Establishing the Evidence Bar for Molecular Diagnostics in Personalised Cancer Care

While personalised cancer medicine holds great promise, targeting therapies to the biological characteristics of patients is limited by the number of validated biomarkers currently available. The implementation of biomarkers has undergone many challenges with few biomarkers reaching cancer patients in the clinic. There have been many biomarkers that have been published and claimed to be therapeutically useful, but few become part of the clinical decision-making process due to technical, validation and market access issues. To reduce this attrition rate, there is a significant need for policy makers and reimbursement agencies to define specific evidence requirements for the introduction of biomarkers into clinical practice. Once these requirements are more clearly defined, in an analogous manner to pharmaceuticals, researchers and diagnostic companies can better focus their biomarker research and development on meeting these specific requirements, which should lead to the more rapid introduction of new molecular oncology tests for patient benefit.

Personalised and Precision Medicine in Cancer Clinical Trials: Panacea for Progress or Pandora's Box?

Cancer clinical trials have been one of the key foundations for significant advances in oncology. However, there is a clear recognition within the academic, care delivery and pharmaceutical/biotech communities that our current model of clinical trial discovery and development is no longer fit for purpose. Delivering transformative cancer care should increasingly be our mantra, rather than maintaining the status quo of, at best, the often miniscule incremental benefits that are observed with many current clinical trials. As we enter the era of precision medicine for personalised cancer care (precision and personalised medicine), it is important that we capture and utilise our greater understanding of the biology of disease to drive innovative approaches in clinical trial design and implementation that can lead to a step change in cancer care delivery. A number of advances have been practice changing (e.g. imatinib mesylate in chronic myeloid leukaemia, Herceptin in erb-B2-positive breast cancer), and increasingly we are seeing the promise of a number of newer approaches, particularly in diseases like lung cancer and melanoma. Targeting immune checkpoints has recently yielded some highly promising results. New algorithms that maximise the effectiveness of clinical trials, through for example a multi-stage, multi-arm type design are increasingly gaining traction. However, our enthusiasm for the undoubted advances that have been achieved are being tempered by a realisation that these new approaches may have significant cost implications. This article will address these competing issues, mainly from a European perspective, highlight the problems and challenges to healthcare systems and suggest potential solutions that will ensure that the cost/value rubicon is addressed in a way that allows stakeholders to work together to deliver optimal cost-effective cancer care, the benefits of which can be transferred directly to our patients.

All the World's a Stage: Facilitating Discovery Science and Improved Cancer Care through the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health

The recent explosion of genetic and clinical data generated from tumor genome analysis presents an unparalleled opportunity to enhance our understanding of cancer, but this opportunity is compromised by the reluctance of many in the scientific community to share datasets and the lack of interoperability between different data platforms. The Global Alliance for Genomics and Health is addressing these barriers and challenges through a cooperative framework that encourages "team science" and responsible data sharing, complemented by the development of a series of application program interfaces that link different data platforms, thus breaking down traditional silos and liberating the data to enable new discoveries and ultimately benefit patients.

Epidemiology, Patterns of Care, and Mortality for Patients With Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome in Intensive Care Units in 50 Countries

Importance Limited information exists about the epidemiology, recognition, management, and outcomes of patients with the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

Objectives To evaluate intensive care unit (ICU) incidence and outcome of ARDS and to assess clinician recognition, ventilation management, and use of adjuncts—for example prone positioning—in routine clinical practice for patients fulfilling the ARDS Berlin Definition.

Design, Setting, and Participants The Large Observational Study to Understand the Global Impact of Severe Acute Respiratory Failure (LUNG SAFE) was an international, multicenter, prospective cohort study of patients undergoing invasive or noninvasive ventilation, conducted during 4 consecutive weeks in the winter of 2014 in a convenience sample of 459 ICUs from 50 countries across 5 continents.

Exposures Acute respiratory distress syndrome.

Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was ICU incidence of ARDS. Secondary outcomes included assessment of clinician recognition of ARDS, the application of ventilatory management, the use of adjunctive interventions in routine clinical practice, and clinical outcomes from ARDS.

