[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.

Trisodium citrate 4% versus heparin as a catheter lock for non-tunneled hemodialysis catheters in critically ill patients: a multicenter, randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Non-tunneled hemodialysis catheters are currently used for critically ill patients with acute kidney injury requiring extracorporeal renal replacement therapy. Strategies to prevent catheter dysfunction and infection with catheter locks remain controversial. METHODS: In a multicenter, randomized, controlled, double-blind trial, we compared two strategies for catheter locking of non-tunneled hemodialysis catheters, namely trisodium citrate at 4% (intervention group) versus unfractionated heparin (control group), in patients aged 18 years or older admitted to the intensive care unit and in whom a first non-tunneled hemodialysis catheter was to be inserted by the jugular or femoral vein. The primary endpoint was length of event-free survival of the first non-tunneled hemodialysis catheter. Secondary endpoints were: rate of fibrinolysis, incidence of catheter dysfunction and incidence of catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI), all per 1000 catheter-days; number of hemorrhagic events requiring transfusion, length of stay in intensive care and in hospital; 28-day mortality. RESULTS: Overall, 396 randomized patients completed the trial: 199 in the citrate group and 197 in the heparin group. There was no significant difference in baseline characteristics between groups. The duration of event-free survival of the first non-tunneled hemodialysis catheter was not significantly different between groups: 7 days (IQR 3-10) in the citrate group and 5 days (IQR 3-11) in the heparin group (p = 0.51). Rates of catheter thrombosis, CRBSI, and adverse events were not statistically different between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients, there was no significant difference in the duration of event-free survival of the first non-tunneled hemodialysis catheter between trisodium citrate 4% and heparin as a locking solution. Catheter thrombosis, catheter-related infection, and adverse events were not statistically different between the two groups. Trial registration Registered with Clinicaltrials.gov under the number NCT01962116. Registered 14 October 2013.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors for Patients with Advanced Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors.

INTRODUCTION: The management of advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) has been modified considerably by the availability of costly tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs); however, the best therapeutic sequence in terms of cost and effectiveness remains unknown. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare four potential strategies (reflecting the potential daily practice), each including imatinib 400 mg/day, as first-line treatment: S1 (imatinib400/best supportive care [BSC]); S2 (imatinib400/imatinib800/BSC); S3 (imatinib400/sunitinib/BSC); and S4 (imatinib400/imatinib800/sunitinib/BSC). METHODS: A Markov model was developed with a hypothetical cohort of patients and a lifetime horizon. Transition probabilities were estimated from the results of clinical trials. The analysis was performed from the French payer perspective, and only direct medical costs were included. Clinical and economic parameters were discounted, and the robustness of results was assessed. RESULTS: The least costly and effective strategy was S1, at a cost of €65,744 for 32.9 life months (reference). S3 was the most cost-effective strategy, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €48,277/life-year saved (LYS). S2 was dominated, and S4 yielded an ICER of €363,320/LYS compared with S3. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of these results; however, when taking into account a price reduction of 80 % for imatinib, S2 and S4 become the most cost-effective strategies. CONCLUSION: Our approach is innovative to the extent that our analysis takes into account the sequential application of TKIs. The results suggest that the S1 strategy is the best cost-effective strategy, but a price reduction of imatinib impacts on the results. This approach must continue, including new drugs and their impact on the quality of life of patients with advanced GISTs.