Center for Drug Evaluation and Research

In 2011, the National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer's Association created separate diagnostic recommendations for the preclinical, mild cognitive impairment, and dementia stages of Alzheimer's disease. Scientific progress in the interim led to an initiative by the National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer's Association to update and unify the 2011 guidelines. This unifying update is labeled a "research framework" because its intended use is for observational and interventional research, not routine clinical care. In the National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer's Association Research Framework, Alzheimer's disease (AD) is defined by its underlying pathologic processes that can be documented by postmortem examination or in vivo by biomarkers. The diagnosis is not based on the clinical consequences of the disease (i.e., symptoms/signs) in this research framework, which shifts the definition of AD in living people from a syndromal to a biological construct. The research framework focuses on the diagnosis of AD with biomarkers in living persons. Biomarkers are grouped into those of β amyloid deposition, pathologic tau, and neurodegeneration [AT(N)]. This ATN classification system groups different biomarkers (imaging and biofluids) by the pathologic process each measures. The AT(N) system is flexible in that new biomarkers can be added to the three existing AT(N) groups, and new biomarker groups beyond AT(N) can be added when they become available. We focus on AD as a continuum, and cognitive staging may be accomplished using continuous measures. However, we also outline two different categorical cognitive schemes for staging the severity of cognitive impairment: a scheme using three traditional syndromal categories and a six-stage numeric scheme. It is important to stress that this framework seeks to create a common language with which investigators can generate and test hypotheses about the interactions among different pathologic processes (denoted by biomarkers) and cognitive symptoms. We appreciate the concern that this biomarker-based research framework has the potential to be misused. Therefore, we emphasize, first, it is premature and inappropriate to use this research framework in general medical practice. Second, this research framework should not be used to restrict alternative approaches to hypothesis testing that do not use biomarkers. There will be situations where biomarkers are not available or requiring them would be counterproductive to the specific research goals (discussed in more detail later in the document). Thus, biomarker-based research should not be considered a template for all research into age-related cognitive impairment and dementia; rather, it should be applied when it is fit for the purpose of the specific research goals of a study. Importantly, this framework should be examined in diverse populations. Although it is possible that β-amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tau deposits are not causal in AD pathogenesis, it is these abnormal protein deposits that define AD as a unique neurodegenerative disease among different disorders that can lead to dementia. We envision that defining AD as a biological construct will enable a more accurate characterization and understanding of the sequence of events that lead to cognitive impairment that is associated with AD, as well as the multifactorial etiology of dementia. This approach also will enable a more precise approach to interventional trials where specific pathways can be targeted in the disease process and in the appropriate people.

