The α-glucosidase inhibitor voglibose (AO-128) was designed to prevent rapid postprandial blood glucose rises in non-insulin-dependent diabetics. We analyzed its effect on the entero-insular axis in 72 healthy volunteers in a double-blind study design before, after the 1st dose, and on the 7th day of a 7-day treatment protocol (3 daily loads). Six parallel groups of 12 volunteers received voglibose (0.5, 1.0, 2.0, or 5.0 mg) or placebo (two groups). Blood was drawn at regular intervals up to 180 min after a standardized breakfast to analyze the levels of glucose, insulin, C peptide, gastric inhibitory polypeptide, and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1). As expected, after ingestion of voglibose, slight to moderate gastro-intestinal discomfort but no severe side-effects were reported. In a dose-dependent manner, voglibose significantly reduced postprandial increases of blood glucose, insulin, and C peptide. At the lower loads (0.5 and 1 mg voglibose three times daily), these effects were more pronounced after 7 days. The postprandial increase of gastric inhibitory polypeptide was already reduced after the first load of 2 and 5 mg voglibose. In comparison to the placebo group, this inhibition became also significant for the lower loads after 7 days. Interestingly, GLP-1, originating from the lower intestines, was increasingly released under voglibose treatment. The first administration of 1 mg voglibose enhanced GLP-1 secretion > 80% above controls. Treatment with 1 mg voglibose three times daily over 7 days revealed a maximal mobilizing effect on endogenous GLP-1 ( > 90% above controls) which was not further increased by 2- or 5-mg loads. We conclude that voglibose treatment effectively inhibits intestinal disaccharidases and thereby mobilizes the endogenous pool of insulinotropic GLP-1.

advantages, such as smaller sample sizes, shorter completion times and the summary measure for a treatment effect if more than one outcome is important. However, they are also associated with risks and pitfalls, particularly if basic clinical and statistical requirements are not adequately respected. This article focuses on time-to-event composite endpoints that combine fatal and nonfatal events and aim to demonstrate efficacy of a treatment in long-term trials.The most important issues with the selection of individual endpoint components -the trial conduct, data analysis, interpretation and reporting -are discussed. Composite endpoints should be clinically meaningful and the expected effects on each component should be similar, based on biological plausibility. Surrogates as endpoint components must have been validated, i.e. a correlation to a hard clinical outcome must have been confirmed. Patients need to be followed up on assigned treatment (clinical status permitting) until death or end of planned follow-up in the absence of events, and must not be regarded as 'a trial completer' after occurrence of the first component event. Difficulties in interpretation arise when the results on single components of the composite endpoint go in opposite directions, and when hard clinical outcomes are combined with soft endpoints, particularly if the latter occur much more frequently but are of inferior relevance. Accordingly, all individual components of the composite need to be analysed separately. In this review, several examples from recently published trials are used to illustrate both the principal needs and the inherent problems of using a composite endpoint.More specific regulatory guidelines and better reporting standards are needed. The ultimate goals of a trial with a composite endpoint should be to solve a medical problem and to support clinical decision making, rather than just to provide statistical convenience.

Background Ethics review is the process of assessing the ethics of research involving humans. The Ethics Review Committee (ERC) is the key oversight mechanism designated to ensure ethics review. Whether or not this governance mechanism is still fit for purpose in the data-driven research context remains a debated issue among research ethics experts. Main text In this article, we seek to address this issue in a twofold manner. First, we review the strengths and weaknesses of ERCs in ensuring ethical oversight. Second, we map these strengths and weaknesses onto specific challenges raised by big data research. We distinguish two categories of potential weakness. The first category concerns persistent weaknesses, i.e., those which are not specific to big data research, but may be exacerbated by it. The second category concerns novel weaknesses, i.e., those which are created by and inherent to big data projects. Within this second category, we further distinguish between purview weaknesses related to the ERC’s scope (e.g., how big data projects may evade ERC review) and functional weaknesses, related to the ERC’s way of operating. Based on this analysis, we propose reforms aimed at improving the oversight capacity of ERCs in the era of big data science. Conclusions We believe the oversight mechanism could benefit from these reforms because they will help to overcome data-intensive research challenges and consequently benefit research at large.

Gene therapy orphan medicinal products constitute a unique group of new drugs which in case of hereditary diseases are usually administered only once at an early age, in the hope to provide sufficient gene product to last for the entire life of the patients. The combination of an exceptionally large single payment and the life-long clinical follow-up needed for understanding the long-term benefits and safety of gene therapy, represent new types of scientific, financial, social and ethical challenges for the pharmaceutical industry, regulators and society. With special consideration of the uniqueness and importance of gene therapy, the authors propose a three points plan for a close cooperation between the pharmaceutical industry and society to develop orphan gene therapy. (1) In fully transparent health technology negotiations a close and long-lasting, contractually fixed cooperation should be established between the manufacturers and local health-care stakeholders for sharing the medical and scientific benefits, the financial risks as well as the burdens of the post-authorization clinical and regulatory development. (2) The parties should agree on a fair, locally affordable drug price without the usually very high premium price calculated to compensate for the low number of patients. In case of high manufacturing costs, the companies should offer prolonged, 15–20 years long payment by installment with risk-sharing, especially considering that the late outcome of the treatment is unknown. Society should assist scientifically and financially organizing a specific patient registry, treatment in specialized hospitals and adequate long-term follow-up of patients, the coordinated management of financial transactions related to the risk sharing program. (3) The post-authorization treatment and prolonged observation of additional new cases coordinated by society should provide real world data needed for the modern complex regulatory evaluation of gene therapy products by the competent authorities. We assume that fair sharing of the benefits and risks as well as a well-organized cooperation of society with the industry in collecting real world evidence might result in better drug evaluation and improved accessibility due to lower prices. The outlined concept might support gene therapy more efficiently than the presently requested outstandingly high prices.

Hyperinsulinaemia in smokers is linked with markers of endothelial dysfunction. Impaired vascular reactivity can thus be a new possible mechanism linking insulin resistance and smoking.