INNODIA Master Protocol for the evaluation of investigational medicinal products in children, adolescents and adults with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes

Background The INNODIA consortium has established a pan-European infrastructure using validated centres to prospectively evaluate clinical data from individuals with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes combined with centralised collection of clinical samples to determine rates of decline in beta-cell function and identify novel biomarkers, which could be used for future stratification of phase 2 clinical trials. Methods In this context, we have developed a Master Protocol, based on the “backbone” of the INNODIA natural history study, which we believe could improve the delivery of phase 2 studies exploring the use of single or combinations of Investigational Medicinal Products (IMPs), designed to prevent or reverse declines in beta-cell function in individuals with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes. Although many IMPs have demonstrated potential efficacy in phase 2 studies, few subsequent phase 3 studies have confirmed these benefits. Currently, phase 2 drug development for this indication is limited by poor evaluation of drug dosage and lack of mechanistic data to understand variable responses to the IMPs. Identification of biomarkers which might permit more robust stratification of participants at baseline has been slow. Discussion The Master Protocol provides (1) standardised assessment of efficacy and safety, (2) comparable collection of mechanistic data, (3) the opportunity to include adaptive designs and the use of shared control groups in the evaluation of combination therapies, and (4) benefits of greater understanding of endpoint variation to ensure more robust sample size calculations and future baseline stratification using existing and novel biomarkers

Nanoelectronic detection of lectin-carbohydrate interactions using carbon nanotubes

International audienc

Validating the TeleStroke Mimic Score

Background and Purpose-Up to 30% of acute stroke evaluations are deemed stroke mimics, and these are common in telestroke as well. We recently published a risk prediction score for use during telestroke encounters to differentiate stroke mimics from ischemic cerebrovascular disease derived and validated in the Partners TeleStroke Network. Using data from 3 distinct US and European telestroke networks, we sought to externally validate the TeleStroke Mimic (TM) score in a broader population. Methods-We evaluated the TM score in 1930 telestroke consults from the University of Utah, Georgia Regents University, and the German TeleMedical Project for Integrative Stroke Care Network. We report the area under the curve in receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis with 95% confidence interval for our previously derived TM score in which lower TM scores correspond with a higher likelihood of being a stroke mimic. Results-Based on final diagnosis at the end of the telestroke consultation, there were 630 of 1930 (32.6%) stroke mimics in the external validation cohort. All 6 variables included in the score were significantly different between patients with ischemic cerebrovascular disease versus stroke mimics. The TM score performed well (area under curve, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.70-0.73; P < 0.001), similar to our prior external validation in the Partners National Telestroke Network. Conclusions-The TM score's ability to predict the presence of a stroke mimic during telestroke consultation in these diverse cohorts was similar to its performance in our original cohort. Predictive decision-support tools like the TM score may help highlight key clinical differences between mimics and patients with stroke during complex, time-critical telestroke evaluations