Overview of literature monitoring practice of clinical trials vigilance units in French institutional sponsors - A study from the REVISE working group.

INTRODUCTION: The evaluation of clinical trial (CT) safety is the main task of CT vigilance units. In addition to the management of adverse events, the units must review the literature to identify information that may impact the benefit-risk assessment of studies. In this survey, we investigated the literature monitoring (LM) activity of French Institutional Vigilance Units (IVU) from the working group "REflexion sur la VIgilance et la SEcurite des essais cliniques" (REVISE). MATERIAL AND METHODS: We sent a questionnaire of 26 questions, divided into four themes, to the 60 IVU: (1) Presentation of the IVU and the LM activity; (2) Used sources, queries and criteria for selecting articles; (3) Valuation of the LM and (4) Practical organisation. RESULTS: Of the 27 IVU that responded to the questionnaire, 85% of them carried out LM. This was mainly provided by medical staff to improve general knowledge (83%), to detect Adverse Reactions (AR) not listed in the reference documents (70%) and to detect new safety information (61%). Due to lack of time, staff, available recommendations and sources, only 21% of IVU conducted LM for all CT. On average, units reported four sources: ANSM information (96%), PubMed database (83%), EMA alerts (57%) and the subscription to APM international (48%). The LM had an impact on the CT of 57% of the IVU such as changing the conditions of a study (39%) or suspending a study (22%). DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: LM is an important but time-consuming activity with heterogeneous practices. According to the results of this survey, we proposed seven ways to improve this practice: (1) Target the highest risk CT; (2) Refine the PubMed queries; (3) Use other tools; (4) Create a decision flowchart for the selection of PubMed articles; (5) Improve training; (6) Value the activity and (7) Outsource the activity.

[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.

Levetiracetam optimal dose-finding as first-line treatment for neonatal seizures occurring in the context of hypoxic-ischaemic encephalopathy (LEVNEONAT-1): study protocol of a phase II trial.

INTRODUCTION: Therapeutic schedules for treating neonatal seizures remain elusive. First-line treatment with phenobarbital is widely supported but without strong scientific evidence. Levetiracetam (LEV) is an emerging and promising antiepileptic drug (AED). The aim of this phase II trial is to determine the benefits of LEV by applying a strict methodology and to estimate the optimal dose of LEV as a first-line AED to treat seizures in newborns suffering from hypoxic-ischaemic encephalopathy. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: LEVNEONAT-1 is an open and sequential LEV dose-finding study. The optimal dose is that which is estimated to be associated with a toxicity not exceeding 10% and an efficacy higher than 60%. Efficacy is defined by a seizure burden reduction of 80% after the loading dose. Four increasing dose regimens will be assessed including one loading dose of 30, 40, 50 or 60 mg/kg followed by eight maintenance doses (ie, a quarter of the loading dose) injected every 8 hours. A two-patient cohort will be necessary at each dose level to consider an upper dose level assignment. The maximal sample size expected is 50 participants with a minimum of 24 patients or fewer in the case of a high rate of toxicity. Patients will be recruited in five neonatal intensive care units beginning in October 2017 and continuing for 2 years. In parallel, the LEV pharmacokinetics will be measured five times (ie, 30 min; 4 and 7 hours after the loading dose; 1-3 hours and 12-18 hours after the last maintenance dose). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval has been obtained from the regional ethical committee (2016-R25) and the French Drug Safety Agency (160652A-31). The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. The results will also be presented at medical meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02229123; Pre-results.

Effect of a Perioperative Nutritional Supplementation with Oral Impact® in Patients undergoing Hepatic Surgery for Liver Cancer: A Prospective, Placebo-Controlled, Randomized, Double-Blind Study.

Perioperative nutrition with supplements containing L-arginine, ω3-polyunsaturated fatty acids, and nucleotides could boost liver function recovery, immune response, and resistance to infection after hepatic resection. We conducted a placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind study to assess the effect of a perioperative nutritional supplementation with Oral Impact® in patients undergoing hepatic surgery for liver cancer. Treatment was given three times daily for 7 days before and 3 days after surgery. Primary outcome was factor V, 3 days after surgery. Thirty-five patients (placebo: 17; Oral Impact: 18) were included. Five patients (placebo: three; Oral Impact: two) were not operated and five (placebo: two; Oral Impact: three) did not undergo hepatic resection. Factor V (mean ± SD) was 70 ± 27% and 79 ± 25% (P = 0.409) 3 days after surgery and 90 ± 30% and 106 ± 16% (P = 0.066) 5 days after surgery, in placebo and Oral Impact groups, respectively. There were no significant differences between groups on other outcomes assessing liver function recovery (bile production, γ-glutamyl transferase, α-fetoprotein), immune response (CD3, CD4, CD8 cells, CD4/CD8 ratio, natural killer cells, B lymphocytes), number of infections, and tolerance. A 10-day perioperative nutritional supplementation with Oral Impact does not improve hepatic function, immune response, and resistance to infection in patients undergoing hepatic surgery for liver cancer.

