A randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial to investigate the effects of nasal calcitonin on bone microarchitecture measured by high-resolution peripheral quantitative computerized tomography in postmenopausal women — Study protocol

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Bone microarchitecture is a significant determinant of bone strength. So far, the assessment of bone microarchitecture has required bone biopsies, limiting its utilization in clinical practice to one single skeletal site. With the advance of high-resolution imaging techniques, non-invasive in vivo measurement of bone microarchitecture has recently become possible. This provides an opportunity to efficiently assess the effects of anti-osteoporotic therapies on bone microarchitecture. We therefore designed a protocol to investigate the effects of nasal salmon calcitonin, an inhibitor of osteoclast activity, on bone microarchitecture in postmenopausal women, comparing weight bearing and non-weight bearing skeletal sites.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>One hundred postmenopausal women will be included in a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial comparing the effect of nasal salmon calcitonin (200 UI/day) to placebo over two years. Bone microarchitecture at the distal radius and distal tibia will be determined yearly by high-resolution peripheral quantitative computerized tomography (p-QCT) with a voxel size of 82 μm and an irradiation of less than 5 μSv. Serum markers of bone resorption and bone formation will be measured every 6 months. Safety and compliance will be assessed. Primary endpoint is the change in bone microarchitecture; secondary endpoint is the change in markers of bone turnover.</p> <p>Hypothesis</p> <p>The present study should provide new information on the mode of action of nasal calcitonin. We hypothezise that - compared to placebo - calcitonin impacts on microstructural parameters, with a possible difference between weight bearing and non-weight bearing bones.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00372099</p

A framework for the definition and interpretation of the use of surrogate endpoints in interventional trials

Background: Interventional trials that evaluate treatment effects using surrogate endpoints have become increasingly common. This paper describes four linked empirical studies and the development of a framework for defining, interpreting and reporting surrogate endpoints in trials. Methods: As part of developing the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) and SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) extensions for randomised trials reporting surrogate endpoints, we undertook a scoping review, e-Delphi study, consensus meeting, and a web survey to examine current definitions and stakeholder (including clinicians, trial investigators, patients and public partners, journal editors, and health technology experts) interpretations of surrogate endpoints as primary outcome measures in trials. Findings: Current surrogate endpoint definitional frameworks are inconsistent and unclear. Surrogate endpoints are used in trials as a substitute of the treatment effects of an intervention on the target outcome(s) of ultimate interest, events measuring how patients feel, function, or survive. Traditionally the consideration of surrogate endpoints in trials has focused on biomarkers (e.g., HDL cholesterol, blood pressure, tumour response), especially in the medical product regulatory setting. Nevertheless, the concept of surrogacy in trials is potentially broader. Intermediate outcomes that include a measure of function or symptoms (e.g., angina frequency, exercise tolerance) can also be used as substitute for target outcomes (e.g., all-cause mortality)—thereby acting as surrogate endpoints. However, we found a lack of consensus among stakeholders on accepting and interpreting intermediate outcomes in trials as surrogate endpoints or target outcomes. In our assessment, patients and health technology assessment experts appeared more likely to consider intermediate outcomes to be surrogate endpoints than clinicians and regulators. Interpretation: There is an urgent need for better understanding and reporting on the use of surrogate endpoints, especially in the setting of interventional trials. We provide a framework for the definition of surrogate endpoints (biomarkers and intermediate outcomes) and target outcomes in trials to improve future reporting and aid stakeholders' interpretation and use of trial surrogate endpoint evidence

A framework for the definition and interpretation of the use of surrogate endpoints in interventional trials

Background: Interventional trials that evaluate treatment effects using surrogate endpoints have become increasingly common. This paper describes four linked empirical studies and the development of a framework for defining, interpreting and reporting surrogate endpoints in trials. Methods: As part of developing the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) and SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) extensions for randomised trials reporting surrogate endpoints, we undertook a scoping review, e-Delphi study, consensus meeting, and a web survey to examine current definitions and stakeholder (including clinicians, trial investigators, patients and public partners, journal editors, and health technology experts) interpretations of surrogate endpoints as primary outcome measures in trials. Findings: Current surrogate endpoint definitional frameworks are inconsistent and unclear. Surrogate endpoints are used in trials as a substitute of the treatment effects of an intervention on the target outcome(s) of ultimate interest, events measuring how patients feel, function, or survive. Traditionally the consideration of surrogate endpoints in trials has focused on biomarkers (e.g., HDL cholesterol, blood pressure, tumour response), especially in the medical product regulatory setting. Nevertheless, the concept of surrogacy in trials is potentially broader. Intermediate outcomes that include a measure of function or symptoms (e.g., angina frequency, exercise tolerance) can also be used as substitute for target outcomes (e.g., all-cause mortality)-thereby acting as surrogate endpoints. However, we found a lack of consensus among stakeholders on accepting and interpreting intermediate outcomes in trials as surrogate endpoints or target outcomes. In our assessment, patients and health technology assessment experts appeared more likely to consider intermediate outcomes to be surrogate endpoints than clinicians and regulators. Interpretation: There is an urgent need for better understanding and reporting on the use of surrogate endpoints, especially in the setting of interventional trials. We provide a framework for the definition of surrogate endpoints (biomarkers and intermediate outcomes) and target outcomes in trials to improve future reporting and aid stakeholders' interpretation and use of trial surrogate endpoint evidence. Funding: SPIRIT-SURROGATE/CONSORT-SURROGATE project is Medical Research Council Better Research Better Health (MR/V038400/1) funded

CD101 genetic variants modify regulatory and conventional T cell phenotypes and functions.

