Variety Performance Trialling for the National Variety Trials

Conducting National Variety Testing for wheat, barley, durum and chickpea throughout Queensland.

Corymbia leaf oils, latitude, hybrids and herbivory: a test using common-garden field trials

Foliar oils, particularly monoterpenes, can influence the susceptibility of plants to herbivory. In plants, including eucalypts, monoterpenes are often associated with plant defence. A recent analysis revealed an increase in foliar oil content with increasing latitudinal endemism, and we tested this pattern using three eucalypt taxa comprising a latitudinal replacement cline. We also examined the relative concentrations of two monoterpenes (alpha-pinene and 1,8-cineole), for which meta-analyses also showed latitudinal variation, using hybrids of these three taxa with Corymbia torelliana. These, and pure C. torelliana, were then assessed in common-garden field plots for the abundance and distribution of herbivory by four distinct herbivore taxa. Differing feeding strategies among these herbivores allowed us to test hypotheses regarding heritability of susceptibility and relationships to alpha-pinene and 1,8-cineole. We found no support for an increase in foliar oil content with increasing latitude, nor did our analysis support predictions for consistent variation in alpha-pinene and 1,8-cineole contents with latitude. However, herbivore species showed differential responses to different taxa and monoterpene contents. For example, eriophyid mites, the most monophagous of our censused herbivores, avoided the pure species, but fed on hybrid taxa, supporting hypotheses on hybrid susceptibility. The most polyphagous herbivore (leaf blister sawfly Phylacteophaga froggatti) showed no evidence of response to plant secondary metabolites, while the distribution and abundance patterns of Paropsis atomaria showed some relationship to monoterpene yields.

Predicting Additive and Non-additive Genetic Effects from Trials Where Traits Are Affected by Interplot Competition

There are two key types of selection in a plant breeding program, namely selection of hybrids for potential commercial use and the selection of parents for use in future breeding. Oakey et al. (in Theoretical and Applied Genetics 113, 809-819, 2006) showed how both of these aims could be achieved using pedigree information in a mixed model analysis in order to partition genetic effects into additive and non-additive effects. Their approach was developed for field trial data subject to spatial variation. In this paper we extend the approach for data from trials subject to interplot competition. We show how the approach may be used to obtain predictions of pure stand additive and non-additive effects. We develop the methodology in the context of a single field trial using an example from an Australian sorghum breeding program.

Comparison of treatment effect sizes associated with surrogate and final patient relevant outcomes in randomised controlled trials: meta-epidemiological study

Objective To quantify and compare the treatment effect and risk of bias of trials reporting biomarkers or intermediate outcomes (surrogate outcomes) versus trials using final patient relevant primary outcomes. Design Meta-epidemiological study. Data sources All randomised clinical trials published in 2005 and 2006 in six high impact medical journals: Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, Journal of the American Medical Association, Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, and PLoS Medicine. Study selection Two independent reviewers selected trials. Data extraction Trial characteristics, risk of bias, and outcomes were recorded according to a predefined form. Two reviewers independently checked data extraction. The ratio of odds ratios was used to quantify the degree of difference in treatment effects between the trials using surrogate outcomes and those using patient relevant outcomes, also adjusted for trial characteristics. A ratio of odds ratios >1.0 implies that trials with surrogate outcomes report larger intervention effects than trials with patient relevant outcomes. Results 84 trials using surrogate outcomes and 101 using patient relevant outcomes were considered for analyses. Study characteristics of trials using surrogate outcomes and those using patient relevant outcomes were well balanced, except for median sample size (371 v 741) and single centre status (23% v 9%). Their risk of bias did not differ. Primary analysis showed trials reporting surrogate endpoints to have larger treatment effects (odds ratio 0.51, 95% confidence interval 0.42 to 0.60) than trials reporting patient relevant outcomes (0.76, 0.70 to 0.82), with an unadjusted ratio of odds ratios of 1.47 (1.07 to 2.01) and adjusted ratio of odds ratios of 1.46 (1.05 to 2.04). This result was consistent across sensitivity and secondary analyses. Conclusions Trials reporting surrogate primary outcomes are more likely to report larger treatment effects than trials reporting final patient relevant primary outcomes. This finding was not explained by differences in the risk of bias or characteristics of the two groups of trials.

