Efficacy and Safety of Eculizumab in Pediatric Patients Affected by Shiga Toxin-Related Hemolytic and Uremic Syndrome: A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial.

SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: Shiga toxin-related hemolytic uremic syndrome (STEC-HUS) is a serious condition, characterized by multiorgan thrombotic microangiopathy, mainly affecting children. Renal involvement is severe, with approximately half of patients requiring dialysis. So far, no specific treatment has been proven efficient in STEC-HUS. The use of eculizumab, a monoclonal antibody inhibiting terminal complement complex, has demonstrated remarkable success in atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome, but its use in uncontrolled studies to treat STEC-HUS has yielded inconsistent results. In this Phase 3 randomized, placebo-controlled trial in 100 pediatric patients with STEC-HUS, the findings did not show efficacy of eculizumab during the acute phase of the disease. However, the results indicated a reduction of renal sequelae in eculizumab-treated patients at 1-year follow-up. Larger prospective studies would be needed to further explore eculizumab as a potential treatment. BACKGROUND: Shiga toxin-related hemolytic uremic syndrome (STEC-HUS) in children is a severe condition, resulting in approximately 50% of patients requiring RRT. Furthermore, at least 30% of survivors experience kidney sequelae. Recently, activation of the complement alternative pathway has been postulated as a factor in STEC-HUS pathophysiology, leading to compassionate use of eculizumab, a monoclonal antibody inhibiting the terminal complement complex, in affected patients. Given the lack of therapy for STEC-HUS, a controlled study of eculizumab efficacy in treating this condition is a priority. METHODS: We conducted a Phase 3 randomized trial of eculizumab in children with STEC-HUS. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either eculizumab or placebo during 4 weeks. Follow-up lasted for 1 year. The primary end point was RRT duration <48 hours after randomization. Secondary endpoints included hematologic and extrarenal involvement. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar among the 100 patients who underwent randomization. The rate of RRT <48 hours did not differ significantly between the two groups (48% in the placebo versus 38% in the eculizumab group; P = 0.31) or in the course of ARF. The two groups also exhibited similar hematologic evolution and extrarenal manifestations of STEC-HUS. The proportion of patients experiencing renal sequelae at 1 year was lower in the eculizumab group than in the placebo group (43.48% and 64.44%, respectively, P = 0.04). No safety concern was reported. CONCLUSIONS: In pediatric patients with STEC-HUS, eculizumab treatment does not appear to be associated with improved renal outcome during acute phase of the disease but may reduce long-term kidney sequelae. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATIONS: EUDRACT (2014-001169-28) ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT02205541 ).

[Medication errors reporting in drug clinical trials: Role of the clinical research pharmacist?] / Déclaration des erreurs médicamenteuses dans les recherches portant sur le médicament : place du pharmacien des essais cliniques ?

The investigational drugs circuit has specific risks, and medication errors may occur in clinical trials, possibly associated with adverse reactions. These risks must therefore be managed. In fact, there are few reports of medication errors during clinical trials. In a context of regulatory interpretation difficulties on this subject, we conducted a national survey that highlighted the heterogeneity of the methods used by academic sponsors to collect, code and report medication errors and the need to develop a culture of reporting these errors in clinical trials. This is why the REVISE group (safety officers of French institutional sponsors) has issued recommendations to clarify the sponsor and investigator responsibilities and guide them in the management of medication errors. These new guidelines recommend that any serious or potentially serious medication error or other "special situation" (e.g. overdose, misuse, quality defect) should be notified immediately to the sponsor by the investigator. The clinical research pharmacist place is strategic to detect medication errors and other special situations. The integration of the pharmacist into the reporting system, in collaboration with the investigator, could be discussed with clinical research professionals and health authorities.

