Suchergebnisse

To assess presence of virus DNA in skin lesions, swab samples from 82 squamous cell carcinomas of the skin (SCCs), 60 actinic keratoses (AKs), paraffin-embedded biopsies from 28 SCCs and 72 kerathoacanthomas (KAs) and fresh-frozen biopsies from 92 KAs, 85 SCCs and 92 AKs were analyzed by high throughput sequencing (HTS) using 454 or Ion Torrent technology. We found total of 4,284 viral reads, out of which 4,168 were Human Papillomavirus (HPV)-related, belonging to 15 known (HPV8, HPV12, HPV20, HPV36, HPV38, HPV45, HPV57, HPV59, HPV104, HPV105, HPV107, HPV109, HPV124, HPV138, HPV147), four previously described putative (HPV 915 F 06 007 FD1, FA73, FA101, SE42) and two putatively new HPV types (SE46, SE47). SE42 was cloned, sequenced, designated as HPV155 and found to have 76% similarity to the most closely related known HPV type. In conclusion, an unbiased approach for viral DNA detection in skin tumors has found that, although some new putative HPVs were found, known HPV types constituted most of the viral DNA. ; Funding Agencies|Swedish Cancer Society|110569|Swedish Research Council|3468|Swedish government strategic program on Biomarkers in Cancer Research (BioCARE)||

Funding: This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement no. 825100. ; Peer reviewed ; Publisher PDF

International audience ; BACKGROUND: 'Compassionate use' programmes allow medicinal products that are not authorised, but are in the development process, to be made available to patients with a severe disease who have no other satisfactory treatment available to them. We sought to understand how such programmes are regulated in ten European Union countries. METHODS: The European Clinical Research Infrastructures Network (ECRIN) conducted a comprehensive survey on clinical research regulatory requirements, including questions on regulations of 'compassionate use' programmes. Ten European countries, covering approximately 70% of the EU population, were included in the survey (Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Sweden, and the UK). RESULTS: European Regulation 726/2004/EC is clear on the intentions of 'compassionate use' programmes and aimed to harmonise them in the European Union. The survey reveals that different countries have adopted different requirements and that 'compassionate use' is not interpreted in the same way across Europe. Four of the ten countries surveyed have no formal regulatory system for the programmes. We discuss the need for 'compassionate use' programmes and their regulation where protection of patients is paramount. CONCLUSIONS: 'Compassionate use' is a misleading term and should be replaced with 'expanded access'. There is a need for expanded access programmes in order to serve the interests of seriously ill patients who have no other treatment options. To protect these patients, European legislation needs to be more explicit and informative with regard to the regulatory requirements, restrictions, and responsibilities in expanded access programmes.

International audience ; BACKGROUND: 'Compassionate use' programmes allow medicinal products that are not authorised, but are in the development process, to be made available to patients with a severe disease who have no other satisfactory treatment available to them. We sought to understand how such programmes are regulated in ten European Union countries. METHODS: The European Clinical Research Infrastructures Network (ECRIN) conducted a comprehensive survey on clinical research regulatory requirements, including questions on regulations of 'compassionate use' programmes. Ten European countries, covering approximately 70% of the EU population, were included in the survey (Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Sweden, and the UK). RESULTS: European Regulation 726/2004/EC is clear on the intentions of 'compassionate use' programmes and aimed to harmonise them in the European Union. The survey reveals that different countries have adopted different requirements and that 'compassionate use' is not interpreted in the same way across Europe. Four of the ten countries surveyed have no formal regulatory system for the programmes. We discuss the need for 'compassionate use' programmes and their regulation where protection of patients is paramount. CONCLUSIONS: 'Compassionate use' is a misleading term and should be replaced with 'expanded access'. There is a need for expanded access programmes in order to serve the interests of seriously ill patients who have no other treatment options. To protect these patients, European legislation needs to be more explicit and informative with regard to the regulatory requirements, restrictions, and responsibilities in expanded access programmes.

Background: 'Compassionate use' programmes allow medicinal products that are not authorised, but are in the development process, to be made available to patients with a severe disease who have no other satisfactory treatment available to them. We sought to understand how such programmes are regulated in ten European Union countries. Methods: The European Clinical Research Infrastructures Network (ECRIN) conducted a comprehensive survey on clinical research regulatory requirements, including questions on regulations of 'compassionate use' programmes. Ten European countries, covering approximately 70% of the EU population, were included in the survey (Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Sweden, and the UK). Results: European Regulation 726/2004/EC is clear on the intentions of 'compassionate use' programmes and aimed to harmonise them in the European Union. The survey reveals that different countries have adopted different requirements and that 'compassionate use' is not interpreted in the same way across Europe. Four of the ten countries surveyed have no formal regulatory system for the programmes. We discuss the need for 'compassionate use' programmes and their regulation where protection of patients is paramount. Conclusions: 'Compassionate use' is a misleading term and should be replaced with 'expanded access'. There is a need for expanded access programmes in order to serve the interests of seriously ill patients who have no other treatment options. To protect these patients, European legislation needs to be more explicit and informative with regard to the regulatory requirements, restrictions, and responsibilities in expanded access programmes.