Dataset Information

The role of systematic reviews in pharmacovigilance planning and Clinical Trials Authorisation application: example from the SLEEPS trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Adequate sedation is crucial to the management of children requiring assisted ventilation on Paediatric Intensive Care Units (PICU). The evidence-base of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in this area is small and a trial was planned to compare midazolam and clonidine, two sedatives widely used within PICUs neither of which being licensed for that use. The application to obtain a Clinical Trials Authorisation from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) required a dossier summarising the safety profiles of each drug and the pharmacovigilance plan for the trial needed to be determined by this information. A systematic review was undertaken to identify reports relating to the safety of each drug.

Methodology/principal findings

The Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) were obtained for each sedative. The MHRA were requested to provide reports relating to the use of each drug as a sedative in children under the age of 16. Medline was searched to identify RCTs, controlled clinical trials, observational studies, case reports and series. 288 abstracts were identified for midazolam and 16 for clonidine with full texts obtained for 80 and 6 articles respectively. Thirty-three studies provided data for midazolam and two for clonidine. The majority of data has come from observational studies and case reports. The MHRA provided details of 10 and 3 reports of suspected adverse drug reactions.

Conclusions/significance

No adverse reactions were identified in addition to those specified within the SmPC for the licensed use of the drugs. Based on this information and the wide spread use of both sedatives in routine practice the pharmacovigilance plan was restricted to adverse reactions. The Clinical Trials Authorisation was granted based on the data presented in the SmPC and the pharmacovigilance plan within the clinical trial protocol restricting collection and reporting to adverse reactions.

SUBMITTER: Gamble C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3598865 | biostudies-literature | 2013

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The role of systematic reviews in pharmacovigilance planning and Clinical Trials Authorisation application: example from the SLEEPS trial.

Gamble Carrol C Wolf Andrew A Sinha Ian I Spowart Catherine C Williamson Paula P

PloS one 20130315 3

<h4>Background</h4>Adequate sedation is crucial to the management of children requiring assisted ventilation on Paediatric Intensive Care Units (PICU). The evidence-base of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in this area is small and a trial was planned to compare midazolam and clonidine, two sedatives widely used within PICUs neither of which being licensed for that use. The application to obtain a Clinical Trials Authorisation from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA ...[more]

PMID: 23554852

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundA systematic review, with or without a meta-analysis, should be undertaken to determine if the research question of interest has already been answered before a new trial begins. There has been limited research on how systematic reviews are used within the design of new trials, the aims of this study were to investigate how systematic reviews of earlier trials are used in the planning and design of new randomised trials.MethodsDocumentation from the application process for all randomised trials funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment (NIHR HTA) between 2006 and 2008 were obtained. This included the: commissioning brief (if appropriate), outline application, minutes of the Board meeting in which the outline application was discussed, full application, detailed project description, referee comments, investigator response to referee comments, Board minutes on the full application and the trial protocol. Data were extracted on references to systematic reviews and how any such reviews had been used in the planning and design of the trial.Results50 randomised trials were funded by NIHR HTA during this period and documentation was available for 48 of these. The cohort was predominately individually randomised parallel trials aiming to detect superiority between two treatments for a single primary outcome. 37 trials (77.1%) referenced a systematic review within the application and 20 of these (i.e. 41.7% of the total) used information contained in the systematic review in the design or planning of the new trial. The main areas in which systematic reviews were used were in the selection or definition of an outcome to be measured in the trial (7 of 37, 18.9%), the sample size calculation (7, 18.9%), the duration of follow up (8, 21.6%) and the approach to describing adverse events (9, 24.3%). Boards did not comment on the presence/absence or use of systematic reviews in any application.ConclusionsSystematic reviews were referenced in most funded applications but just over half of these used the review to inform the design. There is an expectation from funders that applicants will use a systematic review to justify the need for a new trial but no expectation regarding further use of a systematic review to aid planning and design of the trial. Guidelines for applicants and funders should be developed to promote the use of systematic reviews in the design and planning of randomised trials, to optimise delivery of new studies informed by the most up-to-date evidence base and to minimise waste in research.