Compliance of French academic clinical trials with the Clinical Trial Facilitation and Coordination Group recommendations on contraception and pregnancy testing requirements.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The Clinical Trials Coordination and Facilitation Group has issued recommendations on contraception and pregnancy testing to help sponsors meet regulatory expectations and harmonize practices to limit embryofetal risks in clinical trials. Our objective was to assess the compliance of French academic clinical trials with these recommendations and to describe the mitigation measures required by sponsors in their trials. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was performed on the French academic drug trials authorized by the national competent authority between January 2015 and June 2018. We included trials which tested systemic administration of drugs and enrolled men or women of childbearing potential. RESULTS: Data from 97 trials included were compiled. One-third of the trials (23.8%-43.3%, 95% confidence interval) complied with the Clinical Trial Facilitation and Coordination Group recommendations. No improvement over time or according to embryofetotoxic status or drug duration exposure was found. Contraception was required in 56.7% of trials and was more often required in case of potentially embryofetotoxic drugs (68.5% vs 41.9%, p = 0.013) or exposure over 1 month (71.7% vs 43.8%, p = 0.006). Pregnancy testing at inclusion was required in 59.1% of trials and additional testing in 17.2%. Pregnancy testing at inclusion was more often required in trials with drug exposure above 1 month (67.4% vs 45.8%, p = 0.035). CONCLUSION: French academic sponsors barely met the recommendations on contraception and pregnancy testing potentially leading to potential embryofetal risks in case of pregnancy. They need to implement these recommendations quickly.

Measuring the preventability of adverse drug reactions in France: A 2015 overview.

In recent years, the preventability of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) has gradually gained ground as an additional criterion for assessing drug-related risk, alongside seriousness, causality mechanism of action or frequency. However, the definition of preventability itself remains a concept that needs to be defined clearly so as to compare study results. After an overview of the current methods of measuring preventability, which include a French instrument, this work proposes a synthesis of the French studies assessing the preventability of ADRs over the last 30 years. Measuring preventability is important to classify ADRs as preventable/not preventable, but the ultimate aim remains to characterize these preventable ADRs, highlighting the clinical situations and drug classes related to the risk. It is then possible to provide targeted clinical actions to correct these situations and improve the clinical use of these drugs. Thus, assessing medical preventability should address the causes of ADRs and not the responsibility of healthcare professionals. Finally, certain ideas are proposed to improve the French scale and pursue its validation.

Preventable and potentially preventable serious adverse reactions induced by oral protein kinase inhibitors through a database of adverse drug reaction reports.

Antineoplastic drugs are one of the pharmacological classes more frequently involved in occurrence of "serious" adverse drug reactions. However, few epidemiological data are available regarding the preventability of adverse drug reactions with ambulatory cancer chemotherapy. We assessed the rate and characteristics of "preventable" or "potentially preventable" "serious" adverse drug reactions induced by oral protein kinase inhibitors (PKIs). We performed a retrospective study with all "serious" adverse drug reactions (ADRs) recorded from 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2009 in the French Pharmacovigilance Database with the eight oral protein kinase inhibitors marketed in France: sorafenib, imatinib, erlotinib, sunitinib, dasatinib, lapatinib, nilotinib and everolimus (Afinitor®) using the French adverse drug reactions preventability scale. This study was carried out on 265 spontaneous notifications. Most of adverse drug reactions were "unpreventable" (63.8 %). Around one third were "unevaluable" due to notifications poorly documented (medical history, dosage, use of drugs as first or second intention, concomitant drugs). One (0.4 %) adverse drug reaction was "preventable" with dasatinib (subdural hematoma) and three (1.1 %) were "potentially preventable" (hepatic adverse drug reactions): two with imatinib and one with sorafenib. For these four cases, we identified some characteristics: incorrect dosages, drug interactions and off-label uses. An appropriate prescription could avoid the occurrence of 1.5 % "serious" adverse drug reactions with oral PKIs. This rate is low and further studies are needed to compare our results by using other preventability instruments and to improve the French ADRs Preventability Scale.

Comparison of serious adverse reactions between thalidomide and lenalidomide: analysis in the French Pharmacovigilance database.