Statistical methods for analysis of multi-harvest data from perennial pasture variety selection trials

Variety selection in perennial pasture crops involves identifying best varieties from data collected from multiple harvest times in field trials. For accurate selection, the statistical methods for analysing such data need to account for the spatial and temporal correlation typically present. This paper provides an approach for analysing multi-harvest data from variety selection trials in which there may be a large number of harvest times. Methods are presented for modelling the variety by harvest effects while accounting for the spatial and temporal correlation between observations. These methods provide an improvement in model fit compared to separate analyses for each harvest, and provide insight into variety by harvest interactions. The approach is illustrated using two traits from a lucerne variety selection trial. The proposed method provides variety predictions allowing for the natural sources of variation and correlation in multi-harvest data.

Afatinib versus cisplatin-based chemotherapy for EGFR mutation-positive lung adenocarcinoma (LUX-Lung 3 and LUX-Lung 6): analysis of overall survival data from two randomised, phase 3 trials

Background We aimed to assess the effect of afatinib on overall survival of patients with EGFR mutation-positive lung adenocarcinoma through an analysis of data from two open-label, randomised, phase 3 trials. Methods Previously untreated patients with EGFR mutation-positive stage IIIB or IV lung adenocarcinoma were enrolled in LUX-Lung 3 (n=345) and LUX-Lung 6 (n=364). These patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive afatinib or chemotherapy (pemetrexed-cisplatin [LUX-Lung 3] or gemcitabine-cisplatin [LUX-Lung 6]), stratified by EGFR mutation (exon 19 deletion [del19], Leu858Arg, or other) and ethnic origin (LUX-Lung 3 only). We planned analyses of mature overall survival data in the intention-to-treat population after 209 (LUX-Lung 3) and 237 (LUX-Lung 6) deaths. These ongoing studies are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT00949650 and NCT01121393. Findings Median follow-up in LUX-Lung 3 was 41 months (IQR 35–44); 213 (62%) of 345 patients had died. Median follow-up in LUX-Lung 6 was 33 months (IQR 31–37); 246 (68%) of 364 patients had died. In LUX-Lung 3, median overall survival was 28·2 months (95% CI 24·6–33·6) in the afatinib group and 28·2 months (20·7–33·2) in the pemetrexed-cisplatin group (HR 0·88, 95% CI 0·66–1·17, p=0·39). In LUX-Lung 6, median overall survival was 23·1 months (95% CI 20·4–27·3) in the afatinib group and 23·5 months (18·0–25·6) in the gemcitabine-cisplatin group (HR 0·93, 95% CI 0·72–1·22, p=0·61). However, in preplanned analyses, overall survival was significantly longer for patients with del19-positive tumours in the afatinib group than in the chemotherapy group in both trials: in LUX-Lung 3, median overall survival was 33·3 months (95% CI 26·8–41·5) in the afatinib group versus 21·1 months (16·3–30·7) in the chemotherapy group (HR 0·54, 95% CI 0·36–0·79, p=0·0015); in LUX-Lung 6, it was 31·4 months (95% CI 24·2–35·3) versus 18·4 months (14·6–25·6), respectively (HR 0·64, 95% CI 0·44–0·94, p=0·023). By contrast, there were no significant differences by treatment group for patients with EGFR Leu858Arg-positive tumours in either trial: in LUX-Lung 3, median overall survival was 27·6 months (19·8–41·7) in the afatinib group versus 40·3 months (24·3–not estimable) in the chemotherapy group (HR 1·30, 95% CI 0·80–2·11, p=0·29); in LUX-Lung 6, it was 19·6 months (95% CI 17·0–22·1) versus 24·3 months (19·0–27·0), respectively (HR 1·22, 95% CI 0·81–1·83, p=0·34). In both trials, the most common afatinib-related grade 3–4 adverse events were rash or acne (37 [16%] of 229 patients in LUX-Lung 3 and 35 [15%] of 239 patients in LUX-Lung 6), diarrhoea (33 [14%] and 13 [5%]), paronychia (26 [11%] in LUX-Lung 3 only), and stomatitis or mucositis (13 [5%] in LUX-Lung 6 only). In LUX-Lung 3, neutropenia (20 [18%] of 111 patients), fatigue (14 [13%]) and leucopenia (nine [8%]) were the most common chemotherapy-related grade 3–4 adverse events, while in LUX-Lung 6, the most common chemotherapy-related grade 3–4 adverse events were neutropenia (30 [27%] of 113 patients), vomiting (22 [19%]), and leucopenia (17 [15%]). Interpretation Although afatinib did not improve overall survival in the whole population of either trial, overall survival was improved with the drug for patients with del19 EGFR mutations. The absence of an effect in patients with Leu858Arg EGFR mutations suggests that EGFR del19-positive disease might be distinct from Leu858Arg-positive disease and that these subgroups should be analysed separately in future trials.