AUTORES: Daniel J Klionsky1745,1749*, Kotb Abdelmohsen840, Akihisa Abe1237, Md Joynal Abedin1762, Hagai Abeliovich425,
\nAbraham Acevedo Arozena789, Hiroaki Adachi1800, Christopher M Adams1669, Peter D Adams57, Khosrow Adeli1981,
\nPeter J Adhihetty1625, Sharon G Adler700, Galila Agam67, Rajesh Agarwal1587, Manish K Aghi1537, Maria Agnello1826,
\nPatrizia Agostinis664, Patricia V Aguilar1960, Julio Aguirre-Ghiso784,786, Edoardo M Airoldi89,422, Slimane Ait-Si-Ali1376,
\nTakahiko Akematsu2010, Emmanuel T Akporiaye1097, Mohamed Al-Rubeai1394, Guillermo M Albaiceta1294,
\nChris Albanese363, Diego Albani561, Matthew L Albert517, Jesus Aldudo128, Hana Alg€ul1164, Mehrdad Alirezaei1198,
\nIraide Alloza642,888, Alexandru Almasan206, Maylin Almonte-Beceril524, Emad S Alnemri1212, Covadonga Alonso544,
\nNihal Altan-Bonnet848, Dario C Altieri1205, Silvia Alvarez1497, Lydia Alvarez-Erviti1395, Sandro Alves107,
\nGiuseppina Amadoro860, Atsuo Amano930, Consuelo Amantini1554, Santiago Ambrosio1458, Ivano Amelio756,
\nAmal O Amer918, Mohamed Amessou2089, Angelika Amon726, Zhenyi An1538, Frank A Anania291, Stig U Andersen6,
\nUsha P Andley2079, Catherine K Andreadi1690, Nathalie Andrieu-Abadie502, Alberto Anel2027, David K Ann58,
\nShailendra Anoopkumar-Dukie388, Manuela Antonioli832,858, Hiroshi Aoki1791, Nadezda Apostolova2007,
\nSaveria Aquila1500, Katia Aquilano1876, Koichi Araki292, Eli Arama2098, Agustin Aranda456, Jun Araya591,
\nAlexandre Arcaro1472, Esperanza Arias26, Hirokazu Arimoto1225, Aileen R Ariosa1749, Jane L Armstrong1930,
\nThierry Arnould1773, Ivica Arsov2120, Katsuhiko Asanuma675, Valerie Askanas1924, Eric Asselin1867, Ryuichiro Atarashi794,
\nSally S Atherton369, Julie D Atkin713, Laura D Attardi1131, Patrick Auberger1787, Georg Auburger379, Laure Aurelian1727,
\nRiccardo Autelli1992, Laura Avagliano1029,1755, Maria Laura Avantaggiati364, Limor Avrahami1166, Suresh Awale1986,
\nNeelam Azad404, Tiziana Bachetti568, Jonathan M Backer28, Dong-Hun Bae1933, Jae-sung Bae677, Ok-Nam Bae409,
\nSoo Han Bae2117, Eric H Baehrecke1729, Seung-Hoon Baek17, Stephen Baghdiguian1368,
\nAgnieszka Bagniewska-Zadworna2, Hua Bai90, Jie Bai667, Xue-Yuan Bai1133, Yannick Bailly884,
\nKithiganahalli Narayanaswamy Balaji473, Walter Balduini2002, Andrea Ballabio316, Rena Balzan1711, Rajkumar Banerjee239,
\nG abor B anhegyi1052, Haijun Bao2109, Benoit Barbeau1363, Maria D Barrachina2007, Esther Barreiro467, Bonnie Bartel997,
\nAlberto Bartolom e222, Diane C Bassham550, Maria Teresa Bassi1046, Robert C Bast Jr1273, Alakananda Basu1798,
\nMaria Teresa Batista1578, Henri Batoko1336, Maurizio Battino970, Kyle Bauckman2085, Bradley L Baumgarner1909,
\nK Ulrich Bayer1594, Rupert Beale1553, Jean-Fran¸cois Beaulieu1360, George R. Beck Jr48,294, Christoph Becker336,
\nJ David Beckham1595, Pierre-Andr e B edard749, Patrick J Bednarski301, Thomas J Begley1135, Christian Behl1419,
\nChristian Behrends757, Georg MN Behrens406, Kevin E Behrns1627, Eloy Bejarano26, Amine Belaid490,
\nFrancesca Belleudi1041, Giovanni B enard497, Guy Berchem706, Daniele Bergamaschi983, Matteo Bergami1401,
\nBen Berkhout1441, Laura Berliocchi714, Am elie Bernard1749, Monique Bernard1354, Francesca Bernassola1880,
\nAnne Bertolotti791, Amanda S Bess272, S ebastien Besteiro1351, Saverio Bettuzzi1828, Savita Bhalla913,
\nShalmoli Bhattacharyya973, Sujit K Bhutia838, Caroline Biagosch1159, Michele Wolfe Bianchi520,1378,1381,
\nMartine Biard-Piechaczyk210, Viktor Billes298, Claudia Bincoletto1314, Baris Bingol350, Sara W Bird1128, Marc Bitoun1112,
\nIvana Bjedov1258, Craig Blackstone843, Lionel Blanc1183, Guillermo A Blanco1496, Heidi Kiil Blomhoff1812,
\nEmilio Boada-Romero1297, Stefan B€ockler1464, Marianne Boes1423, Kathleen Boesze-Battaglia1835, Lawrence H Boise286,287,
\nAlessandra Bolino2063, Andrea Boman693, Paolo Bonaldo1823, Matteo Bordi897, J€urgen Bosch608, Luis M Botana1308,
\nJoelle Botti1375, German Bou1405, Marina Bouch e1038, Marion Bouchecareilh1331, Marie-Jos ee Boucher1901,
\nMichael E Boulton481, Sebastien G Bouret1926, Patricia Boya133, Micha€el Boyer-Guittaut1345, Peter V Bozhkov1141,
\nNathan Brady374, Vania MM Braga469, Claudio Brancolini1997, Gerhard H Braus353, Jos e M Bravo-San Pedro299,393,508,1374,
\nLisa A Brennan322, Emery H Bresnick2022, Patrick Brest490, Dave Bridges1939, Marie-Agn es Bringer124, Marisa Brini1822,
\nGlauber C Brito1311, Bertha Brodin631, Paul S Brookes1872, Eric J Brown352, Karen Brown1690, Hal E Broxmeyer480,
\nAlain Bruhat486,1339, Patricia Chakur Brum1893, John H Brumell446, Nicola Brunetti-Pierri315,1171,
\nRobert J Bryson-Richardson781, Shilpa Buch1777, Alastair M Buchan1819, Hikmet Budak1022, Dmitry V Bulavin118,505,1789,
\nScott J Bultman1792, Geert Bultynck665, Vladimir Bumbasirevic1470, Yan Burelle1356, Robert E Burke216,217,
\nMargit Burmeister1750, Peter B€utikofer1473, Laura Caberlotto1987, Ken Cadwell896, Monika Cahova112, Dongsheng Cai24,
\nJingjing Cai2099, Qian Cai1018, Sara Calatayud2007, Nadine Camougrand1343, Michelangelo Campanella1700,
\nGrant R Campbell1525, Matthew Campbell1249, Silvia Campello556,1876, Robin Candau1769, Isabella Caniggia1983,
\nLavinia Cantoni560, Lizhi Cao116, Allan B Caplan1656, Michele Caraglia1051, Claudio Cardinali1043, Sandra Morais Cardoso1579, Jennifer S Carew208, Laura A Carleton874, Cathleen R Carlin101, Silvia Carloni2002,
\nSven R Carlsson1267, Didac Carmona-Gutierrez1643, Leticia AM Carneiro312, Oliana Carnevali971, Serena Carra1318,
\nAlice Carrier120, Bernadette Carroll900, Caty Casas1324, Josefina Casas1116, Giuliana Cassinelli324, Perrine Castets1462,
\nSusana Castro-Obregon214, Gabriella Cavallini1841, Isabella Ceccherini568, Francesco Cecconi253,555,1884,
\nArthur I Cederbaum459, Valent ın Ce~na199,1281, Simone Cenci1323,2064, Claudia Cerella444, Davide Cervia1996,
\nSilvia Cetrullo1478, Hassan Chaachouay2028, Han-Jung Chae187, Andrei S Chagin634, Chee-Yin Chai626,628,
\nGopal Chakrabarti1502, Georgios Chamilos1601, Edmond YW Chan1142, Matthew TV Chan181, Dhyan Chandra1003,
\nPallavi Chandra548, Chih-Peng Chang818, Raymond Chuen-Chung Chang1653, Ta Yuan Chang345, John C Chatham1434,
\nSaurabh Chatterjee1910, Santosh Chauhan527, Yongsheng Che62, Michael E Cheetham1263, Rajkumar Cheluvappa1783,
\nChun-Jung Chen1153, Gang Chen598,1676, Guang-Chao Chen9, Guoqiang Chen1078, Hongzhuan Chen1077, Jeff W Chen1514,
\nJian-Kang Chen370,371, Min Chen249, Mingzhou Chen2104, Peiwen Chen1823, Qi Chen1674, Quan Chen172,
\nShang-Der Chen138, Si Chen325, Steve S-L Chen10, Wei Chen2125, Wei-Jung Chen829, Wen Qiang Chen979, Wenli Chen1113,
\nXiangmei Chen1133, Yau-Hung Chen1157, Ye-Guang Chen1250, Yin Chen1447, Yingyu Chen953,955, Yongshun Chen2135,
\nYu-Jen Chen712, Yue-Qin Chen1145, Yujie Chen1208, Zhen Chen339, Zhong Chen2123, Alan Cheng1702,
\nChristopher HK Cheng184, Hua Cheng1728, Heesun Cheong814, Sara Cherry1836, Jason Chesney1703,
\nChun Hei Antonio Cheung817, Eric Chevet1359, Hsiang Cheng Chi140, Sung-Gil Chi656, Fulvio Chiacchiera308,
\nHui-Ling Chiang958, Roberto Chiarelli1826, Mario Chiariello235,567,577, Marcello Chieppa835, Lih-Shen Chin290,
\nMario Chiong1285, Gigi NC Chiu878, Dong-Hyung Cho676, Ssang-Goo Cho650, William C Cho982, Yong-Yeon Cho105,
\nYoung-Seok Cho1064, Augustine MK Choi2095, Eui-Ju Choi656, Eun-Kyoung Choi387,400,685, Jayoung Choi1563,
\nMary E Choi2093, Seung-Il Choi2116, Tsui-Fen Chou412, Salem Chouaib395, Divaker Choubey1574, Vinay Choubey1936,
\nKuan-Chih Chow822, Kamal Chowdhury730, Charleen T Chu1856, Tsung-Hsien Chuang827, Taehoon Chun657,
\nHyewon Chung652, Taijoon Chung978, Yuen-Li Chung1194, Yong-Joon Chwae18, Valentina Cianfanelli254,
\nRoberto Ciarcia1775, Iwona A Ciechomska886, Maria Rosa Ciriolo1876, Mara Cirone1042, Sofie Claerhout1694,
\nMichael J Clague1698, Joan Cl aria1457, Peter GH Clarke1687, Robert Clarke361, Emilio Clementi1045,1398, C edric Cleyrat1781,
\nMiriam Cnop1366, Eliana M Coccia574, Tiziana Cocco1459, Patrice Codogno1375, J€orn Coers271, Ezra EW Cohen1533,
\nDavid Colecchia235,567,577, Luisa Coletto25, N uria S Coll123, Emma Colucci-Guyon516, Sergio Comincini1829,
\nMaria Condello578, Katherine L Cook2073, Graham H Coombs1929, Cynthia D Cooper2076, J Mark Cooper1395,
\nIsabelle Coppens601, Maria Tiziana Corasaniti1387, Marco Corazzari485,1884, Ramon Corbalan1566,
\nElisabeth Corcelle-Termeau251, Mario D Cordero1899, Cristina Corral-Ramos1289, Olga Corti507,1109, Andrea Cossarizza1767,
\nPaola Costelli1993, Safia Costes1518, Susan L Cotman721, Ana Coto-Montes946, Sandra Cottet566,1688, Eduardo Couve1301,
\nLori R Covey1015, L Ashley Cowart762, Jeffery S Cox1536, Fraser P Coxon1427, Carolyn B Coyne1846, Mark S Cragg1919,
\nRolf J Craven1679, Tiziana Crepaldi1995, Jose L Crespo1300, Alfredo Criollo1285, Valeria Crippa558, Maria Teresa Cruz1576,
\nAna Maria Cuervo26, Jose M Cuezva1277, Taixing Cui1907, Pedro R Cutillas987, Mark J Czaja27, Maria F Czyzyk-Krzeska1572,
\nRuben K Dagda2068, Uta Dahmen1404, Chunsun Dai800, Wenjie Dai1187, Yun Dai2059, Kevin N Dalby1940,
\nLuisa Dalla Valle1822, Guillaume Dalmasso1340, Marcello D’Amelio557, Markus Damme188, Arlette Darfeuille-Michaud1340,
\nCatherine Dargemont950, Victor M Darley-Usmar1433, Srinivasan Dasarathy205, Biplab Dasgupta202, Srikanta Dash1254,
\nCrispin R Dass242, Hazel Marie Davey8, Lester M Davids1560, David D avila227, Roger J Davis1731, Ted M Dawson604,
\nValina L Dawson606, Paula Daza1898, Jackie de Belleroche470, Paul de Figueiredo1180,1182,
\nRegina Celia Bressan Queiroz de Figueiredo135, Jos e de la Fuente1023, Luisa De Martino1775,
\nAntonella De Matteis1171, Guido RY De Meyer1443, Angelo De Milito631, Mauro De Santi2002,

