Topical clobetasol for the treatment of toxic epidermal necrolysis: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BackgroundToxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) is a rare systemic allergic drug eruption with high patient mortality. Currently, no established treatments have been shown to be effective for TEN beyond supportive care. Prior studies of systemic corticosteroids have yielded conflicting data, with some showing a possible benefit and others reporting in increased mortality. However, topical steroids have shown promise for treatment of ocular sequelae of TEN, such as scarring and vision loss. We have designed a randomized controlled trial to evaluate topical clobetasol for treatment of the epidermal manifestations of TEN. In addition, we propose genetic studies to characterize the TEN transcriptome and alterations in cutaneous gene expression that might occur following topical steroid treatment.Methods/designThis split-body randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase IIa proof-of-concept trial will evaluate the safety and efficacy of once-daily topical clobetasol applied to the skin of patients with TEN. This multicenter trial will recruit a total of 15 patients between the ages of 12 and 85 from the University of California Davis Medical Center and Shriners Hospital for Children inpatient burn units. Designated treatment areas on opposite sides of the body will be treated with blinded clobetasol 0.05% ointment or control petrolatum ointment daily for 14 days. On day 3 of therapy, a biopsy will be taken from the treated area for genetic studies. The primary study aims will be to establish the safety of topical clobetasol treatment and determine the time to cessation of skin detachment for the control and clobetasol-treated areas. Secondary endpoints will evaluate efficacy using parameters such as time to 90% re-epithelialization and percentage of affected skin at 0, 3, 6, 9, 12 and 15 days. Genomic DNA and RNA will be obtained from biopsy samples, to characterize the TEN transcriptome and identify changes in gene expression after topical steroid treatment.DiscussionTopical steroids have shown promise for treating ocular complications of TEN, but to date have not been evaluated for cutaneous manifestations of the disease. This trial will investigate clinical and molecular outcomes of topical clobetasol application and hopefully provide insight into the disease pathophysiology.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02319616. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02351037

Monitoring metrics over time: Why clinical trialists need to systematically collect site performance metrics

Background: Over the last decade, there has been an increasing interest in risk-based monitoring (RBM) in clinical trials, resulting in a number of guidelines from regulators and its inclusion in ICH GCP. However, there is a lack of detail on how to approach RBM from a practical perspective, and insufficient understanding of best practice. Purpose: We present a method for clinical trials units to track their metrics within clinical trials using descriptive statistics and visualisations. Research Design: We suggest descriptive statistics and visualisations within a SWAT methodology. Study Sample: We illustrate this method using the metrics from TEMPER, a monitoring study carried out in three trials at the MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL. Data Collection: The data collection for TEMPER is described in DOI: 10.1177/1740774518793379. Results: We show the results and discuss a protocol for a Study-Within-A-Trial (SWAT 167) for those wishing to use the method. Conclusions: The potential benefits metric tracking brings to clinical trials include enhanced assessment of sites for potential corrective action, improved evaluation and contextualisation of the influence of metrics and their thresholds, and the establishment of best practice in RBM. The standardisation of the collection of such monitoring data would benefit both individual trials and the clinical trials community

Oral Cannabidiol Does Not Produce a Signal for Abuse Liability in Frequent Marijuana Smokers

Background—Cannabidiol (CBD) is a naturally occurring constituent of the marijuana plant. In the past few years, there has been great interest in the therapeutic effects of isolated CBD and it is currently being explored for numerous disease conditions (e.g., pain, epilepsy, cancer, various drug dependencies). However, CBD remains a Schedule I drug on the U.S. Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Despite its status, there are no well-controlled data available regarding its abuse liability. Methods—Healthy, frequent marijuana users (n=31) were enrolled in this within subject, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multisite study that administered oral cannabidiol (0, 200, 400, 800 mg) alone and in combination with smoked marijuana (0.01%, 5.3-5.8% THC). Participants received one dose combination across 8 once-weekly outpatient sessions (7.5 hrs). The primary findings on the drug interaction effects were previously reported (Haney et al., 2016). The present study is a secondary analysis of the data to examine the abuse liability profile of oral cannabidiol (200, 400, 800 mg) in comparison to oral placebo and active smoked marijuana (5.3-5.8% THC). Results—Active marijuana reliably produced abuse-related subjective effects (e.g., high) (p \u3c .05). However, CBD was placebo-like on all measures collected (p \u3e .05). Conclusions—Overall, CBD did not display any signals of abuse liability at the doses tested and these data may help inform U.S. regulatory decisions regarding CBD schedule on the CSA

Lack of transparent reporting of trial monitoring approaches in randomised controlled trials: A systematic review of contemporary protocol papers