We recently reported that the risk of sexually acquired HIV-1 infection is increased significantly by variants in the gene encoding CD101, a protein thought to modify inflammatory responses. Using blood samples from individuals with and without these variants, we demonstrate that CD101 variants modify the prevalence of circulating inflammatory cell types and show that CD101 variants are associated with increased proinflammatory cytokine production by circulating T cells. One category of CD101 variants is associated with a reduced capacity of regulatory T cells to suppress T cell cytokine production, resulting in a reduction in the baseline level of immune quiescence. These data are supported by transcriptomics data revealing alterations in the intrinsic regulation of antiviral pathways and HIV resistance genes in individuals with CD101 variants. Our data support the hypothesis that CD101 contributes to homeostatic regulation of bystander inflammation, with CD101 variants altering heterosexual HIV-1 acquisition by facilitating increased prevalence and altered function of T cell subsets

Trials

INTRODUCTION: The Ebola virus disease (EVD) outbreak in 2014-2016 in West Africa was the largest on record and provided an opportunity for large clinical trials and accelerated efforts to develop an effective and safe preventative vaccine. Multiple questions regarding the safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of EVD vaccines remain unanswered. To address these gaps in the evidence base, the Partnership for Research on Ebola Vaccines (PREVAC) trial was designed. This paper describes the design, methods, and baseline results of the PREVAC trial and discusses challenges that led to different protocol amendments. METHODS: This is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 clinical trial of three vaccine strategies against the Ebola virus in healthy volunteers 1 year of age and above. The three vaccine strategies being studied are the rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP vaccine, with and without a booster dose at 56 days, and the Ad26.ZEBOV,MVA-FN-Filo vaccine regimen with Ad26.ZEBOV given as the first dose and the MVA-FN-Filo vaccination given 56 days later. There have been 4 versions of the protocol with those enrolled in Version 4.0 comprising the primary analysis cohort. The primary endpoint is based on the antibody titer against the Ebola virus surface glycoprotein measured 12 months following the final injection. RESULTS: From April 2017 to December 2018, a total of 5002 volunteers were screened and 4789 enrolled. Participants were enrolled at 6 sites in four countries (Guinea, Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Mali). Of the 4789 participants, 2560 (53%) were adults and 2229 (47%) were children. Those < 18 years of age included 549 (12%) aged 1 to 4 years, 750 (16%) 5 to 11 years, and 930 (19%) aged 12-17 years. At baseline, the median (25th, 75th percentile) antibody titer to Ebola virus glycoprotein for 1090 participants was 72 (50, 116) EU/mL. DISCUSSION: The PREVAC trial is evaluating-placebo-controlled-two promising Ebola candidate vaccines in advanced stages of development. The results will address unanswered questions related to short- and long-term safety and immunogenicity for three vaccine strategies in adults and children. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02876328 . Registered on 23 August 2016

Reporting of surrogate endpoints in randomised controlled trial protocols (SPIRIT-Surrogate): extension checklist with explanation and elaboration

Randomised controlled trials often use surrogate endpoints to substitute for a target outcome (an outcome of direct interest and relevance to trial participants, clinicians, and other stakeholders—eg, all cause mortality) to improve efficiency (through shortened duration of follow-up, reduced sample size, and lower research costs), and for ethical or practical reasons. However, their use has a fundamental limitation in terms of uncertainty of the intervention effect on the target outcome and limited information on potential intervention harms. There have been increasing calls for improved reporting of trial protocols that use surrogate endpoints. This report presents the SPIRIT-Surrogate, an extension of the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) checklist, a consensus driven reporting guideline designed for trial protocols using surrogate endpoints as the primary outcome(s). The SPIRIT-Surrogate extension includes nine items modified from the SPIRIT 2013 checklist. The guideline provides examples and explanations for each item. We recommend that all stakeholders (including trial investigators and sponsors, research ethics reviewers, funders, journal editors, and peer reviewers) use this extension in reporting trial protocols that use surrogate endpoints. Its use will allow for improved design of such trials, improved transparency, and interpretation of findings when trials are completed, and ultimately reduced research waste

Reporting of surrogate endpoints in randomised controlled trial reports (CONSORT-Surrogate): extension checklist with explanation and elaboration

