Literature DB >> 11802252

Use of nasal potential difference and sweat chloride as outcome measures in multicenter clinical trials in subjects with cystic fibrosis.

Richard C Ahrens1, Thomas A Standaert, Janice Launspach, Seung-Ho Han, Mary E Teresi, Moira L Aitken, Thomas J Kelley, Kathleen A Hilliard, Laura J H Milgram, Michael W Konstan, Mark R Weatherly, Nael A McCarty.   

Abstract

One of the goals of current research in cystic fibrosis (CF) is to develop treatments that correct or compensate for defects in function of the cystic fibrosis transmembrane regulator (CFTR) gene. The use of outcome measures that assess CFTR function such as nasal potential difference (NPD) measurements and sweat chloride determinations will be required to evaluate the efficacy of such treatments in multicenter clinical trials. The purpose of this work was to identify the sources and magnitude of variability in NPD and sweat chloride measurements when performed at multiple centers. For the variance component analysis presented here, we used NPD and sweat chloride measurements from 37 subjects with CF participating in a phase I, four-center clinical trial of CPX (8-cyclopentyl-1,3-dipropylxanthine), a drug intended to enhance trafficking of Delta F508 CFTR to the cell membrane. The specific techniques used to measure these outcomes were not standardized, and varied between the four sites. Variability of both NPD measurements (baseline potential difference during infusion with Ringer's solution; change in response to addition of 0.1 mM amiloride; and subsequent change in response to perfusion with low chloride solution containing 0.1 mM amiloride and 0.01 mM isoproterenol) and sweat chloride measurements differed significantly between study sites. For change in NPD, one study site had significantly greater variability (lower reproducibility) of measurement than the other three sites. For sweat chloride measurements, reproducibility was lower at two of the sites relative to the other two sites. Sample size calculations showed that lower reproducibility at one or more sites can substantially reduce the power of studies using NPD or sweat chloride determinations as outcome measures. Standardization of measurement protocols, careful operator training and certification, and ongoing monitoring of individual operator performance may help to improve reliability in multicenter trials. Copyright 2002 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11802252     DOI: 10.1002/ppul.10043

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pediatr Pulmonol        ISSN: 1099-0496


  19 in total

Review 1.  Advancing outcome measures for the new era of drug development in cystic fibrosis.

Authors:  Nicole Mayer-Hamblett; Bonnie W Ramsey; Richard A Kronmal
Journal:  Proc Am Thorac Soc       Date:  2007-08-01

2.  An international randomized multicenter comparison of nasal potential difference techniques.

Authors:  George M Solomon; Michael W Konstan; Michael Wilschanski; Joanne Billings; Isabelle Sermet-Gaudelus; Frank Accurso; François Vermeulen; Elina Levin; Heather Hathorne; Ginger Reeves; Gina Sabbatini; Aubrey Hill; Nicole Mayer-Hamblett; Melissa Ashlock; John Paul Clancy; Steven M Rowe
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2010-05-14       Impact factor: 9.410

Review 3.  CFTR pharmacology.

Authors:  Olga Zegarra-Moran; Luis J V Galietta
Journal:  Cell Mol Life Sci       Date:  2016-10-04       Impact factor: 9.261

4.  Reduced sodium transport with nasal administration of the prostasin inhibitor camostat in subjects with cystic fibrosis.

Authors:  Steven M Rowe; Ginger Reeves; Heather Hathorne; G Martin Solomon; Smita Abbi; Didier Renard; Ruth Lock; Ping Zhou; Henry Danahay; John P Clancy; David A Waltz
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 9.410

Review 5.  Nasal potential difference to detect Na+ channel dysfunction in acute lung injury.

Authors:  R Mac Sweeney; H Fischer; D F McAuley
Journal:  Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol       Date:  2010-11-26       Impact factor: 5.464

6.  Nasal potential difference measurements to assess CFTR ion channel activity.

Authors:  Steven M Rowe; John Paul Clancy; Michael Wilschanski
Journal:  Methods Mol Biol       Date:  2011

Review 7.  Correctors (specific therapies for class II CFTR mutations) for cystic fibrosis.

Authors:  Kevin W Southern; Sanjay Patel; Ian P Sinha; Sarah J Nevitt
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2018-08-02

8.  Dual activation of CFTR and CLCN2 by lubiprostone in murine nasal epithelia.

Authors:  Eric S Schiffhauer; Neeraj Vij; Olga Kovbasnjuk; Po Wei Kang; Doug Walker; Seakwoo Lee; Pamela L Zeitlin
Journal:  Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol       Date:  2013-01-11       Impact factor: 5.464

9.  Progress in cystic fibrosis and the CF Therapeutics Development Network.

Authors:  Steven M Rowe; Drucy S Borowitz; Jane L Burns; John P Clancy; Scott H Donaldson; George Retsch-Bogart; Scott D Sagel; Bonnie W Ramsey
Journal:  Thorax       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 9.139

Review 10.  Detection of cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator activity in early-phase clinical trials.

Authors:  Steven M Rowe; Frank Accurso; John P Clancy
Journal:  Proc Am Thorac Soc       Date:  2007-08-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.