Project description:Genome-scale datasets have been used extensively in model organisms to screen for specific candidates or to predict functions for uncharacterized genes. However, despite the availability of extensive knowledge in model organisms, the planning of genome-scale experiments in poorly studied species is still based on the intuition of experts or heuristic trials. We propose that computational and systematic approaches can be applied to drive the experiment planning process in poorly studied species based on available data and knowledge in closely related model organisms. In this paper, we suggest a computational strategy for recommending genome-scale experiments based on their capability to interrogate diverse biological processes to enable protein function assignment. To this end, we use the data-rich functional genomics compendium of the model organism to quantify the accuracy of each dataset in predicting each specific biological process and the overlap in such coverage between different datasets. Our approach uses an optimized combination of these quantifications to recommend an ordered list of experiments for accurately annotating most proteins in the poorly studied related organisms to most biological processes, as well as a set of experiments that target each specific biological process. The effectiveness of this experiment- planning system is demonstrated for two related yeast species: the model organism Saccharomyces cerevisiae and the comparatively poorly studied Saccharomyces bayanus. Our system recommended a set of S. bayanus experiments based on an S. cerevisiae microarray data compendium. In silico evaluations estimate that less than 10% of the experiments could achieve similar functional coverage to the whole microarray compendium. This estimation was confirmed by performing the recommended experiments in S. bayanus, therefore significantly reducing the labor devoted to characterize the poorly studied genome. This experiment-planning framework could readily be adapted to the design of other types of large-scale experiments as well as other groups of organisms.

Project description:BackgroundPrognostic factors are associated with the risk of future health outcomes in individuals with a particular health condition. The prognostic ability of such factors is increasingly being assessed in both primary research and systematic reviews. Systematic review methodology in this area is continuing to evolve, reflected in variable approaches to key methodological aspects. The aim of this article was to (i) explore and compare the methodology of systematic reviews of prognostic factors undertaken for the same clinical question, (ii) to discuss implications for review findings, and (iii) to present recommendations on what might be considered to be 'good practice' approaches.MethodsThe sample was comprised of eight systematic reviews addressing the same clinical question, namely whether 'aspirin resistance' (a potential prognostic factor) has prognostic utility relative to future vascular events in patients on aspirin therapy for secondary prevention. A detailed comparison of methods around study identification, study selection, quality assessment, approaches to analysis, and reporting of findings was undertaken and the implications discussed. These were summarised into key considerations that may be transferable to future systematic reviews of prognostic factors.ResultsAcross systematic reviews addressing the same clinical question, there were considerable differences in the numbers of studies identified and overlap between included studies, which could only partially be explained by different study eligibility criteria. Incomplete reporting and differences in terminology within primary studies hampered study identification and selection process across reviews. Quality assessment was highly variable and only one systematic review considered a checklist for studies of prognostic questions. There was inconsistency between reviews in approaches towards analysis, synthesis, addressing heterogeneity and reporting of results.ConclusionsDifferent methodological approaches may ultimately affect the findings and interpretation of systematic reviews of prognostic research, with implications for clinical decision-making.

Project description:Background and objective: Cancer is a life-threatening disease worldwide and current standard therapy cannot fulfill all clinical needs. Chinese herbal injections have been widely used for cancer in Chinese and Western hospitals in China. This study aimed to apply evidence mapping in order to provide an overview of the clinical application of Chinese herbal injections in cancer care based on randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. Methods and results: Seven databases were systematically searched for eligible randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses for ten Chinese herbal injections used in cancer treatment and covered in the Chinese national essential health insurance program. Excel 2016 and RStudio were used to integrate and process the data. In total 366 randomized controlled trials and 48 systematic reviews and meta-analyses were included in the evidence mapping of herbal medicines including; Compound Kushen, Shenqi Fuzheng, Aidi, Kangai, Kanglaite, Xiaoaiping, Cinobufacin, Brucea javanica oil emulsion, Polyporus polysaccharide injection, and Astragalus polysaccharide for injection. Health insurance restricts the scope of clinical application for these herbal injections. The numbers of studies published increased, especially around 2013-2015. The most studied cancer types were lung cancer (118, 32.2%), colorectal cancer (39, 10.7%), and gastric cancer (39, 10.7%), and the most used injections were Compound Kushen (78, 21.3%), Shenqi Fuzheng (76, 20.8%), and Aidi (63, 17.2%). The most consistently reported benefits were observed for Compound Kushen, Shenqi Fuzheng, Aidi, and Kangai for tumor response, quality of life, myelosuppression, and enhancing immunity. Conclusion: The current evidence mapping provides an overview of the outcomes and effects of Chinese herbal injections used in cancer care, and offers information on their clinical application which warrants further evidence-based research in order to inform clinical and policy decision-making.

