Solid phase synthesis of Smac/DIABLO-derived peptides using a 'Safety-Catch' resin:Identification of potent XIAP BIR3 antagonists

The N-terminal sequence of the Smac/DIABLO protein is known to be involved in binding to the BIR3 domain of the anti-apoptotic proteins IAPs, antagonizing their action. Short peptides and peptide mimetics based on the first 4-residues of Smac/DIABLO have been demonstrated to re-sensitize resistant cancer cells, over-expressing IAPs, to apoptosis. Based on the well-defined structural basis for this interaction, a small focused library of C-terminal capped Smac/DIABLO-derived peptides was designed in silico using docking to the XIAP BIR3 domain. The top-ranked computational hits were conveniently synthesized employing Solid Phase Synthesis (SPS) on an alkane sulfonamide 'Safety-Catch' resin. This novel approach afforded the rapid synthesis of the target peptide library with high flexibility for the introduction of various C-terminal amide-capping groups. The library members were obtained in high yield (>65%) and purity (>85%), upon nucleophilic release from the activated resin by treatment with various amine nucleophiles. In vitro caspase-9 activity reconstitution assays of the peptides in the presence of the recombinant BIR3-domain of human XIAP (500nM) revealed N-methylalanyl-tertiarybutylglycinyl-4-(R)-phenoxyprolyl-N-biphenylmethyl carboxamide (11a) to be the most potent XIAP BIR3 antagonist of the series synthesized inducing 93% recovery of caspase-9 activity, when used at 1µM concentration. Compound (11a) also demonstrated moderate cytotoxicity against the breast cancer cell lines MDA-MB-231 and MCF-7, compared to the Smac/DIABLO-derived wild-type peptide sequences that were totally inactive in the same cell lines.

Hydrogel-forming microneedle arrays exhibit antimicrobial properties:potential for enhanced patient safety

We describe, for the first time, the microbial characterisation of hydrogel-forming polymeric microneedle arrays and the potential for passage of microorganisms into skin following microneedle penetration. Uniquely, we also present insights into the storage stability of these hydroscopic formulations, from physical and microbiological viewpoints, and examine clinical performance and safety in human volunteers. Experiments employing excised porcine skin and radiolabelled microorganisms showed that microorganisms can penetrate skin beyond the stratum corneum following microneedle puncture. Indeed, the numbers of microorganisms crossing the stratum corneum following microneedle puncture were greater than 105 cfu in each case. However, no microorganisms crossed the epidermal skin. When using a 21G hypodermic needle, more than 104 microorganisms penetrated into the viable tissue and 106 cfu of Candida albicans and Staphylococcus epidermidis completely crossed the epidermal skin in 24 h. The hydrogel-forming materials contained no microorganisms following de-moulding and exhibited no microbial growth during storage, while also maintaining their mechanical strength, apart from when stored at relative humidities of 86%. No microbial penetration through the swelling microneedles was detectable, while human volunteer studies confirmed that skin or systemic infection is highly unlikely when polymeric microneedles are used for transdermal drug delivery. Since no pharmacopoeial standards currently exist for microneedle-based products, the exact requirements for a proprietary product based on hydrogel-forming microneedles are at present unclear. However, we are currently working towards a comprehensive specification set for this microneedle system that may inform future developments in this regard.

Variation of clinical outcomes used in glaucoma randomised controlled trials:a systematic review

Purpose: In randomised clinical trials (RCTs) the selection of appropriate outcomes is crucial to the assessment of whether one intervention is better than another. The purpose of this review is to identify different clinical outcomes reported in glaucoma trials.

Methods We conducted a systematic review of glaucoma RCTs. A sample or selection of glaucoma trials were included bounded by a time frame (between 2006 and March 2012). Only studies in English language were considered. All clinical measured and reported outcomes were included. The possible variations of clinical outcomes were defined prior to data analysis. Information on reported clinical outcomes was tabulated and analysed using descriptive statistics. Other data recorded included type of intervention and glaucoma, duration of the study, defined primary outcomes, and outcomes used for sample size calculation, if nominated.

Results The search strategy identified 4323 potentially relevant abstracts. There were 315 publications retrieved, of which 233 RCTs were included. A total of 967 clinical measures were reported. There were large variations in the definitions used to describe different outcomes and their measures. Intraocular pressure was the most commonly reported outcome (used in 201 RCTs, 86%) with a total of 422 measures (44%). Safety outcomes were commonly reported in 145 RCTs (62%) whereas visual field outcomes were used in 38 RCTs (16%).