BACKGROUND: A recent genomewide mutational analysis of glioblastomas (World Health Organization [WHO] grade IV glioma) revealed somatic mutations of the isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 gene (IDH1) in a fraction of such tumors, most frequently in tumors that were known to have evolved from lower-grade gliomas (secondary glioblastomas). METHODS: We determined the sequence of the IDH1 gene and the related IDH2 gene in 445 central nervous system (CNS) tumors and 494 non-CNS tumors. The enzymatic activity of the proteins that were produced from normal and mutant IDH1 and IDH2 genes was determined in cultured glioma cells that were transfected with these genes. RESULTS: We identified mutations that affected amino acid 132 of IDH1 in more than 70% of WHO grade II and III astrocytomas and oligodendrogliomas and in glioblastomas that developed from these lower-grade lesions. Tumors without mutations in IDH1 often had mutations affecting the analogous amino acid (R172) of the IDH2 gene. Tumors with IDH1 or IDH2 mutations had distinctive genetic and clinical characteristics, and patients with such tumors had a better outcome than those with wild-type IDH genes. Each of four tested IDH1 and IDH2 mutations reduced the enzymatic activity of the encoded protein. CONCLUSIONS: Mutations of NADP(+)-dependent isocitrate dehydrogenases encoded by IDH1 and IDH2 occur in a majority of several types of malignant gliomas.

