For almost fifteen years, the availability and regulatory acceptance of new approach methodologies (NAMs) to assess the absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion (ADME/biokinetics) in chemical risk evaluations are a bottleneck. To enhance the field, a team of 24 experts from science, industry, and regulatory bodies, including new generation toxicologists, met at the Lorentz Centre in Leiden, The Netherlands. A range of possibilities for the use of NAMs for biokinetics in risk evaluations were formulated (for example to define species differences and human variation or to perform quantitative in vitro-in vivo extrapolations). To increase the regulatory use and acceptance of NAMs for biokinetics for these ADME considerations within risk evaluations, the development of test guidelines (protocols) and of overarching guidance documents is considered a critical step. To this end, a need for an expert group on biokinetics within the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) to supervise this process was formulated. The workshop discussions revealed that method development is still required, particularly to adequately capture transporter mediated processes as well as to obtain cell models that reflect the physiology and kinetic characteristics of relevant organs. Developments in the fields of stem cells, organoids and organ-on-a-chip models provide promising tools to meet these research needs in the future.
MULTIFILE
Low-grade inflammation and metabolic syndrome are seen in many chronic diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and osteoarthritis (OA). Lifestyle interventions which combine different non-pharmacological therapies have shown synergizing effects in improving outcomes in patients with other chronic diseases or increased risk thereof, especially cardiovascular disease. For RA and metabolic syndrome-associated OA (MSOA), whole food plant-based diets (WFPDs) have shown promising results. A WFPD, however, had not yet been combined with other lifestyle interventions for RA and OA patients. In this protocol paper, we therefore present Plants for Joints, a multidisciplinary lifestyle program, based on a WFPD, exercise, and stress management. The objective is to study the effect of this program on disease activity in patients with RA (randomized controlled trial [RCT] 1), on a risk score for developing RA in patients with anti-citrullinated protein antibody (ACPA) positive arthralgia (RCT 2) and on pain, stiffness, and function in patients with MSOA (RCT 3), all in comparison with usual care.We designed three 16-week observer-blind RCTs with a waiting-list control group for patients with RA with low to moderate disease activity (2.6 ≤ Disease Activity Score [DAS28] ≤ 5.1, RCT 1, n = 80), for patients at risk for RA, defined by ACPA-positive arthralgia (RCT 2, n = 16) and for patients with metabolic syndrome and OA in the knee and/or hip (RCT 3, n = 80). After personal counseling on diet and exercise, participants join 10 group meetings with 6-12 other patients to receive theoretical and practical training on a WFPD, exercise, and stress management, while medication remains unchanged. The waiting-list control group receives usual care, while entering the program after the RCT. Primary outcomes are: difference in mean change between intervention and control groups within 16 weeks for the DAS28 in RA patients (RCT 1), the RA-risk score for ACPA positive arthralgia patients (RCT 2), and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) score for MSOA patients (RCT 3). Continued adherence to the lifestyle program is measured in a two-year observational extension study.
Objective: Product Information Leaflets (PILs) are an important source of information for patients on their medication, but may cause confusion and questions. Patients then may seek clarification, for instance from pharmacy technicians. The aim of this study was to explore which questions pharmacy technicians get about PIL-related issues, why and when, and how they handle such questions. Methods: an online survey in a panel of 785 Dutch pharmacy technicians. Key results: Net response rate was 37%. PIL-related questions frequently concerned drug actions, problems with use, side effects, intolerances and pregnancy and lactation. Patients who received generic alternatives instead of the branded product they had received previously, also came more often to pharmacy staff with PIL-related questions. The requested information could not always be found in the PIL itself, not even by the pharmacy technicians themselves. They mentioned that the PIL is not easy to read, understand or recall. Conclusions: Pharmacy staff is often approached by patients having difficulties in understanding PILs. Even pharmacy technicians find PILs difficult to read and often use other sources of information. PIL layout and contents should become more standardized and easier to read and understand.