Conclusions There is a large variation in the reporting of clinical outcomes in glaucoma RCTs. This lack of standardisation may impair the ability to evaluate the evidence of glaucoma interventions.

Risk assessment of neonatal excipient exposure:Lessons from food safety and other areas

Newborn babies can require significant amounts of medication containing excipients intended to improve the drug formulation. Most medicines given to neonates have been developed for adults or older children and contain excipients thought to be safe in these age groups. Many excipients have been used widely in neonates without obvious adverse effects. Some excipients may be toxic in high amounts in which case they need careful risk assessment. Alternatively, it is conceivable that ill-founded fears about excipients mean that potentially useful medicines are not made available to newborn babies. Choices about excipient exposure can occur at several stages throughout the lifecycle of a medicine, from product development through to clinical use. Making these choices requires a scalable approach to analysing the overall risk. In this contribution we examine these issues.

Prospective clinical audit of chloral hydrate administration practices in a neonatal unit

Aim: Chloral hydrate is generally considered a safe and effective single dosing procedural sedative for neonates in the clinical setting. However, its safety profile as a repetitive dosing maintenance sedative is largely unknown. This study aimed to document current administration practices of chloral hydrate in the Neonatal Unit, Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia, over a 6-month period.

Methods: Patients who had been prescribed chloral hydrate during the specified audit period were recruited into the study and prospectively followed for a period of 28 days, or until they were discharged from the unit. Demographic data were collected on recruitment, and daily documentation of chloral hydrate administration was recorded.

Results: A total of 238 doses of chloral hydrate were administered to a cohort of 32 patients during the study period. The majority of the audited doses (84%) were ordered as repeating doses. Doses were more likely to be given at night than during the day, and the median dosage for repetitive dosing was found to be above the study site's recommended dosing range. Pre-dose and/or post-dose assessment of distress/agitation accompanied dosage approximately half of the time. The audit did not reveal any recognisable pattern of sedation maintenance or weaning process for patients who received multiple doses.

Conclusions: Health-care professionals caring for hospitalised infants should be made aware of the potential risks of chloral hydrate as a repetitive dosing sedative, and of the importance of systematically evaluating the appropriateness and effectiveness of utilising such pharmacological intervention for managing and treating distress.

Overview of clinical outcome measures used in glaucoma randomised controlled trials (RCTs)

Background: In clinical trials the selection of appropriate outcomes is crucial to the assessment of whether one intervention is better than another. Glaucoma is a chronic eye disease and the leading cause of irreversible blindness in the world. A variety of outcomes has been used and reported in glaucoma RCTs.

Objectives: The purpose of this review is to identify different clinical outcome measures used in glaucoma RCTs between January 2006 and March 2012.

Methods: A systematic review was conducted using standard methodology. We searched for RCTs in glaucoma published in English with no restrictions on the population type or size, or applied interventions. All clinical outcomes were included. Patient-reported, pharmacokinetic and economic outcomes were excluded.

Results: The search strategy identified 4288 potentially relevant abstracts. There were 315 publications retrieved, of which 233 RCTs were included. A total of 967 clinical measures were reported. There were large variations in the definitions used to describe different outcomes and their measures. Intraocular pressure (IOP) was the most commonly reported outcome (used in 201 RCTs, 86%) with a total of 422 measures (44%). Amongst the IOPrelated measures, the most commonly used was mean IOP (n=143, 15% of all measures). Safety outcomes were commonly reported, in 145 RCTs (62%) whereas visual field outcomes were utilized in 38 RCTs (16%).

Conclusions: There is a large variability in clinical outcomes used for glaucoma RCTs and in the way each outcome is reported. This lack of standardisation may impair the ability to evaluate the evidence of glaucoma interventions.

Patient safety and communication: A new assessment for doctors trained in countries where language differs from that of the host country: Results of a pilot using a domain-based assessment

Objective

Global migration of healthcare workers places responsibility on employers to comply with legal employment rights whilst ensuring patient safety remains the central goal. We describe the pilot of a communication assessment designed for doctors who trained and communicated with patients and colleagues in a different language from that of the host country. It is unique in assessing clinical communication without assessing knowledge.

A 14-station OSCE was developed using a domain-based marking scheme, covering professional communication and English language skills (speaking, listening, reading and writing) in routine, acute and emotionally challenging contexts, with patients, carers and healthcare teams. Candidates (n = 43), non-UK trained volunteers applying to the UK Foundation Programme, were provided with relevant station information prior to the exam.

The criteria for passing the test included achieving the pass score and passing 10 or more of the 14 stations. Of the 43 candidates, nine failed on the station criteria. Two failed the pass score and also the station criteria. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient was 0.866.