Results Of 29 144 patients admitted to participating ICUs, 3022 (10.4%) fulfilled ARDS criteria. Of these, 2377 patients developed ARDS in the first 48 hours and whose respiratory failure was managed with invasive mechanical ventilation. The period prevalence of mild ARDS was 30.0% (95% CI, 28.2%-31.9%); of moderate ARDS, 46.6% (95% CI, 44.5%-48.6%); and of severe ARDS, 23.4% (95% CI, 21.7%-25.2%). ARDS represented 0.42 cases per ICU bed over 4 weeks and represented 10.4% (95% CI, 10.0%-10.7%) of ICU admissions and 23.4% of patients requiring mechanical ventilation. Clinical recognition of ARDS ranged from 51.3% (95% CI, 47.5%-55.0%) in mild to 78.5% (95% CI, 74.8%-81.8%) in severe ARDS. Less than two-thirds of patients with ARDS received a tidal volume 8 of mL/kg or less of predicted body weight. Plateau pressure was measured in 40.1% (95% CI, 38.2-42.1), whereas 82.6% (95% CI, 81.0%-84.1%) received a positive end-expository pressure (PEEP) of less than 12 cm H2O. Prone positioning was used in 16.3% (95% CI, 13.7%-19.2%) of patients with severe ARDS. Clinician recognition of ARDS was associated with higher PEEP, greater use of neuromuscular blockade, and prone positioning. Hospital mortality was 34.9% (95% CI, 31.4%-38.5%) for those with mild, 40.3% (95% CI, 37.4%-43.3%) for those with moderate, and 46.1% (95% CI, 41.9%-50.4%) for those with severe ARDS.

Conclusions and Relevance Among ICUs in 50 countries, the period prevalence of ARDS was 10.4% of ICU admissions. This syndrome appeared to be underrecognized and undertreated and associated with a high mortality rate. These findings indicate the potential for improvement in the management of patients with ARDS.

Alpha-2 agonists for sedation of mechanically ventilated adults in intensive care units: a systematic review

BACKGROUND: Care of critically ill patients in intensive care units (ICUs) often requires potentially invasive or uncomfortable procedures, such as mechanical ventilation (MV). Sedation can alleviate pain and discomfort, provide protection from stressful or harmful events, prevent anxiety and promote sleep. Various sedative agents are available for use in ICUs. In the UK, the most commonly used sedatives are propofol (Diprivan(®), AstraZeneca), benzodiazepines [e.g. midazolam (Hypnovel(®), Roche) and lorazepam (Ativan(®), Pfizer)] and alpha-2 adrenergic receptor agonists [e.g. dexmedetomidine (Dexdor(®), Orion Corporation) and clonidine (Catapres(®), Boehringer Ingelheim)]. Sedative agents vary in onset/duration of effects and in their side effects. The pattern of sedation of alpha-2 agonists is quite different from that of other sedatives in that patients can be aroused readily and their cognitive performance on psychometric tests is usually preserved. Moreover, respiratory depression is less frequent after alpha-2 agonists than after other sedative agents.

OBJECTIVES: To conduct a systematic review to evaluate the comparative effects of alpha-2 agonists (dexmedetomidine and clonidine) and propofol or benzodiazepines (midazolam and lorazepam) in mechanically ventilated adults admitted to ICUs.

DATA SOURCES: We searched major electronic databases (e.g. MEDLINE without revisions, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) from 1999 to 2014.

METHODS: Evidence was considered from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing dexmedetomidine with clonidine or dexmedetomidine or clonidine with propofol or benzodiazepines such as midazolam, lorazepam and diazepam (Diazemuls(®), Actavis UK Limited). Primary outcomes included mortality, duration of MV, length of ICU stay and adverse events. One reviewer extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included trials. A second reviewer cross-checked all the data extracted. Random-effects meta-analyses were used for data synthesis.

RESULTS: Eighteen RCTs (2489 adult patients) were included. One trial at unclear risk of bias compared dexmedetomidine with clonidine and found that target sedation was achieved in a higher number of patients treated with dexmedetomidine with lesser need for additional sedation. The remaining 17 trials compared dexmedetomidine with propofol or benzodiazepines (midazolam or lorazepam). Trials varied considerably with regard to clinical population, type of comparators, dose of sedative agents, outcome measures and length of follow-up. Overall, risk of bias was generally high or unclear. In particular, few trials blinded outcome assessors. Compared with propofol or benzodiazepines (midazolam or lorazepam), dexmedetomidine had no significant effects on mortality [risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 1.24, I (2) = 0%; p = 0.78]. Length of ICU stay (mean difference -1.26 days, 95% CI -1.96 to -0.55 days, I (2) = 31%; p = 0.0004) and time to extubation (mean difference -1.85 days, 95% CI -2.61 to -1.09 days, I (2) = 0%; p < 0.00001) were significantly shorter among patients who received dexmedetomidine. No difference in time to target sedation range was observed between sedative interventions (I (2) = 0%; p = 0.14). Dexmedetomidine was associated with a higher risk of bradycardia (RR 1.88, 95% CI 1.28 to 2.77, I (2) = 46%; p = 0.001).