Dacomitinib versus erlotinib in patients with EGFR-mutated advanced nonsmall-cell lung cancer (NSCLC): Pooled subset analyses from two randomized trials

Background: The irreversible epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors have demonstrated efficacy in NSCLC patients with activating EGFR mutations, but it is unknown if they are superior to the reversible inhibitors. Dacomitinib is an oral, small-molecule irreversible inhibitor of all enzymatically active HER family tyrosine kinases. Methods: The ARCHER 1009 (NCT01360554) and A7471028 (NCT00769067) studies randomized patients with locally advanced/metastatic NSCLC following progression with one or two prior chemotherapy regimens to dacomitinib or erlotinib. EGFR mutation testing was performed centrally on archived tumor samples. We pooled patients with exon 19 deletion and L858R EGFR mutations from both studies to compare the efficacy of dacomitinib to erlotinib. Results: One hundred twenty-one patients with any EGFR mutation were enrolled; 101 had activating mutations in exon 19 or 21. For patients with exon19/21 mutations, the median progression-free survival was 14.6 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 9.0–18.2] with dacomitinib and 9.6 months (95% CI 7.4–12.7) with erlotinib [unstratified hazard ratio (HR) 0.717 (95% CI 0.458–1.124), two-sided log-rank, P = 0.146]. The median survival was 26.6 months (95% CI 21.6–41.5) with dacomitinib versus 23.2 months (95% CI 16.0–31.8) with erlotinib [unstratified HR 0.737 (95% CI 0.431–1.259), two-sided log-rank, P = 0.265]. Dacomitinib was associated with a higher incidence of diarrhea and mucositis in both studies compared with erlotinib. Conclusions: Dacomitinib is an active agent with comparable efficacy to erlotinib in the EGFR mutated patients. The subgroup with exon 19 deletion had favorable outcomes with dacomitinib. An ongoing phase III study will compare dacomitinib to gefitinib in first-line therapy of patients with NSCLC harboring common activating EGFR mutations (ARCHER 1050; NCT01774721). Clinical trials number: ARCHER 1009 (NCT01360554) and A7471028 (NCT00769067).