This pilot tested ‘proof of concept’ of a new domain-based communication assessment for non-UK trained doctors.

The test would enable employers and regulators to verify communication competence and safety in clinical contexts, independent of clinical knowledge, for doctors who trained in a language different from that of the host country.

Patient preferences for dental clinical attire: a cross-sectional survey in a dental hospital

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: This cross sectional descriptive study was designed to survey patient opinion towards dental clinical attire, name badges and commonly used cross-infection control measures.

METHOD: Patients attending a dental hospital for a consultation appointment were asked to complete a questionnaire accompanied by photographs of models portraying a range of clinical attire. A representative sample of patients completed 188 questionnaires over a four week period.

RESULTS: The study found that the majority of patients felt clinical attire was important and that they preferred dental professionals to wear name badges. The majority of patients also preferred dentists to use both safety glasses and face masks. When asked to indicate which clinical attire was most appropriate for a consultant/specialist to wear, the overwhelming opinion was that of smart dress accompanied with a white coat. In addition, most respondents wished their dentist to wear a traditional white, dental tunic.

CONCLUDING REMARKS: It is hoped that this study will be informative for the dental team and that the results will be taken into consideration when considering appropriate clinical attire in accordance with patient opinions.

Metacognition in Patient Safety

OBJECTIVES: To determine if cognitive reflection has a positive influence on clinical decision making in undergraduate medical students. METHODS: 153 final year undergraduate medical students completed a 3 hour interactive Safe Thinking Workshop on nontechnical skills and patient safety, incorporating an introduction to metacognitive concepts. All students underwent augmented Cognitive Reflective Testing during the workshop. Students then inspected and interpreted a set of arterial blood gas results relating to a patient with acute respiratory distress, then answered a short questionnaire addressing biochemical diagnosis, clinical diagnosis and effective management. A separate question was embedded in the questionnaire to determine if astute students could determine the severity of the illness. The study group (n = 78) completed the questionnaire immediately after the Safe Thinking Workshop, whilst the control group (n = 75) completed the questionnaire prior to the Workshop.RESULTS: The mean total score for study students was 80.51%, with a mean total score of 57.9% for the control group (t-test; p<0.05). Correct classification of illness severity was observed in 13.2% of study students, compared with 4.1% of control students (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: These results suggest that clinical decision making and recognition of illness severity can be enhanced by specific teaching in nontechnical skills, metacognitiion and cognitive reflection.

One-Year Safety of Olodaterol Once Daily via Respimat® in Patients with GOLD 2-4 Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Results of a Pre-Specified Pooled Analysis

The novel long-acting β2-agonist olodaterol demonstrated an acceptable safety profile in short-term phase II clinical studies. This analysis of four randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, phase III studies (1222.11, NCT00782210; 1222.12, NCT00782509; 1222.13, NCT00793624; 1222.14, NCT00796653) evaluated the long-term safety of olodaterol once daily (QD) in a large cohort of patients with moderate to very severe (Global initiative for chronic Obstructive Lung Disease 2-4) chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The studies compared olodaterol (5 or 10 μg) QD via Respimat®, formoterol 12 μg twice daily (BID) via Aerolizer® (1222.13 and 1222.14), and placebo for 48 weeks. Patients continued receiving background maintenance therapy, with ∼60% receiving concomitant cardiovascular therapy and 25% having a history of concomitant cardiac disease. Pre-specified analyses of pooled data assessed the adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs in the whole population, and in subgroups with cardiac disease, along with in-depth electrocardiogram and Holter monitoring. In total, 3104 patients were included in the safety analysis: 876 received olodaterol 5 μg, 883 received olodaterol 10 μg, 885 received placebos, and 460 received formoterol 12 μg BID. Overall incidence of on-treatment AEs (71.2%), serious AEs (16.1%), and deaths (1.7%) were balanced across treatment groups. Respiratory and cardiovascular AEs, including major adverse cardiac events, were reported at similar frequencies in placebo and active treatment groups. The safety profiles of both olodaterol 5 μg (marketed and registered dose) and 10 μg QD delivered via Respimat® are comparable to placebo and formoterol BID in this population, with no safety signals identified.

Efficacy and safety of ivacaftor in patients with cystic fibrosis who have an Arg117His-CFTR mutation: a double-blind, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Ivacaftor has been previously assessed in patients with cystic fibrosis with Gly551Asp-CFTR or other gating mutations. We assessed ivacaftor in patients with Arg117His-CFTR, a residual function mutation.