The effects of a maintenance therapy with peg-interferon alpha-2a on liver fibrosis in HIV/HCV co-infected patients: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: We hypothesized that, in Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Hepatitis C Virus (HIV/HCV) co-infected patients who did not respond to peg-interferon and ribavirin, a maintenance therapy with peg-interferon could induce fibrosis regression. METHODS: This was a randomized study with two parallel groups. HIV/HCV co-infected patients received peg-interferon α-2a at 180 µg/week or remained on observation for 96 weeks. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients who experienced a decrease of at least one point in their Metavir fibrosis score between initial and final liver biopsies. Secondary endpoints included plasma fibrosis markers at week 96, occurrence of HCV-related complications, and survival. RESULTS: A total of 52 patients were randomized (peg-interferon: 25; control: 27) including 18 with cirrhosis. The median (interquartile range) age was 44 (40-46) years, and 69% were male. A total of 64% had ALT levels >1.5 normal values, and the CD4 cell count was 391 (296-537) cells/mm(3); 67% of patients had HIV RNA <200 copies/mL at entry. The main endpoint was assessed in 41 patients. Response rates were 3/20 (15%) and 4/21 (19%) in the peg-interferon and control groups, respectively (p = 0.99). There was no significant difference between peg-interferon and control groups on plasma fibrosis markers at the final visit. Severe liver-related complications were observed in 2 and 5 patients in peg-interferon and control groups, respectively. Three deaths were observed, all in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: A maintenance therapy with peg-interferon α-2a over 96 weeks in HIV/HCV co-infected patients, who were non-responders to HCV treatment, did not change liver fibrosis. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00122616.

Efficacy and safety of Celsior preservation fluid in liver transplantation: one-year follow up of a prospective, multicenter, non-randomized study.

The purpose of this prospective, nine-center, non-randomized study was to assess the efficacy and safety of Celsior preservation fluid in liver transplantation using unselected donors. As data comparing allograft outcomes following liver transplantation using Celsior and University of Wisconsin (UW) preservation fluids are limited, we also compared our cohort with matched controls selected from the European Liver Transplant Registry (ELTR) who received total liver grafts preserved with UW solution during the same period. One hundred and forty patients who received livers preserved with Celsior were included. The primary endpoint, graft loss at one-yr post-transplantation, was observed in 24 patients (17.1%) which was not significantly different from the 20.0% pre-defined threshold rate (95% confidence interval [CI] 10.9, 23.4; p=0.398). Predictive factors for graft loss on univariate analysis were moderate-to-severe steatosis on the donor graft (5/22 patients with graft loss vs. 8/107 patients without, p=0.046) and duration of warm ischemia (1.4±1.1 h in patients with graft loss vs. 0.9±0.5 h in patients without, p=0.034). Hepatic artery thrombosis and stenosis occurred in seven (5.0%) and six (4.3%) patients, respectively. The comparison of our patients to 420 ELTR controls showed that one-yr graft survival rates (Celsior: 82.9%, 95% CI 75.8, 88.2; UW: 78.6%, 95% CI 74.4, 82.2) and Kaplan-Meier one-yr graft survival distributions (p=0.285) were similar. Within the cold ischemia time achieved in our study, liver preservation with Celsior appeared efficient and safe. Comparison with ELTR patients suggested that liver allograft survival was similar using Celsior or UW solution for preservation of unselected donor grafts.

Tamsulosin hydrochloride vs placebo for management of distal ureteral stones: a multicentric, randomized, double-blind trial.

BACKGROUND: α-Blockers induce selective relaxation of ureteral smooth muscle with subsequent inhibition of ureteral spasms and dilatation of the ureteral lumen. The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the α-blocker tamsulosin hydrochloride in patients with ureteral colic owing to a distal ureteral stone. METHODS: This was a multicenter, placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind study. Patients with emergency admission for ureteral colic with a 2- to 7-mm-diameter radio-opaque distal ureteral stone were included in the study. They received tamsulosin (0.4 mg/d) or matching placebo until stone expulsion or day 42, whichever came first. The main end point was time to stone expulsion between inclusion and day 42. Sequential statistical analysis was performed using the triangular test. RESULTS: A total of 129 patients with acute renal colic were recruited from emergency wards between February 1, 2002, and December 8, 2006, in 6 French hospitals. Of these 129 randomized patients (placebo, 63; tamsulosin, 66), 7 were excluded from analyses: 5 for major deviations from inclusion criteria, 1 for stone expulsion before the first treatment administration, and 1 for consent withdrawal. At inclusion, mean (SD) stone diameters were 3.2 (1.2) and 2.9 (1.0) mm in the placebo and tamsulosin groups, respectively (P = .23). Expulsion delay distributions during 42 days did not show any difference (P = .30). The numbers of patients who spontaneously expelled their stone within 42 days were 43 of 61 (70.5%) and 47 of 61 (77.0%) in the placebo and tamsulosin groups, respectively (P = .41). Corresponding delays were 10.1 (10.0) and 9.6 (9.8) days (P = .82). Other secondary end points and tolerance were not different between groups. CONCLUSION: Although well tolerated, a daily administration of 0.4 mg of tamsulosin did not accelerate the expulsion of distal ureteral stones in patients with ureteral colic. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00151567.