus placebo, involving seven sites across Canada, designed to overcome major limitations of previous proangiogenic gene therapy trials. A total of 93 patients with refractory Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) class 3 or 4 anginal symptoms were randomized to receive 2,000 µg of VEGF plasmid DNA or placebo (buffered saline) delivered via the endocardial route using an electroanatomical NOGA guidance catheter. There was no difference between the VEGF-treated and the placebo groups in the primary end point of change in myocardial perfusion from baseline to 3 or 6 months, assessed by single photon emission tomography (SPECT) imaging, although a significant reduction in the ischemic area was seen in both groups. Also, similar improvements in exercise treadmill time and anginal symptoms were seen in the VEGF and the placebo groups at 3 and 6 months, although again there were no differences between these groups. Despite the intramyocardial administration of a high “dose” of plasmid DNA using a percutaneous guidance catheter system, there was no benefit of VEGF gene therapy at 3 or 6 months for any of the end points studied

Community consensus on core open science practices to monitor in biomedicine.

The state of open science needs to be monitored to track changes over time and identify areas to create interventions to drive improvements. In order to monitor open science practices, they first need to be well defined and operationalized. To reach consensus on what open science practices to monitor at biomedical research institutions, we conducted a modified 3-round Delphi study. Participants were research administrators, researchers, specialists in dedicated open science roles, and librarians. In rounds 1 and 2, participants completed an online survey evaluating a set of potential open science practices, and for round 3, we hosted two half-day virtual meetings to discuss and vote on items that had not reached consensus. Ultimately, participants reached consensus on 19 open science practices. This core set of open science practices will form the foundation for institutional dashboards and may also be of value for the development of policy, education, and interventions

Community consensus on core open science practices to monitor in biomedicine

The state of open science needs to be monitored to track changes over time and identify areas to create interventions to drive improvements. In order to monitor open science practices, they first need to be well defined and operationalized. To reach consensus on what open science practices to monitor at biomedical research institutions, we conducted a modified 3-round Delphi study. Participants were research administrators, researchers, specialists in dedicated open science roles, and librarians. In rounds 1 and 2, participants completed an online survey evaluating a set of potential open science practices, and for round 3, we hosted two half-day virtual meetings to discuss and vote on items that had not reached consensus. Ultimately, participants reached consensus on 19 open science practices. This core set of open science practices will form the foundation for institutional dashboards and may also be of value for the development of policy, education, and interventions. The state of open science needs to be monitored to track changes over time and identify areas to create interventions to drive improvements. This Consensus View identifies 19 open science practices that will form the foundation for institutional dashboards for monitoring progress