METHODS: We did a 24-week, placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomised clinical trial, which enrolled 69 patients with cystic fibrosis aged 6 years and older with Arg117His-CFTR and percentage of predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 s (% predicted FEV1) of at least 40. We randomly assigned eligible patients (1:1) to receive placebo or ivacaftor 150 mg every 12 h for 24 weeks. Randomisation was stratified by age (6-11, 12-17, and ≥18 years) and % predicted FEV1 (<70, ≥70 to ≤90, and >90). The primary outcome was the absolute change from baseline in % predicted FEV1 through week 24. Secondary outcomes included safety and changes in sweat chloride concentrations and Cystic Fibrosis Questionnaire-Revised (CFQ-R) respiratory domain scores. An open-label extension enrolled 65 of the patients after washout; after 12 weeks, we did an interim analysis.

FINDINGS: After 24 weeks, the treatment difference in mean absolute change in % predicted FEV1 between ivacaftor (n=34) and placebo (n=35) was 2·1 percentage points (95% CI -1·13 to 5·35; p=0·20). Ivacaftor treatment resulted in significant treatment differences in sweat chloride (-24·0 mmol/L, 95% CI -28·01 to -19·93; p<0·0001) and CFQ-R respiratory domain (8·4, 2·17 to 14·61; p=0·009). In prespecified subgroup analyses, % predicted FEV1 significantly improved with ivacaftor in patients aged 18 years or older (treatment difference vs placebo: 5·0 percentage points, 95% CI 1·15 to 8·78; p=0·01), but not in patients aged 6-11 years (-6·3 percentage points, -11·96 to -0·71; p=0·03). In the extension study, both placebo-to-ivacaftor and ivacaftor-to-ivacaftor groups showed % predicted FEV1 improvement (absolute change from post-washout baseline at week 12: placebo-to-ivacaftor, 5·0 percentage points [p=0·0005]; ivacaftor-to-ivacaftor, 6·0 percentage points [p=0·006]). We did not identify any new safety concerns. The studies are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (the randomised, placebo-controlled study, number NCT01614457; the open-label extension study, number NCT01707290).

INTERPRETATION: Although this study did not show a significant improvement in % predicted FEV1, ivacaftor did significantly improve sweat chloride and CFQ-R respiratory domain scores and lung function in adult patients with Arg117His-CFTR, indicating that ivacaftor might benefit patients with Arg117His-CFTR who have established disease.

The use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents with ruxolitinib in patients with myelofibrosis in COMFORT-II: an open-label, phase 3 study assessing efficacy and safety of ruxolitinib versus best available therapy in the treatment of myelofibrosis

BACKGROUND: Anemia is considered a negative prognostic risk factor for survival in patients with myelofibrosis. Most patients with myelofibrosis are anemic, and 35-54 % present with anemia at diagnosis. Ruxolitinib, a potent inhibitor of Janus kinase (JAK) 1 and JAK2, was associated with an overall survival benefit and improvements in splenomegaly and patient-reported outcomes in patients with myelofibrosis in the two phase 3 COMFORT studies. Consistent with the ruxolitinib mechanism of action, anemia was a frequently reported adverse event. In clinical practice, anemia is sometimes managed with erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs). This post hoc analysis evaluated the safety and efficacy of concomitant ruxolitinib and ESA administration in patients enrolled in COMFORT-II, an open-label, phase 3 study comparing the efficacy and safety of ruxolitinib with best available therapy for treatment of myelofibrosis. Patients were randomized (2:1) to receive ruxolitinib 15 or 20 mg twice daily or best available therapy. Spleen volume was assessed by magnetic resonance imaging or computed tomography scan.

RESULTS: Thirteen of 146 ruxolitinib-treated patients had concomitant ESA administration (+ESA). The median exposure to ruxolitinib was 114 weeks in the +ESA group and 111 weeks in the overall ruxolitinib arm; the median ruxolitinib dose intensity was 33 mg/day for each group. Six weeks before the first ESA administration, 10 of the 13 patients had grade 3/4 hemoglobin abnormalities. These had improved to grade 2 in 7 of the 13 patients by 6 weeks after the first ESA administration. The rate of packed red blood cell transfusions per month within 12 weeks before and after first ESA administration remained the same in 1 patient, decreased in 2 patients, and increased in 3 patients; 7 patients remained transfusion independent. Reductions in splenomegaly were observed in 69 % of evaluable patients (9/13) following first ESA administration.

