Lessons learned from drug trials in neurofibromatosis: A systematic review.

Neurofibromatosis (NF) is the umbrella term for neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1), neurofibromatosis type 2 (NF2) and schwannomatosis (SWN). EU-PEARL aims to create a framework for platform trials in NF. The aim of this systematic review is to create an overview of recent clinical drug trials in NF, to identify learning points to guide development of the framework. We searched Embase, Medline and Cochrane register of trials on October 1, 2020 for publications of clinical drug trials in NF patients. We excluded publications published before 2010, systematic reviews, secondary analyses and studies with <10 patients. Data was extracted on manifestations studied, study design, phase, number of participating centres and population size. Full-text review resulted in 42 articles: 31 for NF1, 11 for NF2, none for SWN. Most NF1 trials focused on plexiform neurofibromas (32%). Trials in NF2 solely studied vestibular schwannomas. In NF1, single-arm trials (58%) were most common, and the majority was phase II (74%). For NF2 most trials were single-arm (55%) and exclusively phase II. For both diseases, trials were predominantly single-country and included five centres or less. Study population sizes were small, with the majority including ≤50 patients (74%). In conclusion, NF research is dominated by studies on a limited number out of the wide range of manifestations. We need more trials for cutaneous manifestations and high-grade gliomas in NF1, manifestations other than vestibular schwannoma in NF2 and trials for SWN. Drug development in NF may profit from innovative trials on multiple interventions and increased international collaboration.

Identifying challenges in neurofibromatosis: a modified Delphi procedure.

Neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1), neurofibromatosis type 2 (NF2) and schwannomatosis (SWN) are rare conditions with pronounced variability of clinical expression. We aimed to reach consensus on the most important manifestations meriting the development of drug trials. The five-staged modified Delphi procedure consisted of two questionnaires and a consensus meeting for 40 NF experts, a survey for 63 patient representatives, and a final workshop. In the questionnaires, manifestations were scored on multiple items on a 4-point Likert scale. The highest average scores for NF experts deciding the 'need for new treatment' were for malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumour (MPNST) (4,0) and high grade glioma (HGG) (3,9) for NF1; meningioma (3,9) for NF2 and pain (3,9) for SWN. The patient representatives assigned high scores to all manifestations, with plexiform neurofibroma being highest in NF1 (4,0), vestibular schwannoma in NF2 (4,0), and pain in SWN (3,9). Twelve experts participated in the consensus meeting and prioritised manifestations. MPNST was ranked the highest for NF1, followed by benign peripheral nerve sheath tumours. Tumour manifestations received highest ranking in NF2, and pain was the most prominent problem for SWN. Patient representative ratings for NF1 were similar to the experts' opinions, except that they ranked HGG as the most important manifestation. For NF2 and SWN, the patient representatives agreed with the experts. We conclude that NF experts and patient representatives consent to prioritise development of drug trials for MPNST, benign peripheral nerve sheath tumours, cutaneous manifestations and HGG for NF1; tumours for NF2; and pain for SWN.

Higher Risk of Hypoglycemia with Glimepiride Versus Vildagliptin in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes is not Driven by High Doses of Glimepiride: Divergent Patient Susceptibilities?

INTRODUCTION: In a previously published study, vildagliptin showed a reduced risk of hypoglycemia versus glimepiride as add-on therapy to metformin at similar efficacy. Glimepiride was titrated from a starting dose of 2 mg/day to a maximum dose of 6 mg/day. It is usually assumed that the increased hypoglycemia with glimepiride was driven by the 6 mg/day dose; it was therefore of interest to assess whether the risk of hypoglycemia is also different between vildagliptin and a low (2 mg/day) dose of glimepiride. METHODS: Data (n = 3,059) were from the aforementioned randomized, double-blind study. Comparisons between vildagliptin (50 mg twice daily) and glimepiride (subgroups of patients on 2 mg/day, 6 mg/day, and 'other', and overall glimepiride group) were done by modeling hypoglycemia risk as a function of time and last-measured glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) using discrete event time modeling, with treatment, age, gender as additional covariates. RESULTS: The hypoglycemia risk was significantly lower in patients receiving vildagliptin versus patients remaining on glimepiride 2 mg/day throughout the study, with similar results unadjusted or adjusted for last HbA1c [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) = 0.06 (95% CI 0.03, 0.11)]. The risk of hypoglycemia was very low with vildagliptin over the full HbA1c range, while the risk with glimepiride 2 mg/day increased with lower HbA1c. The increase for lower levels of HbA1c was more pronounced in the glimepiride 2 mg/day than 6 mg/day subgroup, with the 6 mg/day subgroup showing the lowest hypoglycemia risk among the glimepiride groups [adjusted HR vildagliptin vs. 6 mg/day glimepiride = 0.21 (95% CI 0.11, 0.40)]. CONCLUSION: The data show a substantially lower risk of confirmed hypoglycemia with vildagliptin compared to low-dose (2 mg/day) glimepiride. The analysis indicates that the previously reported results are not driven by high doses of glimepiride and points to interesting differences among patients regarding the susceptibility to hypoglycemia with sulfonylureas.