Background: Monitoring is essential to ensure patient safety and data integrity in clinical trials as per Good Clinical Practice. The Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials Statement and its checklist guides authors to include monitoring in their protocols. We investigated how well monitoring was reported in published ‘protocol papers’ for contemporary randomised controlled trials. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed to identify eligible protocol papers published in selected journals between 1 January 2020 and 31 May 2020. Protocol papers were classified by whether they reported monitoring and, if so, by the details of monitoring. Data were summarised descriptively. Results: Of 811 protocol papers for randomised controlled trials, 386 (48%; 95% CI: 44%–51%) explicitly reported some monitoring information. Of these, 20% (77/386) reported monitoring information consistent with an on-site monitoring approach, and 39% (152/386) with central monitoring, 26% (101/386) with a mixed approach, while 14% (54/386) did not provide sufficient information to specify an approach. Only 8% (30/386) of randomised controlled trials reported complete details about all of scope, frequency and organisation of monitoring; frequency of monitoring was the least reported. However, 6% (25/386) of papers used the term ‘audit’ to describe ‘monitoring’. Discussion: Monitoring information was reported in only approximately half of the protocol papers. Suboptimal reporting of monitoring hinders the clinical community from having the full information on which to judge the validity of a trial and jeopardises the value of protocol papers and the credibility of the trial itself. Greater efforts are needed to promote the transparent reporting of monitoring to journal editors and authors

Examination of Fluconazole-Induced Alopecia in an Animal Model and Human Cohort.

Fluconazole-induced alopecia is a significant problem for patients receiving long-term therapy. We evaluated the hair cycle changes of fluconazole in a rat model and investigated potential molecular mechanisms. Plasma and tissue levels of retinoic acid were not found to be causal. Human patients with alopecia attributed to fluconazole also underwent detailed assessment and in both our murine model and human cohort fluconazole induced telogen effluvium. Future work further examining the mechanism of fluconazole-induced alopecia should be undertaken

Access to routinely collected health data for clinical trials - review of successful data requests to UK registries.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials generally each collect their own data despite routinely collected health data (RCHD) increasing in quality and breadth. Our aim is to quantify UK-based randomised controlled trials (RCTs) accessing RCHD for participant data, characterise how these data are used and thereby recommend how more trials could use RCHD. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of RCTs accessing RCHD from at least one registry in the UK between 2013 and 2018 for the purposes of informing or supplementing participant data. A list of all registries holding RCHD in the UK was compiled. In cases where registries published release registers, these were searched for RCTs accessing RCHD. Where no release register was available, registries were contacted to request a list of RCTs. For each identified RCT, information was collected from all publicly available sources (release registers, websites, protocol etc.). The search and data extraction were undertaken between January and May 2019. RESULTS: We identified 160 RCTs accessing RCHD between 2013 and 2018 from a total of 22 registries; this corresponds to only a very small proportion of all UK RCTs (about 3%). RCTs accessing RCHD were generally large (median sample size 1590), commonly evaluating treatments for cancer or cardiovascular disease. Most of the included RCTs accessed RCHD from NHS Digital (68%), and the most frequently accessed datasets were mortality (76%) and hospital visits (55%). RCHD was used to inform the primary trial (82%) and long-term follow-up (57%). There was substantial variation in how RCTs used RCHD to inform participant outcome measures. A limitation was the lack of information and transparency from registries and RCTs with respect to which datasets have been accessed and for what purposes. CONCLUSIONS: In the last five years, only a small minority of UK-based RCTs have accessed RCHD to inform participant data. We ask for improved accessibility, confirmed data quality and joined-up thinking between the registries and the regulatory authorities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019123088

PANTHER: AZD8931, inhibitor of EGFR, ERBB2 and ERBB3 signalling, combined with FOLFIRI: a Phase I/II study to determine the importance of schedule and activity in colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND: Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) is a therapeutic target to which HER2/HER3 activation may contribute resistance. This Phase I/II study examined the toxicity and efficacy of high-dose pulsed AZD8931, an EGFR/HER2/HER3 inhibitor, combined with chemotherapy, in metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). METHODS: Treatment-naive patients received 4-day pulses of AZD8931 with irinotecan/5-FU (FOLFIRI) in a Phase I/II single-arm trial. Primary endpoint for Phase I was dose limiting toxicity (DLT); for Phase II best overall response. Samples were analysed for pharmacokinetics, EGFR dimers in circulating exosomes and Comet assay quantitating DNA damage. RESULTS: Eighteen patients received FOLFIRI and AZD8931. At 160 mg bd, 1 patient experienced G3 DLT; 160 mg bd was used for cohort expansion. No grade 5 adverse events (AE) reported. Seven (39%) and 1 (6%) patients experienced grade 3 and grade 4 AEs, respectively. Of 12 patients receiving 160 mg bd, best overall response rate was 25%, median PFS and OS were 8.7 and 21.2 months, respectively. A reduction in circulating HER2/3 dimer in the two responding patients after 12 weeks treatment was observed. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of pulsed high-dose AZD8931 with FOLFIRI has acceptable toxicity. Further studies of TKI sequencing may establish a role for pulsed use of such agents rather than continuous exposure. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT01862003