CONCLUSIONS: Concomitant use of an ESA with ruxolitinib was well tolerated and did not affect the efficacy of ruxolitinib. Further investigations evaluating the effects of ESAs to alleviate anemia in ruxolitinib-treated patients are warranted (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT00934544; July 6, 2009).

Cognition, metacognition and patient safety

This article explores the factors that contribute to patient safety incidents. It highlights the importance of human factors in influencing the clinician's performance. Rather than focusing on clinical skills, the article explores the range of non-technical skills which are seen to each contribute to patient safety, including: communication, teamworking, leadership, active followership, situational awareness, decision-making, assertiveness, and workload management. It asks how cognitive processes can influence safe decision-making.

Efficacy and safety of lumacaftor/ivacaftor combination therapy in patients with cystic fibrosis homozygous for Phe508del CFTR by pulmonary function subgroup

Background Lumacaftor/ivacaftor combination therapy demonstrated clinical benefits inpatients with cystic fibrosis homozygous for the Phe508del CFTR mutation.Pretreatment lung function is a confounding factor that potentially impacts the efficacyand safety of lumacaftor/ivacaftor therapy. Methods Two multinational, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallelgroupPhase 3 studies randomised patients to receive placebo or lumacaftor (600 mgonce daily [qd] or 400 mg every 12 hours [q12h]) in combination with ivacaftor (250 mgq12h) for 24 weeks. Prespecified analyses of pooled efficacy and safety data by lungfunction, as measured by percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second(ppFEV1), were performed for patients with baseline ppFEV1 <40 (n=81) and ≥40(n=1016) and screening ppFEV1 <70 (n=730) and ≥70 (n=342). These studies wereregistered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01807923 and NCT01807949). Findings The studies were conducted from April 2013 through April 2014.Improvements in the primary endpoint, absolute change from baseline at week 24 inppFEV1, were observed with both lumacaftor/ivacaftor doses in the subgroup withbaseline ppFEV1 <40 (least-squares mean difference versus placebo was 3∙7 and 3.3percentage points for lumacaftor 600 mg qd/ivacaftor 250 mg q12h and lumacaftor 400mg q12h/ivacaftor 250 mg q12h, respectively [p<0∙05] and in the subgroup with baselineppFEV1 ≥40 (3∙3 and 2∙8 percentage points, respectively [p<0∙001]). Similar absoluteimprovements versus placebo in ppFEV1 were observed in subgroups with screening 4ppFEV1 <70 (3∙3 and 3∙3 percentage points for lumacaftor 600 mg qd/ivacaftor 250 mgq12h and lumacaftor 400 mg q12h/ivacaftor 250 mg q12h, respectively [p<0∙001]) and≥70 (3∙3 and 1∙9 percentage points, respectively [p=0.002] and [p=0∙079]). Increases inBMI and reduction in number of pulmonary exacerbation events were observed in bothLUM/IVA dose groups vs placebo across all lung function subgroups. Treatment wasgenerally well tolerated, although the incidence of some respiratory adverse events washigher with active treatment than with placebo. Interpretation Lumacaftor/ivacaftor combination therapy benefits patients homozygousfor Phe508del CFTR who have varying degrees of lung function impairment. Funding Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated.

Appropriate Polypharmacy and Medicine Safety: When Many is not Too Many

The use of multiple medicines (polypharmacy) is increasingly common in middle-aged and older populations. Ensuring the correct balance between the prescribing of ‘many’ drugs and ‘too many’ drugs is a significant challenge. Clinicians are tasked with ensuring that patients receive the most appropriate combinations of medications based on the best available evidence, and that medication use is optimised according to patients’ clinical needs (appropriate polypharmacy). Historically, polypharmacy has been viewed negatively because of the associated medication safety risks, such as drug interactions and adverse drug events. More recently, polypharmacy has been identified as a risk factor for under-prescribing, such that patients do not receive necessary medications and this can also pose risks to patients’ safety and well-being. The negative connotations that have long been associated with the term polypharmacy could potentially be acting as a driving factor for under-prescribing, whereby clinicians are reluctant to prescribe necessary medicines for patients who are already receiving ‘many’ medicines. It is now recognised that the prescribing of ‘many’ medicines can be entirely appropriate in patients with several chronic conditions and that the risks of adverse drug events that have been associated with polypharmacy may be greatly reduced when patients’ clinical context is taken into consideration. In this article, we outline the current perspectives on polypharmacy and make the case for adopting the term ‘appropriate polypharmacy’ in differentiating between the prescribing of ‘many’ drugs and ‘too many’ drugs. We also outline the inherent challenges in doing so and provide recommendations for future clinical practice and research.