The FDA is developing guidance on the use of “real-world evidence” — health care information from atypical sources, including electronic health records, billing databases, and product and disease registries — to assess the safety and effectiveness of drugs and devices.

On October 6, 2006, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration granted regular approval to vorinostat (Zolinza(R); Merck & Co., Inc., Whitehouse Station, NJ), a histone deacetylase inhibitor, for the treatment of cutaneous manifestations of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) in patients with progressive, persistent, or recurrent disease on or following two systemic therapies. The pivotal study supporting approval was a single-arm open-label phase II trial that enrolled 74 patients with stage IB and higher CTCL who had failed two systemic therapies (one of which must have contained bexarotene). Patients received vorinostat at a dose of 400 mg orally once daily, which could be reduced for toxicity to 300 mg daily or 300 mg 5 days a week. The median age of patients was 61 years. Sixty-one patients (82%) had stage IIB or higher CTCL and 30 patients (41%) had Sézary syndrome. The median duration of protocol treatment was 118 days. The primary efficacy endpoint was objective response assessed by the Severity-Weighted Assessment Tool. The objective response rate was 30% (95% confidence interval [CI], 19.7%-41.5%), the estimated median response duration was 168 days, and the median time to tumor progression was 202 days. An additional single-center study enrolled 33 patients with similar baseline and demographic features as the pivotal trial. Thirteen of the 33 received vorinostat (400 mg/day). The response rate in these 13 patients was 31% (95% CI, 9.1%-61.4%). The most common clinical adverse events (AEs) of any grade were diarrhea (52%), fatigue (52%), nausea (41%), and anorexia (24%). Grade 3 or 4 clinical AEs included fatigue (4%) and pulmonary embolism (5%). Hematologic laboratory abnormalities included thrombocytopenia (26%) and anemia (14%). Chemistry laboratory abnormalities included increased creatinine (16%), increased serum glucose (69%), and proteinuria (51%). Most abnormalities were National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade 1 or 2. Grade 3 or greater chemistry abnormalities included hyperglycemia, hypertriglyceridemia, and hyperuricemia, hypoglycemia, hypokalemia, hyponatremia, hyperkalemia, hypercholesterolemia, hypophosphatemia, and increased creatinine.

