What is the value of biomarkers for drug development in osteoarthritis?
; ; et al
in Osteoporosis International (2013, April), 24(Suppl.1), 77-78Detailed reference viewed: 5 (2 ULg)
Recommendations for an update of 2003 European regulatory requirements for registration of drugs to be used in the treatment of RA.
; ; Abadie, Eric et al
in Current Medical Research & Opinion (2011), 27(2), 315-25
Since 2003, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) document, 'Points to consider on clinical investigation of medicinal products other than NSAIDs (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) for the treatment of ... [more ▼]
Since 2003, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) document, 'Points to consider on clinical investigation of medicinal products other than NSAIDs (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis' has provided guidance for the clinical development of both biologic and non-biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). In the last few years, several new products have been developed or are in development for the treatment of RA, which offer significant efficacy with regard to disease control, including prevention of structural damage and disability. Concurrently, novel insights have been gained with respect to the assessment of disease activity, joint damage and disability. New treatment strategies have been established which relate to early therapy, tight control and rapid switching of medication. Accordingly, several new EULAR/ACR recommendations have been or are being developed. Several important additions and changes are needed in the 2003 guidance to incorporate the current scientific knowledge into clinical trial design for the development of future products. Under the auspices of the Group for the Respect of Ethics and Excellence in Science (GREES), a group of experts in the field of RA and clinical trial design met to provide a consensus recommendation for an update to the 2003 EMA guidance document. [less ▲]Detailed reference viewed: 27 (5 ULg)
Updating the 2003 European regulatory requirements for registering disease-modifying drugs to be used in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.
; ; Abadie, Eric et al
in Rheumatology (2011), 50(10), 1732-6Detailed reference viewed: 27 (13 ULg)
Clinical evaluation of medicinal products for acceleration of fracture healing in patients with osteoporosis.
; ; et al
in BONE (2008), 43(2), 343-7
Pre-clinical studies indicate that pharmacologic agents can augment fracture union. If these pharmacologic approaches could be translated into clinical benefit and offered to patients with osteoporosis or ... [more ▼]
Pre-clinical studies indicate that pharmacologic agents can augment fracture union. If these pharmacologic approaches could be translated into clinical benefit and offered to patients with osteoporosis or patients with other risks for impaired fracture union (e.g. in subjects with large defects or open fractures with high complication rate), they could provide an important adjunct to the treatment of fractures. However, widely accepted guidelines are important to encourage the conduct of studies to evaluate bioactive substances, drugs, and new agents that may promote fracture union and subsequent return to normal function. A consensus process was initiated to provide recommendations for the clinical evaluation of potential therapies to augment fracture repair in patients with meta- and diaphyseal fractures. Based on the characteristics of fracture healing and fixation, the following study objectives of a clinical study may be appropriate: a) acceleration of fracture union, b) acceleration of return to normal function and c) reduction of fracture healing complications. The intended goal(s) should determine subsequent study methodology. While an acceleration of return to normal function or a reduction of fracture healing complications in and of themselves may be sufficient primary study endpoints for a phase 3 pivotal study, acceleration of fracture union alone is not. Radiographic evaluation may either occur at multiple time points during the healing process with the aim of measuring the time taken to reach a defined status (e.g. cortical bridging of three cortices or disappearance of fracture lines), or could be obtained at a single pre-determined timepoint, were patients are expected to reach a common clinical milestone (i.e. pain free full weight-bearing in weight-bearing fracture cases). Validated Patient Reported Outcomes (PRO's) measures will need to support the return to normal function co-primary endpoints. If reduction of complication rate (e.g. non-union) is the primary objective, the anticipated complications must be defined in the study protocol, along with their possible associations with the specified fracture type and fixation device. The study design should be randomized, parallel, double-blind, and placebo-controlled, and all fracture subjects should receive a standardized method of fracture fixation, defined as Standard of Care. [less ▲]Detailed reference viewed: 34 (13 ULg)
Osteonecrosis of the jaw and bisphosphonate treatment for osteoporosis.
; ; et al
in BONE (2008), 42(5), 841-7
A potential side effect associated with bisphosphonates, a class of drugs used in the treatment of osteoporosis, Paget's disease and metastatic bone disease, is osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ). The ... [more ▼]
A potential side effect associated with bisphosphonates, a class of drugs used in the treatment of osteoporosis, Paget's disease and metastatic bone disease, is osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ). The incidence of ONJ in the general population is unknown; this rare condition also may occur in patients not receiving bisphosphonates. Case reports have discussed ONJ development in patients with multiple myeloma or metastatic breast cancer receiving bisphosphonates as palliation for bone metastases. These patients are also receiving chemotherapeutic agents that might impair the immune system and affect angiogenesis. The incidence or prevalence of ONJ in patients taking bisphosphonates for osteoporosis seems to be very rare. No causative relationship has been unequivocally demonstrated between ONJ and bisphosphonate therapy. A majority of ONJ occurs after tooth extraction. Furthermore, the underlying risk of developing ONJ may be increased in osteoporotic patients by comorbid diseases. Treatment for ONJ is generally conservative. [less ▲]Detailed reference viewed: 25 (2 ULg)
Recommendations for the registration of agents to be used in the prevention and treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis: updated recommendations from the Group for the Respect of Ethics and Excellence in Science.