Randomised controlled trials commonly use surrogate endpoints to substitute for a target outcome (outcome of direct interest and relevance to trial participants, clinicians, and other stakeholders—eg, all cause mortality) to improve their efficiency (through shorter trial duration, reduced sample size, and thus lower research costs), or for ethical or practical reasons. But reliance on surrogate endpoints can increase the uncertainty of an intervention’s treatment effect and potential failure to provide adequate information on intervention harms, which has led to calls for improved reporting of trials using surrogate endpoints. This report presents a consensus driven reporting guideline for trials using surrogate endpoints as the primary outcomes—the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) extension checklist: CONSORT-Surrogate. The extension includes nine items modified from the CONSORT 2010 checklist and two new items. Examples and explanations for each item are provided. We recommend that all stakeholders (including trial investigators and sponsors, journal editors and peer reviewers, research ethics reviewers, and funders) use this extension in reporting trial reports using surrogate endpoints. Use of this checklist will improve transparency, interpretation, and usefulness of trial findings, and ultimately reduce research waste

Centrality evolution of the charged-particle pseudorapidity density over a broad pseudorapidity range in Pb-Pb collisions at root s(NN)=2.76TeV

Peer reviewe

Phenobarbital, beta-naphthoflavone, clofibrate, and pregnenolone-16alpha-carbonitrile do not affect hepatic thyroid hormone UDP-glucuronosyl transferase activity, and thyroid gland function in mice.

International audienceThe effects of representative liver enzyme inducers such as clofibrate (CLO), phenobarbital (PB), pregnenolone-16alpha-carbonitrile (PCN), and beta-naphthoflavone (NF) on hepatic microsomal thyroxin (T4)- UDP-glucuronosyl transferase (UGT) and triiodothyronine (T3)- UGT activities and thyroid function were evaluated in OF-1 male mice after a 14-day po administration. CLO, PB, and PCN induced histological liver hypertrophy, increases in liver weights, in microsomal protein and cytochrome P450 contents as well as increases in specific UGT activities. Despite this, no significant changes in T4-UGT and T3-UGT activities occurred after treatment by any of these compounds. Furthermore, no significant changes in serum T4 and T3 levels were observed and thyroid histology was not affected. NF treatment induced microvacuolation of hepatocytes but did not affect any of the other tested parameters. The results show that, in contrast to the widely described effects in rats, liver enzyme inducers do not affect hepatic thyroid hormone metabolism and thyroid function in mice, suggesting that this species should be less sensitive to thyroid tumor promotion by hepatic microsomal enzyme inducers than rats

Comparison of the effects of various peroxisome proliferators on peroxisomal enzyme activities, DNA synthesis, and apoptosis in rat and human hepatocyte cultures.

International audiencePeroxisome proliferators (PPs) are a class of rodent nongenotoxic hepatocarcinogens that cause hepatocyte peroxisome proliferation, increased DNA synthesis, and decreased spontaneous apoptosis. We examined the effects of various PPs such as the hypolipidemic agents clofibric acid (CLO), bezafibrate (BEZA), ciprofibrate (CIPRO), and nafenopin (NAFE) and the plasticizer di-(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) on the various parameters in vitro in rat and human hepatocyte cultures. In rat hepatocyte cultures, after 72 h of treatment with the various PPs at 100-500 microM, a compound-dependent increase in acyl CoA oxidase (ACO) and carnitine acetyl transferase (CAT) activities, markers of peroxisome proliferation, was observed with the following potencies: CIPRO = NAFE > BEZA > CLO > DEHP. A minor (120-150%), but significant, no concentration-dependent increase in DNA synthesis and a marked, no compound-dependent and, with the exception of NAFE, no concentration-dependent 60-80% decrease in spontaneous apoptosis was observed with all tested compounds (50-250 microM) after 48 h of treatment. Inhibition of spontaneous apoptosis in PP-treated versus control rat hepatocyte cultures was also observed morphologically. Furthermore, PPs inhibited transforming growth factor beta (TGFbeta)-induced apoptosis but not tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFalpha)/alpha Amanitine (alphaAma)-induced apoptosis in rat hepatocyte cultures. In human hepatocyte cultures, the various PPs at 50-500 microM did not affect peroxisomal enzyme activities, DNA synthesis, or spontaneous and induced (TGFbeta or TNFalpha/alphaAma) apoptosis. The compound-dependent peroxisome proliferation but no compound-dependent disruption of the mitogenic/apoptotic balance elicited by PPs in primary rat hepatocyte cultures supports the hypothesis that oxidative stress is directly linked to the hepatocarcinogenic potential of a given PP in rodents and that disruption of the mitogenic/apoptotic balance contributes to the development of PP-induced hepatocarcinogenesis. In addition, the absence of effects of all PPs on both peroxisome proliferation-associated parameters and mitogenic/apoptotic balance supports the hypothesis that human liver cells are refractory to PP-induced hepatocarcinogenesis