In the February 2004 issue of Diabetes Care , the American Diabetes Association (ADA) published a summary of their conclusions drawn from the Consensus Development Conference on Antipsychotic Drugs and Obesity and Diabetes (1). Although the ADA ranked the diabetes risk for second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Division of Neuropharmacological Drug Products (DNDP) does not believe that the evidence currently available allows such a ranking. The ADA concluded that aripiprazole and ziprasidone have no effect on the risk of diabetes. The ADA notes that because these two drugs have not been included in epidemiological studies, this conclusion is solely based on data from clinical trials that did not …

Deficiencies in methods reporting in animal experimentation lead to difficulties in reproducing experiments; the authors propose a set of reporting standards to improve scientific communication and study design. Animal studies have contributed immensely to our understanding of diseases and assist the development of new therapies, but inadequate experimental reporting can sometimes render such studies difficult to reproduce and to translate into the clinic. This year, a US National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke workshop addressed this issue, and its conclusions are discussed in a Perspective piece in this issue of Nature. The main workshop recommendation is that at a minimum, studies should report on randomization, blinding, sample-size estimation and how the data were handled. The US National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke convened major stakeholders in June 2012 to discuss how to improve the methodological reporting of animal studies in grant applications and publications. The main workshop recommendation is that at a minimum studies should report on sample-size estimation, whether and how animals were randomized, whether investigators were blind to the treatment, and the handling of data. We recognize that achieving a meaningful improvement in the quality of reporting will require a concerted effort by investigators, reviewers, funding agencies and journal editors. Requiring better reporting of animal studies will raise awareness of the importance of rigorous study design to accelerate scientific progress.

BACKGROUND: The hyper-IgE syndrome (or Job's syndrome) is a rare disorder of immunity and connective tissue characterized by dermatitis, boils, cyst-forming pneumonias, elevated serum IgE levels, retained primary dentition, and bone abnormalities. Inheritance is autosomal dominant; sporadic cases are also found. METHODS: We collected longitudinal clinical data on patients with the hyper-IgE syndrome and their families and assayed the levels of cytokines secreted by stimulated leukocytes and the gene expression in resting and stimulated cells. These data implicated the signal transducer and activator of transcription 3 gene (STAT3) as a candidate gene, which we then sequenced. RESULTS: We found increased levels of proinflammatory gene transcripts in unstimulated peripheral-blood neutrophils and mononuclear cells from patients with the hyper-IgE syndrome, as compared with levels in control cells. In vitro cultures of mononuclear cells from patients that were stimulated with lipopolysaccharide, with or without interferon-gamma, had higher tumor necrosis factor alpha levels than did identically treated cells from unaffected persons (P=0.003). In contrast, the cells from patients with the hyper-IgE syndrome generated lower levels of monocyte chemoattractant protein 1 in response to the presence of interleukin-6 (P=0.03), suggesting a defect in interleukin-6 signaling through its downstream mediators, one of which is STAT3. We identified missense mutations and single-codon in-frame deletions in STAT3 in 50 familial and sporadic cases of the hyper-IgE syndrome. Eighteen discrete mutations, five of which were hot spots, were predicted to directly affect the DNA-binding and SRC homology 2 (SH2) domains. CONCLUSIONS: Mutations in STAT3 underlie sporadic and dominant forms of the hyper-IgE syndrome, an immunodeficiency syndrome involving increased innate immune response, recurrent infections, and complex somatic features.

Trends in incidence or mortality rates over a specified time interval are usually described by the conventional annual per cent change (cAPC), under the assumption of a constant rate of change. When this assumption does not hold over the entire time interval, the trend may be characterized using the annual per cent changes from segmented analysis (sAPCs). This approach assumes that the change in rates is constant over each time partition defined by the transition points, but varies among different time partitions. Different groups (e.g. racial subgroups), however, may have different transition points and thus different time partitions over which they have constant rates of change, making comparison of sAPCs problematic across groups over a common time interval of interest (e.g. the past 10 years). We propose a new measure, the average annual per cent change (AAPC), which uses sAPCs to summarize and compare trends for a specific time period. The advantage of the proposed AAPC is that it takes into account the trend transitions, whereas cAPC does not and can lead to erroneous conclusions. In addition, when the trend is constant over the entire time interval of interest, the AAPC has the advantage of reducing to both cAPC and sAPC. Moreover, because the estimated AAPC is based on the segmented analysis over the entire data series, any selected subinterval within a single time partition will yield the same AAPC estimate--that is it will be equal to the estimated sAPC for that time partition. The cAPC, however, is re-estimated using data only from that selected subinterval; thus, its estimate may be sensitive to the subinterval selected. The AAPC estimation has been incorporated into the segmented regression (free) software Joinpoint, which is used by many registries throughout the world for characterizing trends in cancer rates.