Abadie, Eric ; ; et al
in Seminars in Arthritis & Rheumatism (2005), 35(1), 1-4
OBJECTIVES: The Group for the Respect and Excellence in Science (GREES) has reviewed and updated their recommendations for clinical trials to evaluate the efficacy and safety of new chemical entities to ... [more ▼]
OBJECTIVES: The Group for the Respect and Excellence in Science (GREES) has reviewed and updated their recommendations for clinical trials to evaluate the efficacy and safety of new chemical entities to be used in the treatment and prevention of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIOP). METHODS: Consensus discussion of the committee. RESULTS: With the exception of steroid use posttransplantation, there is no need to differentiate between underlying diseases. Prevention and treatment for GIOP are dependent on exposure to glucocorticoids rather than T-scores as in postmenopausal osteoporosis (PMO). If fracture data are obtained for PMO, it need not be repeated for GIOP, relying instead on bone mineral density (BMD) trials of at least 1 year. GREES recommends several changes in the previous guidance for GIOP. The committee saw no need to repeat preclinical studies if those have been previously done to assure bone quality in PMO. Similarly, phase I and phase II trials, if careful dose selection has been done for PMO, should not be repeated. The "prevention" and "treatment" claims should remain. Since the most recent evidence suggests significant increase in fracture risk for daily doses of prednisone of 5 mg/day or equivalent, clinical trials should concentrate on patients receiving at least this daily dosage. The emergence of bisphosphonates as the reference treatment, together with the rapid bone loss and high fracture incidence in glucocorticoid users, necessitates recommending a noninferiority trial design with lumbar spine BMD as the primary endpoint after 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: Registration of new chemical entities to be used in the management of GIOP should be granted, based on a 1-year noninferiority trial, using BMD as primary outcome and alendronate or risedronate as comparator. Demonstration of antifracture efficacy should have been previously demonstrated in PMO. [less ▲]Detailed reference viewed: 56 (5 ULg)
Recommendations for the use of new methods to assess the efficacy of disease-modifying drugs in the treatment of osteoarthritis
Abadie, Eric ; Ethgen, Dominique ; Avouac, Bernard et al
in Osteoarthritis and Cartilage (2004), 12(4), 263-268
Background: Recent innovations in the pharmaceutical drug discovery environment have generated new chemical entities with the potential to become disease modifying drugs for osteoarthritis (DMOAD's ... [more ▼]
Background: Recent innovations in the pharmaceutical drug discovery environment have generated new chemical entities with the potential to become disease modifying drugs for osteoarthritis (DMOAD's). Regulatory agencies acknowledge that such compounds may be granted a DMOAD indication, providing they demonstrate that they can slow down disease progression; progression would be calibrated by a surrogate for structural change, by measuring joint space narrowing (JSN) on plain X-rays with the caveat that this delayed JSN translate into a clinical benefit for the patient. Recently, new technology has been developed to detect a structural change of the OA joint earlier than conventional X-rays. Objective: The Group for the Respect of Ethics and Excellence in Science (GREES) organized a working party to assess whether these new technologies may be used as surrogates to plain x-rays for assessment of DMOADs. Methods: GREES includes academic scientists, members of regulatory authorities and representatives from the pharmaceutical industry. After an extensive search of the international literature, from 1980 to 2002, two experts meetings were organized to prepare a resource document for regulatory authorities. This document includes recommendations for a possible update of guidelines for the registration of new chemical entities in osteoarthritis. Results: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is now used to measure parameters of cartilage morphology and integrity in OA patients. While some data are encouraging, correlation between short-term changes in cartilage structure observed with MRI and long-term radiographic or clinical changes are needed. Hence, the GREES suggests that MRI maybe used as an outcome in phase II studies, but that further data is needed before accepting MRI as a primary end-point in phase III clinical trials. Biochemical markers of bone and cartilage remodelling are being tested to predict OA and measure disease progression. Recently published data are promising but validation as surrogate end-points for OA disease progression requires additional study. The GREES suggests that biochemical markers remain limited to 'proof of concept' studies or as secondary end-points in phase II and III clinical trials. However, the GREES emphasizes the importance of acquiring additional information on biochemical markers in order to help better understand the mode of action of drugs to be used in OA. Regulatory agencies consider that evidence of improvement in clinical outcomes is critical for approval of DMOAD. Time to total joint replacement surgery is probably the most relevant clinical end-point for the evaluation of efficacy of a DMOAD. However, at this time, time to surgery can not be used in clinical trials because of bias by non disease-related factors like patient willingness for surgery or economic factors. At this stage, it appears that DMOAD should demonstrate a significant difference compared to placebo. Benefit should be measured by 3 co-primary end-points: JSN, pain and function. Secondary end-points should include the percentage of patients who are 'responder' (or 'failure'). The definition of a 'failure' patient would be someone with progression of JSN>0.5 mm over a period of 2-3 years or who has a significant worsening in pain and/or function, based on validated cut-off values. The definition of the clinically relevant cut-off points for pain and function must be based on data evaluating the natural history of the disease (epidemiological cohorts or placebo groups from long-term studies). These cut-offs points should reflect a high propensity, for an individual patient, to later require joint replacement. Conclusion: GREES has outlined a set of guidelines for the development of a DMOAD for OA. Although these guidelines are subject to change as new information becomes available, the information above is based on the present knowledge in the field with the addition of expert opinion. (C) 2004 OsteoArthritis Research Society International. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. [less ▲]Detailed reference viewed: 65 (13 ULg)