Genome Editing and the Future of Farming meeting report

A report on the Genome Editing and the Future of Farming meeting held at The Roslin Institute on 6th September 2016

Analysing responsible innovation along a value chain-A single- cell protein case study

The British Standards Institution's Publicly Available Specification 440 (PAS 440) provides a Responsible Innovation Framework (RIF) that companies can use to continuously monitor the societal, environmental and health benefits and risks of their innovations, as well as relevant changes to the supply chain and regulations. PAS 440 is intended to help companies achieve the benefits of innovation in a timely manner and avoid any potential harm or unintended misuse of a new product, process or service. Here, the authors have applied the PAS 440 RIF to a novel single-cell protein (SCP) animal feed ingredient taking into consideration the perspectives of the value chain partners (VCPs), companies and laboratories involved in an Innovate UK research project. The authors' findings show how VCPs can use PAS440 to demonstrate that they are innovating responsibly. Using this approach to responsible innovation along the value chain-from manufacturing scale-up, through regulatory approval, to incorporation in animal feed and from there to food on supermarket shelves-can support the development of innovations that contribute to the economic and environmental sustainability of the animal feed sector. The authors conclude that the PAS 440 Guide can facilitate the progress of a new product throughout a value chain and contribute to coordinating responsible behaviour among companies involved in the value chain

Costs and staffing resource requirements for adaptive clinical trials: quantitative and qualitative results from the Costing Adaptive Trials project.

BACKGROUND: Adaptive designs offer great promise in improving the efficiency and patient-benefit of clinical trials. An important barrier to further increased use is a lack of understanding about which additional resources are required to conduct a high-quality adaptive clinical trial, compared to a traditional fixed design. The Costing Adaptive Trials (CAT) project investigated which additional resources may be required to support adaptive trials. METHODS: We conducted a mock costing exercise amongst seven Clinical Trials Units (CTUs) in the UK. Five scenarios were developed, derived from funded clinical trials, where a non-adaptive version and an adaptive version were described. Each scenario represented a different type of adaptive design. CTU staff were asked to provide the costs and staff time they estimated would be needed to support the trial, categorised into specified areas (e.g. statistics, data management, trial management). This was calculated separately for the non-adaptive and adaptive version of the trial, allowing paired comparisons. Interviews with 10 CTU staff who had completed the costing exercise were conducted by qualitative researchers to explore reasons for similarities and differences. RESULTS: Estimated resources associated with conducting an adaptive trial were always (moderately) higher than for the non-adaptive equivalent. The median increase was between 2 and 4% for all scenarios, except for sample size re-estimation which was 26.5% (as the adaptive design could lead to a lengthened study period). The highest increase was for statistical staff, with lower increases for data management and trial management staff. The percentage increase in resources varied across different CTUs. The interviews identified possible explanations for differences, including (1) experience in adaptive trials, (2) the complexity of the non-adaptive and adaptive design, and (3) the extent of non-trial specific core infrastructure funding the CTU had. CONCLUSIONS: This work sheds light on additional resources required to adequately support a high-quality adaptive trial. The percentage increase in costs for supporting an adaptive trial was generally modest and should not be a barrier to adaptive designs being cost-effective to use in practice. Informed by the results of this research, guidance for investigators and funders will be developed on appropriately resourcing adaptive trials

A comparison of three laddering techniques applied to an example of a complex food choice

Laddering techniques (means-end-chains) have become popular as a means of understanding consumers' motivations for (food) product choice. Comparisons of the output of interview (soft) laddering (SL, n=49) were made with two forms of questionnaire-based (hard) laddering, pencil-and-paper (PL, n=46) and computerised presentations (CL, n=45). Within the context of mothers choosing breakfast for their children, the aim was to assess whether the form of administration would have a differential effect upon results. The laddering methods produced different results. Hard laddering produced more ladders (CL > PL > SL; p<0.01) when values were excluded whereas SL produced more linkages between levels of abstraction (SL > CL > PL; p<0.01), though constructs were similar across all groups. Differences were attributable to administration, which in turn was interpreted to be attributable to differences in participants' cognitive processing, specifically: memory recall (SL) versus recognition (PL and CL). The SL primary result, the hierarchical value map, was difficult to interpret and, contrary to previous literature, the results question the use of SL when a succinct understanding of complex food choices is the aim of the study.C. G. Russell, A. Busson, I. Flight, J. Bryan, J. A. van Lawick van Pabst and D. N. Coxhttp://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/405859/description#descriptio

Practical guidance for planning resources required to support publicly-funded adaptive clinical trials.

Adaptive designs are a class of methods for improving efficiency and patient benefit of clinical trials. Although their use has increased in recent years, research suggests they are not used in many situations where they have potential to bring benefit. One barrier to their more widespread use is a lack of understanding about how the choice to use an adaptive design, rather than a traditional design, affects resources (staff and non-staff) required to set-up, conduct and report a trial. The Costing Adaptive Trials project investigated this issue using quantitative and qualitative research amongst UK Clinical Trials Units. Here, we present guidance that is informed by our research, on considering the appropriate resourcing of adaptive trials. We outline a five-step process to estimate the resources required and provide an accompanying costing tool. The process involves understanding the tasks required to undertake a trial, and how the adaptive design affects them. We identify barriers in the publicly funded landscape and provide recommendations to trial funders that would address them. Although our guidance and recommendations are most relevant to UK non-commercial trials, many aspects are relevant more widely

Using a learning health system to understand the mismatch between medicines supply and actual medicines use among adults with cystic fibrosis

Background: studies in separate cohorts suggest possible discrepancies between inhaled medicines supplied (median 50-60%) and medicines used (median 30-40%). We performed the first study that directly compares CF medicine supply against use to identify the cost of excess medicines supply.Methods: this cross-sectional study included participants from 12 UK adult centres with ≥1 year of continuous adherence data from data-logging nebulisers. Medicine supply was measured as medication possession ratio (MPR) for a 1-year period from the first suitable supply date. Medicine use was measured as electronic data capture (EDC) adherence over the same period. The cost of excess medicines was calculated as whole excess box(es) supplied after accounting for the discrepancy between EDC adherence and MPR with 20% contingency.Results: among 275 participants, 133 (48.4%) were females and mean age was 30 years (95% CI 29-31 years). Median EDC adherence was 57% (IQR 23-86%), median MPR was 74% (IQR 46-96%) and the discrepancy between measures was median 14% (IQR 2-29%). Even with 20% contingency, mean potential cost of excess medicines was £1,124 (95% CI £855-1,394), ranging from £183 (95% CI £29-338) for EDC adherence ≥80% to £2,017 (95% CI £1,507-2,526) for EDC adherence &lt;50%.Conclusions: this study provides a conservative estimate of excess inhaled medicines supply cost among adults with CF in the UK. The excess supply cost was highest among those with lowest EDC adherence, highlighting the importance of adherence support and supplying medicine according to actual use. MPR provides information about medicine supply but over-estimates actual medicine use.</p

Mitochondrial inhibitor atovaquone increases tumor oxygenation and inhibits hypoxic gene expression in patients with non-small cell lung cancer

Clinical trial with omics and imaging data to study response to treatment