The FDA approved pembrolizumab on May 23, 2017, for the treatment of adult and pediatric patients with unresectable or metastatic, microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H), or mismatch repair deficient (dMMR) solid tumors that have progressed following prior treatment and who have no satisfactory alternative treatment options and for the treatment of unresectable or metastatic MSI-H or dMMR colorectal cancer that has progressed following treatment with a fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan. The FDA granted the approval based on an understanding of the biology of MSI-H/dMMR across different tumors along with the clinically important effects on overall response rate (ORR) observed in patients who were enrolled in 1 of 5 single-arm clinical trials. The ORR was 39.6% among 149 patients with 15 different tumor types (95% confidence interval, 31.7-47.9), with a 7% complete response rate. The duration of response ranged from 1.6+ months to 22.7+ months, with 78% of responses lasting ≥6 months. Overall, the adverse event profile of pembrolizumab was similar to the adverse event profile observed across prior trials that supported the approval of pembrolizumab in other indications. This approval of pembrolizumab is the first time that the FDA has approved a cancer treatment for an indication based on a common biomarker rather than the primary site of origin.

Human pharmacokinetics data indicate that i.v. ascorbic acid (ascorbate) in pharmacologic concentrations could have an unanticipated role in cancer treatment. Our goals here were to test whether ascorbate killed cancer cells selectively, and if so, to determine mechanisms, using clinically relevant conditions. Cell death in 10 cancer and 4 normal cell types was measured by using 1-h exposures. Normal cells were unaffected by 20 mM ascorbate, whereas 5 cancer lines had EC(50) values of <4 mM, a concentration easily achievable i.v. Human lymphoma cells were studied in detail because of their sensitivity to ascorbate (EC(50) of 0.5 mM) and suitability for addressing mechanisms. Extracellular but not intracellular ascorbate mediated cell death, which occurred by apoptosis and pyknosis/necrosis. Cell death was independent of metal chelators and absolutely dependent on H(2)O(2) formation. Cell death from H(2)O(2) added to cells was identical to that found when H(2)O(2) was generated by ascorbate treatment. H(2)O(2) generation was dependent on ascorbate concentration, incubation time, and the presence of 0.5-10% serum, and displayed a linear relationship with ascorbate radical formation. Although ascorbate addition to medium generated H(2)O(2), ascorbate addition to blood generated no detectable H(2)O(2) and only trace detectable ascorbate radical. Taken together, these data indicate that ascorbate at concentrations achieved only by i.v. administration may be a pro-drug for formation of H(2)O(2), and that blood can be a delivery system of the pro-drug to tissues. These findings give plausibility to i.v. ascorbic acid in cancer treatment, and have unexpected implications for treatment of infections where H(2)O(2) may be beneficial.

Drug-induced liver injury (DILI) is the most frequent reason cited for the withdrawal of approved drugs from the market and accounts for up to 15% of the cases of acute liver failure. Investigators around the globe have begun to identify and study patients with DILI; several large registries and tissue banks are being established. In order to gain the maximum scientific benefit from these efforts, the definitions and terminology related to the clinical phenotypes of DILI must be harmonized. For this purpose, an international DILI Expert Working Group of clinicians and scientists reviewed current DILI terminology and diagnostic criteria so as to develop more uniform criteria that would define and characterize the spectrum of clinical syndromes that constitute DILI. Consensus was established with respect to the threshold criteria for definition of a case as being DILI, the pattern of liver injury, causality assessment, severity, and chronicity. Consensus was also reached on approaches to characterizing DILI in the setting of chronic liver diseases, including autoimmune hepatitis (AIH).

This review considers master protocols, which involve the study of one or more interventions in multiple diseases or of a single disease with multiple interventions.

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection and disease are important causes of morbidity and mortality in transplant recipients. For the purpose of developing consistent reporting of CMV outcomes in clinical trials, definitions of CMV infection and disease were developed and most recently published in 2002. Since then, there have been major developments in its diagnosis and management. Therefore, the CMV Drug Development Forum consisting of scientists, clinicians, regulators, and industry representatives has produced an updated version incorporating recent knowledge with the aim to support clinical research and drug development. The main changes compared to previous definitions are the introduction of a "probable disease" category and to incorporate quantitative nucleic acid testing in some end-organ disease categories. As the field evolves, the need for updates of these definitions is clear, and collaborative efforts between scientists, regulators, and industry can provide a platform for this work.

Today nanotechnology is finding growing applications in industry, biology, and medicine. The clear benefits of using nanosized products in various biological and medical applications are often challenged by concerns about the lack of adequate data regarding their toxicity. One area of interest involves the interactions between nanoparticles and the components of the immune system. Nanoparticles can be engineered to either avoid immune system recognition or specifically inhibit or enhance the immune responses. We review herein reported observations on nanoparticle-mediated immunostimulation and immunosuppression, focusing on possible theories regarding how manipulation of particle physicochemical properties can influence their interaction with immune cells to attain desirable immunomodulation and avoid undesirable immunotoxicity.