Investigational drugs for schizophrenia targeting the dopamine receptor: phase II trials

Introduction: For over half a century now, the dopamine hypothesis has provided the most widely accepted heuristic model linking pathophysiology and treatment in schizophrenia. Despite dopaminergic drugs being available for six decades, this system continues to represent a key target in schizophrenia drug discovery. The present article reviews the scientific rationale for dopaminergic medications historically and the shift in our thinking since, which is clearly reflected in the investigational drugs detailed. Areas covered: We searched for investigational drugs using the key words `dopamine,' `schizophrenia,' and `Phase II' in American and European clinical trial registers (clinicaltrials. gov; clinicaltrialsregister.eu), published articles using National Library of Medicine's PubMed database, and supplemented results with a manual search of cross-references and conference abstracts. We provide a brief description of drugs targeting dopamine synthesis, release or metabolism, and receptors (agonists/partial agonists/antagonists). Expert opinion: There are prominent shifts in how we presently conceptualize schizophrenia and its treatment. Current efforts are not as much focused on developing better antipsychotics but, instead, on treatments that can improve other symptom domains, in particular cognitive and negative. This new era in the pharmacotherapy of schizophrenia moves us away from the older `magic bullet' approach toward a strategy fostering polypharmacy and a more individualized approach shaped by the individual's specific symptom profile.

Targeting the dopamine receptor in schizophrenia: investigational drugs in Phase III trials

Introduction: Antipsychotic drugs date back to the 1950s and chlorpromazine. Soon after, it was established that blockade of dopamine and, in particular, the D-2 receptor was central to this effect. Dopamine continues to represent a critical line of investigation, although much of the work now focuses on its potential in other symptom domains. Areas covered: A search was carried out for investigational drugs using the key words `dopamine', `schizophrenia' and `Phase III' in an American clinical trial registry (clinicaltrials.gov), published articles using the National Library of Medicine's PubMed database, and supplemented results with a manual search of cross-references and conference abstracts. Drugs were excluded that were already FDA approved. Expert opinion: There remains interest, albeit diminished, in developing better antipsychotic compounds. The greatest enthusiasm currently centres on dopamine's role in negative and cognitive symptom domains. With theories conceptualising hypodopaminergic activity as underlying these deficits, considerable effort is focused on drug strategies that will enhance dopamine activity. Finally, a small body of research is investigating dopaminergic compounds vis-a-vis side-effect treatments. In domains beyond psychosis, however, dopamine arguably is not seen as so central, reflected in considerable research following other lines of investigation.

DNA binders in clinical trials and chemotherapy

Cancer has always been a dreadful disease and continues to attract extensive research investigations. Various targets have been identified to restrain cancer. Among these DNA happens to be the most explored one. A wide variety of small molecules, often referred to as `ligands', has been synthesized to target numerous structural features of DNA. The sole purpose of such molecular design has been to interfere with the transcriptional machinery in order to drive the cancer cell toward apoptosis. The mode of action of the DNA targeting ligands focuses either on the sequence-specificity by groove binding and strand cleavage, or by identifying the morphologically distinct higher order structures like that of the G-quadruplex DNA. However, in spite of the extensive research, only a tiny fraction of the molecules have been able to reach clinical trials and only a handful are used in chemotherapy. This review attempts to record the journey of the DNA binding small molecules from its inception to cancer therapy via various modifications at the molecular level. Nevertheless, factors like limited bioavailability, severe toxicities, unfavorable pharmacokinetics etc. still prove to be the major impediments in the field which warrant considerable scope for further research investigations. (C) 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Understanding Medical Device Patenting and Clinical Trials for Product Leadership

Unmet clinical needs remain the primary driving force for innovations in medical devices. While appropriate mechanisms to protect these innovative outcomes are essential, the performance of clinical trials to ensure safety is also mandated before the invention is ready for public use. Literature explaining the relationship between patenting activities and clinical trials of medical devices is scarce. Linking patent ownership to clinical trials may imply product leadership and value chain control. In this paper, we use patent data from Indian Patent Office (IPO), PCT, and data from Clinical Trials Registry of India (CTRI) to identify whether patent assignees have any role in leading as primary sponsors of clinical trials. A total of 42 primary sponsors are identified from the CTRI database in India. Number of patents awarded to these primary sponsors in the particular medical device, total number of patents awarded to the primary sponsor in all technologies, total number of patents in the specific medical device technology provides an indication of leadership and control in the value chain.