Development of a core outcome set for venous leg ulceration (CoreVen) research evaluations (protocol)

BackgroundA venous leg ulcer is a chronic leg wound caused by poor venous blood circulation in the lower limbs. It is a recurring condition causing pain, malodour, reduced mobility, and depression. Randomised controlled trials evaluating treatments for venous leg ulcers provide important evidence to inform clinical decision-making. However, for findings to be useful, outcomes need to be clinically meaningful, consistently reported across trials, and fully reported. Research has identified the large number of outcomes reported in venous leg ulcer trials, impacting both synthesis of results, and clinical decision-making. To address this, a core outcome set will be developed. A core outcome set is an agreed standardised set of outcomes which should be, as a minimum, measured and reported in all trials which evaluate treatment effectiveness for a given indication. A core outcome set has the potential to reduce research waste, improve the utility of RCTs, reduce reporting bias, facilitate treatment comparisons across different sources of evidence and expedite the production of systematic reviews, meta-analyses and evidence-based clinical guidelines.AimThe aim of this project is to develop a core outcome set for research evaluating the effectiveness of interventions for treating venous leg ulceration.MethodsThrough a scoping review of the literature on venous leg ulceration, we will firstly identify a list of candidate outcome domains (broad categories in relation to what is being measured) from randomised controlled trials and qualitative research, and outcomes (specific methods in relation to what is being measured). In two further stages, we will use the resulting lists of outcome domains and outcomes to design two online surveys. A range of stakeholders will be invited to participate in the surveys and they will be asked to indicate which outcome domains and outcomes are most important and should be considered as core in future research reports.     

中医体质研究40年回顾与展望

文章回顾中医体质研究40年来在6大理论创新、3大技术创新、4大转化应用、2大学术平台方面取得的辉煌成就。展望未来，中医体质研究将积极策应国家需求，进一步发挥其原创优势、深化理论研究、完善技术方法、加快平台建设、提升服务能力，为实施“健康中国”战略作贡献。     

Real-World Palbociclib Use in HR+/HER2− Advanced Breast Cancer in Canada: The IRIS Study

Background: Palbociclib is a selective cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitor used in combination with aromatase inhibitors or fulvestrant for patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative advanced/metastatic breast cancer (ABC/MBC). Palbociclib was the first CDK 4/6 inhibitor approved for HR+/HER2− ABC/MBC treatment in Canada in combination with letrozole (P+L) as an initial endocrine-based therapy (approved March 2016), or with fulvestrant (P+F) following disease progression after prior endocrine therapy (approved May 2017). The Ibrance Real World Insights (IRIS) study ({"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT03159195","term_id":"NCT03159195"}}NCT03159195) collected real-world outcomes data for palbociclib-treated patients in several countries, including Canada. Methods: This retrospective chart review included women with HR+/HER2− ABC/MBC receiving P+L or P+F in Canada. Physicians reviewed medical records for up to 14 patients, abstracting demographic and clinical characteristics, treatment patterns, and clinical outcomes. Progression-free rates (PFRs) and survival rates (SRs) at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months were estimated via Kaplan–Meier analysis. Results: Thirty-three physicians examined medical records for 247 patients (P+L, n = 214; P+F, n = 33). Median follow-up was 8.8 months for P+L and 7.0 months for P+F. Most patients were initiated on palbociclib 125 mg/d (P+L, 90.2%; P+F, 84.8%). Doses were reduced in 16.6% of P+L and 14.3% of P+F patients initiating palbociclib at 125 mg/d. The PFR for P+L was 90.3% at 12 months and 78.2% at 18 months; corresponding SRs were 95.6% and 93.0%. For P+F, 6-month PFR was 91.0%; 12-month SR was 100.0%. Conclusions: Dose reduction rates were low and PFR and SR were high in this Canadian real-world assessment of P+L and P+F treatments, suggesting that palbociclib combinations are well tolerated and effective.     