CONTEXT: Lipid-lowering agents are widely prescribed in the United States. Reliable estimates of rhabdomyolysis risk with various lipid-lowering agents are not available. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the incidence of rhabdomyolysis in patients treated with different statins and fibrates, alone and in combination, in the ambulatory setting. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Drug-specific inception cohorts of statin and fibrate users were established using claims data from 11 managed care health plans across the United States. Patients with at least 180 days of prior health plan enrollment were entered into the cohorts between January 1, 1998, and June 30, 2001. Person-time was classified as monotherapy or combined statin-fibrate therapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Incidence rates of rhabdomyolysis per 10,000 person-years of treatment, number needed to treat, and relative risk of rhabdomyolysis. RESULTS: In 252,460 patients treated with lipid-lowering agents, 24 cases of hospitalized rhabdomyolysis occurred during treatment. Average incidence per 10,000 person-years for monotherapy with atorvastatin, pravastatin, or simvastatin was 0.44 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.20-0.84); for cerivastatin, 5.34 (95% CI, 1.46-13.68); and for fibrate, 2.82 (95% CI, 0.58-8.24). By comparison, the incidence during unexposed person-time was 0 (95% CI, 0-0.48; P = .056). The incidence increased to 5.98 (95% CI, 0.72-216.0) for combined therapy of atorvastatin, pravastatin, or simvastatin with a fibrate, and to 1035 (95% CI, 389-2117) for combined cerivastatin-fibrate use. Per year of therapy, the number needed to treat to observe 1 case of rhabdomyolysis was 22,727 for statin monotherapy, 484 for older patients with diabetes mellitus who were treated with both a statin and fibrate, and ranged from 9.7 to 12.7 for patients who were treated with cerivastatin plus fibrate. CONCLUSIONS: Rhabdomyolysis risk was similar and low for monotherapy with atorvastatin, pravastatin, and simvastatin; combined statin-fibrate use increased risk, especially in older patients with diabetes mellitus. Cerivastatin combined with fibrate conferred a risk of approximately 1 in 10 treated patients per year.

In recent years, several authors have argued that placebo-controlled trials are invariably unethical when known effective therapy is available for the condition being studied, regardless of the condition or the consequences of deferring treatment. Some have also disputed the value of placebo-controlled trials in such a setting, asserting that the comparison of new treatment with old treatment is sufficient to establish efficacy and is all that should be of interest. This article considers the ethical concerns about use of placebo controls and describes the limited ability of active-control equivalence (also known as noninferiority) trials to establish efficacy of new therapies in many medical contexts. The authors conclude that placebo-controlled trials are not uniformly unethical when known effective therapies are available; rather, their acceptability is determined by whether the patient will be harmed by deferral of therapy. If patients are not harmed, such trials can ethically be carried out. Furthermore, active-control trials, although valuable, informative, and appropriate in many circumstances, often cannot provide reliable evidence of the effectiveness of a new therapy.

On August 30, 2017, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved Actemra (tocilizumab, Genentech, Inc., South San Francisco, CA) for the treatment of severe or life-threatening chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell-induced cytokine release syndrome (CRS) in adults and in pediatric patients 2 years of age and older. The approval was based on a retrospective analysis of data for patients who developed CRS after treatment with CTL019 and KTE-C19 on prospective clinical trials. Evaluable patients had been treated with intravenous tocilizumab 8 mg/kg (12 mg/kg for patients <30 kg) for severe or life-threatening CRS; only the first episode of CRS was included in the analysis. The efficacy population for the CTL019 cohort included 24 male and 21 female patients (total 45 patients) of median age 12 years. The median time from the start of CRS to the first dose of tocilizumab was 4 days (range, 0-18 days). Patients were considered responders if CRS resolved within 14 days of the first dose of tocilizumab, if no more than 2 doses of tocilizumab were needed, and if no drugs other than tocilizumab and corticosteroids were used for treatment. Thirty-one patients (69%; 95% confidence interval, 53%-82%) achieved a response as defined. In an independent cohort of 15 patients with KTE-C19-induced CRS, 53% responded. Further study is needed to determine the optimal dose of tocilizumab and to confirm the safety of its use for treatment of patients with CAR T cell-induced CRS. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Severe or life-threatening chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell-induced cytokine release syndrome (CRS) requires urgent treatment to prevent fatal outcomes. In two independent cohorts, the majority of patients with severe or life-threatening CAR T cell-induced CRS responded to treatment with one or two doses of tocilizumab in addition to advanced supportive care. More research is needed to determine the optimal dose and schedule of tocilizumab for treatment of CAR T cell-induced CRS.

