No abstract

In December 2014, a workshop entitled “Nutritional Interventions in Primary Mitochondrial Disorders: Developing an Evidence Base” was convened at the NIH with the goals of exploring the use of nutritional interventions in primary mitochondrial disorders (PMD) and identifying knowledge gaps regarding their safety and efficacy; identifying research opportunities; and forging collaborations among researchers, clinicians, patient advocacy groups, and federal partners. Sponsors included the NIH, the Wellcome Trust, and the United Mitochondrial Diseases Foundation. Dietary supplements have historically been used in the management of PMD due to their potential benefits and perceived low risk, even though little evidence exists regarding their effectiveness. PMD are rare and clinically, phenotypically, and genetically heterogeneous. Thus patient recruitment for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) has proven to be challenging. Only a few RCTs examining dietary supplements, singly or in combination with other vitamins and cofactors, are reported in the literature. Regulatory issues pertaining to the use of dietary supplements as treatment modalities further complicate the research and patient access landscape. As a preface to exploring a research agenda, the workshop included presentations and discussions on what PMD are; how nutritional interventions are used in PMD; challenges and barriers to their use; new technologies and approaches to diagnosis and treatment; research opportunities and resources; and perspectives from patient advocacy, industry, and professional organizations. Seven key areas were identified during the workshop. These areas were: 1) defining the disease, 2) clinical trial design, 3) biomarker selection, 4) mechanistic approaches, 5) challenges in using dietary supplements, 6) standards of clinical care, and 7) collaboration issues. Short and long-term goals within each of these areas were identified. An example of an overarching goal is the enrollment of all individuals with PMD in a natural history study and a patient registry to enhance research capability. The workshop demonstrates an effective model for fostering and enhancing collaborations among NIH and basic research, clinical, patient, pharmaceutical industry, and regulatory stakeholders in the mitochondrial disease community to address research challenges on the use of dietary supplements in PMD.

While great interest in health effects of natural product (NP) including dietary supplements and foods persists, promising preclinical NP research is not consistently translating into actionable clinical trial (CT) outcomes. Generally considered the gold standard for assessing safety and efficacy, CTs, especially phase III CTs, are costly and require rigorous planning to optimize the value of the information obtained. More effective bridging from NP research to CT was the goal of a Septe mber, 2018 trans disci plina ry workshop. Participants emphasized that replicability and likelihood of successful translation depend on rigor in experimental design, interpretation, and reporting across the continuum of NP research. Discussions spanned good practices for NP characterization and quality control; use and interpretation of models (computational through in vivo) with strong clinical predictive validity; controls for experimental artefacts, especially for in vitro interrogation of bioactivity and mechanisms of action; rigorous assessment and interpretation of prior research; transparency in all reporting; and prioritization of research questions. Natural product clinical trials prioritized based on rigorous, convergent supporting data and current public health needs are most likely to be informative and ultimately affect public health. Thoughtful, coordinated implementation of these practices should enhance the knowledge gained from future NP research. K E Y W O R D S clinical predictive validity, dietary supplements, model systems, rigor and replicability, value of information | 43 SORKIN et al.still provide invaluable guidance, the results of such trials are often met with concerns that different design choiceswhether of product, dose, timing, participant eligibility criteria, outcomes, etc.-might have yielded a substantially different result. Each interventional trial represents a substantial investment, with well-powered Phase III CTs typically consuming more than $10 million and many person-years. 9,10 Additionally, as time and funds are limited, and participant pools may also be constrained, a decision to invest in a CT often precludes pursuing other research questions, 11 which may provide more useful public health-relevant knowledge than an RCT with an insufficient evidence base.

No abstract

No abstract