Systematic review of drug–drug interactions between rifamycins and anticoagulant and antiplatelet agents and considerations for management

Rifamycins (rifampin, rifabutin, and rifapentine) play an essential role in the treatment of mycobacterial and some nonmycobacterial infections. They also induce the activity of various drug transporting and metabolizing enzymes, which can impact the concentrations and efficacy of substrates. Many anticoagulant and antiplatelet (AC/AP) agents are substrates of these enzymes and have narrow therapeutic indices, leading to risks of thrombosis or bleeding when coadministered with rifamycins. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the effects on AC/AP pharmacokinetics, laboratory markers, and clinical safety and efficacy of combined use with rifamycins. A systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidance was performed. The PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases were queried for English-language reports on combination use of rifamycins and AC/AP agents from database inception through August 2021. The 29 studies identified examined warfarin (n = 17), direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) (n = 8), and antiplatelet agents (n = 4) combined with rifampin (n = 28) or rifabutin (n = 1). Eleven studies were case reports or small case series; 14 reported on pharmacokinetic or laboratory markers in healthy volunteers. Rifampin-warfarin combinations led to reductions in warfarin area under the curve (AUC) of 15%–74%, with variability by warfarin isomer and study. Warfarin dose increases of up to 3–5 times prerifampin doses were required to maintain coagulation parameters in the therapeutic range. DOAC AUCs were decreased by 20%–67%, with variability by individual agent and with rifampin versus rifabutin. The active metabolite of clopidogrel increased substantially with rifampin coadministration, whereas prasugrel was largely unaffected and ticagrelor saw decreases. Our review suggests most combinations of AC/AP agents and rifampin are problematic. Further studies are required to determine whether rifabutin or rifapentine could be safe alternatives for coadministration with AC/AP drugs.     

Correcting forensic DNA errors

DNA mixture interpretation can produce opposing conclusions by qualified forensic analysts, even within the same laboratory. The long-delayed publication of the National Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST) study of 109 North American crime laboratories in this journal demonstrates this most clearly. This latest study supports earlier work that shows common methods such as the Combined Probability of Inclusion (CPI) have wrongly included innocent people as contributors to DNA mixtures. The 2016 President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology report concluded, “In summary, the interpretation of complex DNA mixtures with the CPI statistic has been an inadequately specified—and thus inappropriately subjective—method. As such, the method is clearly not foundationally valid” [7]. The adoption of probabilistic genotyping by many laboratories will certainly prevent some of these errors from occurring in the future, but the same laboratories that produced past errors can also now review old cases with their new software—without additional bench work. It is critical that laboratories adopt procedures and policies to do this.     

Differences in Evidentiary Requirements Between European Medicines Agency and European Health Technology Assessment of Oncology Drugs—Can Alignment Be Enhanced?

ObjectivesNational health technology assessments (HTAs) across Europe show differences in evidentiary requirements from assessments by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), affecting time to patient access for drugs after marketing authorization. This article analyzes the differences between EMA and HTA bodies’ evidentiary requirements for oncology drugs and provides recommendations on potential further alignment to minimize and optimally manage the remaining differences.MethodsInterviews were performed with representatives and drug assessment experts from EMA and HTA bodies to identify evidentiary requirements for several subdomains and collect recommendations for potentially more efficiently addressing differences. A comparative analysis of acceptability of the evidence by EMA and the HTA bodies and for potential further alignment between both authorities was conducted.ResultsAcceptability of available evidence was higher for EMA than HTA bodies. HTA bodies and EMA were aligned on evidentiary requirements in most cases. The subdomains showing notable differences concerned the acceptance of limitation of the target population and extrapolation of target populations, progression-free survival and (other) surrogate endpoints as outcomes, cross-over designs, short trial duration, and clinical relevance of the effect size. Recommendations for reducing or optimally managing differences included joint early dialogues, joint relative effectiveness assessments, and the use of managed entry agreements.ConclusionsDifferences between assessments of EMA and HTA bodies were identified in important areas of evidentiary requirements. Increased alignment between EMA and HTA bodies is suggested and recommendations for realization are discussed.