Thalidomide and lenalidomide are structural analogs and immunomodulatory drugs. Lenalidomide appears to have a different safety profile than thalidomide and could be less toxic, and as far as we know, we did not found any study comparing their safety profile. The objective of our study was to review and compare serious adverse drug reactions (SADRs) of thalidomide and lenalidomide spontaneously reported to the French Pharmacovigilance database. We extracted all medically confirmed spontaneous reports of SADR for lenalidomide-based regimens and thalidomide-based regimens from the French Pharmacovigilance database. A "serious" adverse drug reaction (ADR) was defined as an ADR that is fatal or life threatening, which causes hospitalization or prolongation of hospitalization, or permanent or significant disability. The study period was between marketing of 2 drugs and January 15, 2012. A total of 392 SADRs related to thalidomide-based regimens were identified in 244 patients and 377 SADRs related to lenalidomide-based regimens in 220 patients. In spite of their structural analogy, this study highlights interesting differences between lenalidomide and thalidomide's safety profile: nervous system and vascular disorders are more frequent with thalidomide-based regimens while hematologic, skin, infectious disorders and secondary primary cancers are more frequent with lenalidomide-based regimens.

Spontaneous reporting of serious cutaneous reactions with protein kinase inhibitors.

PURPOSE: Our aim was to describe all serious cutaneous adverse drug reactions (ADRs) spontaneously reported in France for all oral protein kinase inhibitors, their characteristics and whether they were labeled (reported in the Summary of Product Characteristics) or not. METHODS: We performed a retrospective observational study in the French PharmacoVigilance Database, selecting for analysis serious cutaneous reactions of patients due to treatment with oral protein kinase inhibitors (erlotinib, gefitinib, imatinib, nilotinib, dasatinib, sunitinib, sorafenib, pazopanib, lapatinib, everolimus) between 1 January 2008 and 31 December 31 2010. RESULTS: Ninety-four patients suffered from 115 serious cutaneous reactions due to oral protein kinase inhibitors. Serious cutaneous reactions more frequently reported were maculo-papular rash (mostly with imatinib), followed by hand-foot syndrome (specifically with sorafenib) and papulopustular rash (particularly with erlotinib). Patients were mostly males (63 %) with a mean age of 62.6 ± 15.4 years. Drug withdrawal was observed in 73.1 % of cases because of these cutaneous reactions. Delay of occurrence of the ADR varied from 11.5 to 58.5 days. Unlabeled serious reactions were found (17.4 %), including skin ulceration, vasculitis or purpura with sorafenib or sunitinib and drug rash with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms with imatinib. CONCLUSION: Some of the serious ADRs spontaneously reported with oral protein kinase inhibitors are labeled and commonly reported in the literature, but others occur only rarely and unlabeled. In our study, most serious ADRs occurred in males within the 2 first months of treatment and were responsible for the withdrawal of therapy with protein kinase inhibitors.

Is spontaneous reporting always the most important information supporting drug withdrawals for pharmacovigilance reasons in France?

PURPOSE: The objective of our study was to determine the nature of scientific evidence leading to drug withdrawal for safety reasons in France (between 2005 and 2011). METHODS: Drugs (i.e., active ingredients) withdrawn were identified from the Web site of the French Health Products Agency. Additional information allowed us to classify these withdrawals according to the nature of evidence as clinical trials (CT), case reports/case series (CR/CS), case-control studies (CC), cohort, animal, or observational studies. RESULTS: A total of 22 active ingredients were withdrawn from the French market between 2005 and 2011. The nature and type of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) leading more frequently to drug withdrawal were cardiovascular (10-fold), neurological (5-fold), or hepatic, cutaneous, or psychiatric (3-fold each) ADRs. CR (19/22; 86.4%) and CT (13/22; 59.1%) were the most frequently involved methods. In 5 of 22 (23%) cases, CR were the sole evidence. However, 68% (15/22) of regulatory decisions were based on multiple sources of evidence: For example, data from CR + CT were used in eight cases. CC or cohort studies were used in only five cases. CONCLUSION: This study underlines that spontaneous reporting remained the most important source of drug withdrawals between 2005 and 2011. However, its relative importance decreased in comparison with that in 1997-2004. The importance of pharmacoepidemiological methods slightly increased but remained low. Finally, regulatory authorities seem to have more frequently based their safety decisions on multiple sources of evidence than before.