Exploring the perspectives of selectors and collecters of trial outcome data : An international qualitative study

Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank all interviewees that took part in this study, as well as our colleagues and fellow members of the Trial Forge, HRB-TMRN, and MRC Trial Methodology Hubs networks that supported in identifying potential participants. Funding This project was funded by the Chief Scientist Office, grant number HIPS/18/04Peer reviewedPublisher PD

A good use of time? : Providing evidence for how effort is invested in primary and secondary outcome data collection in trials

BACKGROUND: Data collection is a substantial part of trial workload for participants and staff alike. How these hours of work are spent is important because stakeholders are more interested in some outcomes than others. The ORINOCO study compared the time spent collecting primary outcome data to the time spent collecting secondary outcome data in a cohort of trials. METHODS: We searched PubMed for phase III trials indexed between 2015 and 2019. From these, we randomly selected 120 trials evaluating a therapeutic intervention plus an additional random selection of 20 trials evaluating a public health intervention. We also added eligible trials from a cohort of 189 trials in rheumatology that had used the same core outcome set. We then obtained the time taken to collect primary and secondary outcomes in each trial. We used a hierarchy of methods that included data in trial reports, contacting the trial team and approaching individuals with experience of using the identified outcome measures. We calculated the primary to secondary data collection time ratio and notional data collection cost for each included trial. RESULTS: We included 161 trials (120 phase III; 21 core outcome set; 20 public health), which together collected 230 primary and 688 secondary outcomes. Full primary and secondary timing data were obtained for 134 trials (100 phase III; 17 core outcome set; 17 public health). The median time spent on primaries was 56.1 h (range: 0.0-10,746.7, IQR: 226.89) and the median time spent on secondaries was 190.7 hours (range: 0.0-1,356,832.9, IQR: 617.6). The median primary to secondary data collection time ratio was 1.0:3.0 (i.e. for every minute spent on primary outcomes, 3.0 were spent on secondaries). The ratio varied by trial type: phase III trials were 1.0:3.1, core outcome set 1.0:3.4 and public health trials 1.0:2.2. The median notional overall data collection cost was £8015.73 (range: £52.90-£31,899,140.70, IQR: £20,096.64). CONCLUSIONS: Depending on trial type, between two and three times as much time is spent collecting secondary outcome data than collecting primary outcome data. Trial teams should explicitly consider how long it will take to collect the data for an outcome and decide whether that time is worth it given importance of the outcome to the trial.Peer reviewe

British Society for Rheumatology guideline on management of adult and juvenile onset Sjögren disease

Sjögren disease (SD) is a chronic, autoimmune disease of unknown aetiology with significant impact on quality of life. Although dryness (sicca) of the eyes and mouth are the classically described features, dryness of other mucosal surfaces and systemic manifestations are common. The key management aim should be to empower the individual to manage their condition-conserving, replacing and stimulating secretions; and preventing damage and suppressing systemic disease activity. This guideline builds on and widens the recommendations developed for the first guideline published in 2017. We have included advice on the management of children and adolescents where appropriate to provide a comprehensive guideline for UK-based rheumatology teams.</p

Efficacy of CDK4/6 inhibitors in preclinical models of malignant pleural mesothelioma

Background There is no effective therapy for patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) who progressed to platinum-based chemotherapy and immunotherapy. Methods We aimed to investigate the antitumor activity of CDK4/6 inhibitors using in vitro and in vivo preclinical models of MPM. Results Based on publicly available transcriptomic data of MPM, patients with CDK4 or CDK6 overexpression had shorter overall survival. Treatment with abemaciclib or palbociclib at 100 nM significantly decreased cell proliferation in all cell models evaluated. Both CDK4/6 inhibitors significantly induced G1 cell cycle arrest, thereby increasing cell senescence and increased the expression of interferon signalling pathway and tumour antigen presentation process in culture models of MPM. In vivo preclinical studies showed that palbociclib significantly reduced tumour growth and prolonged overall survival using distinct xenograft models of MPM implanted in athymic mice. Conclusions Treatment of MPM with CDK4/6 inhibitors decreased cell proliferation, mainly by promoting cell cycle arrest at G1 and by induction of cell senescence. Our preclinical studies provide evidence for evaluating CDK4/6 inhibitors in the clinic for the treatment of MPM

PCSK9 inhibitors and ezetimibe for the reduction of cardiovascular events: a clinical practice guideline with risk-stratified recommendations.