LIMITATIONS: Trials varied considerably with regard to participants, type of comparators, dose of sedative agents, outcome measures and length of follow-up. Overall, risk of bias was generally high or unclear. In particular, few trials blinded assessors.

CONCLUSIONS: Evidence on the use of clonidine in ICUs is very limited. Dexmedetomidine may be effective in reducing ICU length of stay and time to extubation in critically ill ICU patients. Risk of bradycardia but not of overall mortality is higher among patients treated with dexmedetomidine. Well-designed RCTs are needed to assess the use of clonidine in ICUs and identify subgroups of patients that are more likely to benefit from the use of dexmedetomidine.

STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014014101.

FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme. The Health Services Research Unit is core funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates.

Clinical Application of Poly(ADP-Ribose) Polymerase Inhibitors in High-Grade Serous Ovarian Cancer

: High-grade serous ovarian cancer is characterized by genomic instability, with one half of all tumors displaying defects in the important DNA repair pathway of homologous recombination. Given the action of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors in targeting tumors with deficiencies in this repair pathway by loss of BRCA1/2, ovarian tumors could be an attractive population for clinical application of this therapy. PARP inhibitors have moved into clinical practice in the past few years, with approval from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) within the past 2 years. The U.S. FDA approval of olaparib applies to fourth line treatment in germline BRCA-mutant ovarian cancer, and European EMA approval to olaparib maintenance in both germline and somatic BRCA-mutant platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. In order to widen the ovarian cancer patient population that would benefit from PARP inhibitors, predictive biomarkers based on a clear understanding of the mechanism of action are required. Additionally, a better understanding of the toxicity profile is needed if PARP inhibitors are to be used in the curative, rather than the palliative, setting. We reviewed the development of PARP inhibitors in phase I-III clinical trials, including combination trials of PARP inhibitors and chemotherapy/antiangiogenics, the approval for these agents, the mechanisms of resistance, and the outstanding issues, including the development of biomarkers and the rate of long-term hematologic toxicities with these agents.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor olaparib has recently received approval from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA), with a second agent (rucaparib) likely to be approved in the near future. However, the patient population with potential benefit from PARP inhibitors is likely wider than that of germline BRCA mutation-associated disease, and biomarkers are in development to enable the selection of patients with the potential for clinical benefit from these agents. Questions remain regarding the toxicities of PARP inhibitors, limiting the use of these agents in the prophylactic or adjuvant setting until more information is available. The indications for olaparib as indicated by the FDA and EMA are reviewed.

Acute care teaching in the undergraduate nursing curriculum

AIM: To incorporate basic aspects of acute care into the undergraduate nursing programme by providing an opportunity for the development of knowledge and skills in the early recognition and assessment of deteriorating patients on general hospital wards.
BACKGROUND: Acute care initiatives implemented in the hospital setting to improve the identification and management of 'at risk' patients have focused on the provision of education for trained or qualified staff. However, to ensure student nurses are 'fit to practice' at the point of registration, it has been recommended that acute care theory and skills are incorporated into the undergraduate nursing curriculum.
PRACTICE DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE: An 'Integrated Nursing Care' module was incorporated into year 3 of the undergraduate nursing programme to introduce students to acute care theory and practice. Module content focuses on the early detection and management of acute deterioration in patients with respiratory, cardiac, neurological or renal insufficiencies. We used a competency-based framework to ensure the application of theory to practice through the use of group seminars. High-fidelity patient-simulated clinical scenarios were a key feature. The United Kingdom Resuscitation Council Intermediate Life Support course is also an important component of the module.
CONCLUSIONS: Incorporating the Integrated Nursing Care module into the undergraduate nursing curriculum provides pre-registration students the opportunity to develop their knowledge and skills in acute care.
RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: The provision of undergraduate education in care of the acutely ill patient in hospital is essential to improve nurses' competence and confidence in assessing and managing deteriorating patients in general wards at the point of registration.