PURPOSE: Gemtuzumab ozogamicin (Mylotarg; Wyeth Laboratories, Philadelphia, PA) consists of a semisynthetic derivative of calicheamicin, a cytotoxic antibiotic linked to a recombinant monoclonal antibody directed against the CD33 antigen present on leukemic myeloblasts in most patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). In this study, we review the preclinical and clinical profiles of this immunoconjugate and the regulatory review that led to marketing approval by the United States Food and Drug Administration. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: From the literature and manufacturer's data, we review the activity, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of gemtuzumab ozogamicin in preclinical and Phase I studies and its activity, efficacy, and side effects in three Phase 2 trials of 142 patients with relapsed AML. RESULTS: In Phase I studies, the major toxicity was myelosuppression, especially neutropenia and thrombocytopenia, resulting from the expression of CD33 on myeloid progenitor cells. The Phase 2 dose was 9 mg/m(2) infused i.v. over 4 h, repeated on day 14. A minority of patients experienced acute infusion-related symptoms, usually transient and occasionally requiring hospitalization. The complete response (CR) rate with full recovery of hematopoiesis was 16%. A subset of patients [CRs with incomplete platelet recovery (CRps)] was identified with blast clearance and neutrophil recovery but incomplete platelet recovery. The duration of responses of CRps appeared to be similar to those of the CRs, although the numbers were small. The question of the equivalence of these response groups was a central issue in the review of this new drug application (NDA). After considerable discussion, the Oncology Drugs Advisory Committee recommended allowing inclusion of CRps resulting in an overall response rate in the Phase 2 studies of 30%. In the subgroup of patients over 60 years of age, the overall response rate was 26%. Response duration was difficult to establish because of the high prevalence of postremission therapies. Tolerability and ease of administration may be improved compared with conventional chemotherapy, except for hepatotoxicity, with 31% of patients exhibiting abnormal liver enzymes. One patient died of liver failure in the Phase 2 trials. CONCLUSIONS: Marketing approval of gemtuzumab ozogamicin was granted on May 17, 2000 by the United States Food and Drug Administration under the Accelerated Approval regulations. Gemtuzumab ozogamicin is indicated for the treatment of patients with CD33 positive AML in first relapse who are 60 years of age or older and who are not considered candidates for cytotoxic chemotherapy. The approved dose was 9 mg/m(2) i.v. over 4 h and repeated in 14 days. Completion of the ongoing studies of gemtuzumab ozogamicin in relapsed AML and initiation of randomized clinical trials comparing the effects of gemtuzumab ozogamicin in combination with conventional induction chemotherapy to conventional chemotherapy alone on survival are mandated to confirm clinical benefit under the accelerated approval Subpart H regulations. Postmarketing reports of fatal anaphylaxis, adult respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and hepatotoxicity, especially venoocclusive disease (VOD) in patients treated with gemtuzumab ozogamicin, with and without associated hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), have required labeling revisions and the initiation of a registration surveillance program. Tumor lysis and ARDS have been reported in patients with leukocytes above 30,000/ml treated with gemtuzumab ozogamicin; therefore, the reduction of leukocyte counts to below 30,000/ml is recommended prior to treatment. Patients should be carefully monitored for acute hypersensitivity, hypoxia, and delayed hepatotoxicity following treatment with gemtuzumab ozogamicin.

The purpose of this study is to provisionally classify, based on the Biopharmaceutics Classification System (BCS), drugs in immediate-release dosage forms that appear on the World Health Organization (WHO) Essential Drug List. The classification in this report is based on the aqueous solubility of the drugs reported in commonly available reference literature and a correlation of human intestinal membrane permeability for a set of 29 reference drugs with their calculated partition coefficients. The WHO Essential Drug List consists of a total of 325 medicines and 260 drugs, of which 123 are oral drugs in immediate-release (IR) products. Drugs with dose numbers less than or equal to unity [Do = (maximum dose strength/250 mL)/solubility < or = 1] are defined as high-solubility drugs. Drug solubility for the uncharged, lowest-solubility form reported in the Merck Index or USP was used. Of the 123 WHO oral drugs in immediate-release dosage forms, 67% (82) were determined to be high-solubility drugs. The classification of permeability is based on correlations of human intestinal permeability of 29 reference drugs with the estimated log P or CLogP lipophilicity values. Metoprolol was chosen as the reference compound for permeability and log P or CLogP. Log P and CLogP were linearly correlated (r2 = 0.78) for 104 drugs. A total of 53 (43.1%) and 62 (50.4%) drugs on the WHO list exhibited log P and CLogP estimates, respectively, that were greater than or equal to the corresponding metoprolol value and are classified as high-permeability drugs. The percentages of the drugs in immediate-release dosage forms that were classified as BCS Class 1, Class 2, Class 3, and Class 4 drugs using dose number and log Pwere as follows: 23.6% in Class 1, 17.1% in Class 2, 31.7% in Class 3, and 10.6% in Class 4. The remaining 17.1% of the drugs could not be classified because of the inability to calculate log P values because of missing fragments. The corresponding percentages in the various BCS classes with dose number and CLogP criteria were similar: 28.5% in Class 1, 19.5% in Class 2, 35.0% in Class 3, and 9.8% in Class 4. The remaining 7.3% of the drugs could not be classified since CLogP could not be calculated. These results suggest that a satisfactory bioequivalence (BE) test for more than 55% of the high-solubility Class 1 and Class 3 drug products on the WHO Essential Drug List may be based on an in vitro dissolution test. The use of more easily implemented, routinely monitored, and reliable in vitro dissolution tests can ensure the clinical performance of drug products that appear on the WHO Essential Medicines List.