CLINICAL QUESTION In adults with low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels >1.8 mmol/L (>70 mg/dL) who are already taking the maximum dose of statins or are intolerant to statins, should another lipid-lowering drug be added, either a proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor or ezetimibe, to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events? If so, which drug is preferred? Having decided to use one, should we add the other lipid-lowering drug? CURRENT PRACTICE Most guidelines emphasise LDL cholesterol targets in their recommendations for prescribing PCSK9 inhibitors and/or ezetimibe in adults at high risk of experiencing a major adverse cardiovascular event. However, to achieve these goals in very high risk patients with statins alone is almost impossible, so physicians are increasingly considering other lipid-lowering drugs solely for achieving LDL cholesterol treatment goals rather than for achieving important absolute cardiovascular risk reduction. Most guidelines do not systematically assess the cardiovascular benefits of adding PCSK9 inhibitors and/or ezetimibe for all risk groups across primary and secondary prevention, nor do they report, in accordance with explicit judgments of assumed patients' values and preferences, absolute benefits and harms and potential treatment burdens. RECOMMENDATIONS The guideline panel provided mostly weak recommendations, which means we rely on shared decision making when applying these recommendations. For adults already using statins, the panel suggests adding a second lipid-lowering drug in people at very high and high cardiovascular risk but recommends against adding it in people at low cardiovascular risk. For adults who are intolerant to statins, the panel recommends using a lipid-lowering drug in people at very high and high cardiovascular risk but against adding it in those at low cardiovascular risk. When choosing to add another lipid-lowering drug, the panel suggests ezetimibe in preference to PCSK9 inhibitors. The panel suggests further adding a PCSK9 inhibitor to ezetimibe for adults already taking statins at very high risk and those at very high and high risk who are intolerant to statins. HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED An international panel including patients, clinicians, and methodologists produced these recommendations following standards for trustworthy guidelines and using the GRADE approach. The panel identified four risk groups of patients (low, moderate, high, and very high cardiovascular risk) and primarily applied an individual patient perspective in moving from evidence to recommendations, though societal issues were a secondary consideration. The panel considered the balance of benefits and harms and burdens of starting a PCSK9 inhibitor and/or ezetimibe, making assumptions of adults' average values and preferences. Interactive evidence summaries and decision aids accompany multi-layered recommendations, developed in an online authoring and publication platform (www.magicapp.org) that also allows re-use and adaptation. THE EVIDENCE A linked systematic review and network meta-analysis (14 trials including 83 660 participants) of benefits found that PCSK9 inhibitors or ezetimibe probably reduce myocardial infarctions and stroke in patients with very high and high cardiovascular risk, with no impact on mortality (moderate to high certainty evidence), but not in those with moderate and low cardiovascular risk. PCSK9 inhibitors may have similar effects to ezetimibe on reducing non-fatal myocardial infarction or stroke (low certainty evidence). These relative benefits were consistent, but their absolute magnitude varied based on cardiovascular risk in individual patients (for example, for 1000 people treated with PCSK9 inhibitors in addition to statins over five years, benefits ranged from 2 fewer strokes in the lowest risk to 21 fewer in the highest risk). Two systematic reviews on harms found no important adverse events for these drugs (moderate to high certainty evidence). PCSK9 inhibitors require injections that sometimes result in injection site reactions (best estimate 15 more per 1000 in a 5 year timeframe), representing a burden and harm that may matter to patients. The MATCH-IT decision support tool allows you to interact with the evidence and your patients across the alternative options: https://magicevidence.org/match-it/220504dist-lipid-lowering-drugs/. UNDERSTANDING THE RECOMMENDATIONS The stratification into four cardiovascular risk groups means that, to use the recommendations, physicians need to identify their patient's risk first. We therefore suggest, specific to various geographical regions, using some reliable risk calculators that estimate patients' cardiovascular risk based on a mix of known risk factors. The largely weak recommendations concerning the addition of ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhibitors reflect what the panel considered to be a close balance between small reductions in stroke and myocardial infarctions weighed against the burdens and limited harms.Because of the anticipated large variability of patients' values and preferences, well informed choices warrant shared decision making. Interactive evidence summaries and decision aids linked to the recommendations can facilitate such shared decisions. The strong recommendations against adding another drug in people at low cardiovascular risk reflect what the panel considered to be a burden without important benefits. The strong recommendation for adding either ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhibitors in people at high and very high cardiovascular risk reflect a clear benefit.The panel recognised the key uncertainty in the evidence concerning patient values and preferences, namely that what most people consider important reductions in cardiovascular risks, weighed against burdens and harms, remains unclear. Finally, availability and costs will influence decisions when healthcare systems, clinicians, or people consider adding ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhibitors

Introduction: Shakespeare's public spheres

Habermas’ sense of a “cultural Public Sphere” is a notoriously complex term and, when applied to Early Modern cultures, needs careful definition. This essay both introduces the variety of methods by which we might approach playtexts with a view to their public – auditory – impact and contributes to a debate about an audience's understanding of Shakespeare's plays. By selecting two words and their spread of use in one play, Twelfth Night, we might appreciate the potential for meaningful ambiguity latent in how we hear the language of live performance. If we search for how certain terms (in this case, the cluster of semes derived from repetitions of “fancy” and “play”), we might find at times incompatible senses, yet we get near to appreciating the range of Early Modern dramatic language

Transcriptional perturbation of protein arginine methyltransferase-5 exhibits MTAP-selective oncosuppression.

We hypothesized that small molecule transcriptional perturbation could be harnessed to target a cellular dependency involving protein arginine methyltransferase 5 (PRMT5) in the context of methylthioadenosine phosphorylase (MTAP) deletion, seen frequently in malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). Here we show, that MTAP deletion is negatively prognostic in MPM. In vitro, the off-patent antibiotic Quinacrine efficiently suppressed PRMT5 transcription, causing chromatin remodelling with reduced global histone H4 symmetrical demethylation. Quinacrine phenocopied PRMT5 RNA interference and small molecule PRMT5 inhibition, reducing clonogenicity in an MTAP-dependent manner. This activity required a functional PRMT5 methyltransferase as MTAP negative cells were rescued by exogenous wild type PRMT5, but not a PRMT5E444Q methyltransferase-dead mutant. We identified c-jun as an essential PRMT5 transcription factor and a probable target for Quinacrine. Our results therefore suggest that small molecule-based transcriptional perturbation of PRMT5 can leverage a mutation-selective vulnerability, that is therapeutically tractable, and has relevance to 9p21 deleted cancers including MPM

Clonal architecture in mesothelioma is prognostic and shapes the tumour microenvironment.

Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma (MPM) is typically diagnosed 20-50 years after exposure to asbestos and evolves along an unknown evolutionary trajectory. To elucidate this path, we conducted multi-regional exome sequencing of 90 tumour samples from 22 MPMs acquired at surgery. Here we show that exomic intratumour heterogeneity varies widely across the cohort. Phylogenetic tree topology ranges from linear to highly branched, reflecting a steep gradient of genomic instability. Using transfer learning, we detect repeated evolution, resolving 5 clusters that are prognostic, with temporally ordered clonal drivers. BAP1/-3p21 and FBXW7/-chr4 events are always early clonal. In contrast, NF2/-22q events, leading to Hippo pathway inactivation are predominantly late clonal, positively selected, and when subclonal, exhibit parallel evolution indicating an evolutionary constraint. Very late somatic alteration of NF2/22q occurred in one patient 12 years after surgery. Clonal architecture and evolutionary clusters dictate MPM inflammation and immune evasion. These results reveal potentially drugable evolutionary bottlenecking in MPM, and an impact of clonal architecture on shaping the immune landscape, with potential to dictate the clinical response to immune checkpoint inhibition