Project description:ImportanceSystematic reviews can help to justify a new randomized clinical trial (RCT), inform its design, and interpret its results in the context of prior evidence.ObjectiveTo assess trends and factors associated with citing (a marker of the use of) prior systematic reviews in RCT reports.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study investigated 737 Cochrane reviews assessing health interventions to identify 4003 eligible RCTs, defined as those included in an updated version but not in the first version of a Cochrane review and published 2 years after the first version of the Cochrane review was published.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the citation of prior systematic reviews, Cochrane or others, as determined by screening references of eligible RCTs. Factors that may be associated with the citation of prior systematic reviews were also examined.ResultsAmong 4003 eligible RCTs, 1241 studies (31.0%) cited Cochrane reviews, 1698 studies (42.4%) cited prior non-Cochrane reviews, and 2265 studies (56.6%) cited either type of systematic review or both; 1738 RCTs (43.4%) cited no systematic reviews. The percentage of RCTs citing prior Cochrane reviews, non-Cochrane reviews, and either or both types of review increased from 28 studies (15.3%), 46 studies (25.1%), and 65 studies (35.5%) of 183 RCTs before 2008 to 42 studies (40.8%), 65 studies (64.1%), and 73 studies (71.8%) of 102 RCTs since 2020, respectively; the annual increases were 1.9% (95% CI, 1.4%-2.3%), 3.3% (95% CI, 2.9%-3.7%), and 3.0% (95% CI, 2.5%-3.5%), respectively. The proportion of RCTs citating prior systematic reviews varied considerably across clinical specialties, ranging from 28 of 106 RCTs (26.4%) in ophthalmology to 386 of 553 RCTs (69.8%) in psychiatry (P < .001). RCTs with 100 participants or more (risk ratio [RR], 1.16; 95% CI, 1.03-1.30), nonindustry funding (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.27-1.61), and authors from high-income countries (RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.03-1.17) were more likely to cite systematic reviews than those with fewer than 100 participants, industry funding, and authors from low- and middle-income countries, respectively. A journal requirement to cite systematic reviews was not associated with the likelihood of citing a systematic review.Conclusions and relevanceThis study found that the citation of prior systematic reviews in RCT reports improved over time, but approximately 40% of RCTs failed to do so. These findings suggest that reference to prior evidence for initiating, designing, and reporting RCTs should be further emphasized to assure clinical relevance, improve methodological quality, and facilitate interpretation of new results.

Project description:Background and objectivesRandomization, allocation concealment, and blind outcome assessment have been shown to reduce bias in human studies. Authors from the Collaborative Approach to Meta Analysis and Review of Animal Data from Experimental Studies (CAMARADES) collaboration recently found that these features protect against bias in animal stroke studies. We extended the scope the work from CAMARADES to include investigations of treatments for any condition.MethodsWe conducted an overview of systematic reviews. We searched Medline and Embase for systematic reviews of animal studies testing any intervention (against any control) and we included any disease area and outcome. We included reviews comparing randomized versus not randomized (but otherwise controlled), concealed versus unconcealed treatment allocation, or blinded versus unblinded outcome assessment.ResultsThirty-one systematic reviews met our inclusion criteria: 20 investigated treatments for experimental stroke, 4 reviews investigated treatments for spinal cord diseases, while 1 review each investigated treatments for bone cancer, intracerebral hemorrhage, glioma, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, and treatments used in emergency medicine. In our sample 29% of studies reported randomization, 15% of studies reported allocation concealment, and 35% of studies reported blinded outcome assessment. We pooled the results in a meta-analysis, and in our primary analysis found that failure to randomize significantly increased effect sizes, whereas allocation concealment and blinding did not. In our secondary analyses we found that randomization, allocation concealment, and blinding reduced effect sizes, especially where outcomes were subjective.ConclusionsOur study demonstrates the need for randomization, allocation concealment, and blind outcome assessment in animal research across a wide range of outcomes and disease areas. Since human studies are often justified based on results from animal studies, our results suggest that unduly biased animal studies should not be allowed to constitute part of the rationale for human trials.

Dataset Information

The role of systematic reviews in pharmacovigilance planning and Clinical Trials Authorisation application: example from the SLEEPS trial.

Background

Methodology/principal findings

Conclusions/significance

Publications

The role of systematic reviews in pharmacovigilance planning and Clinical Trials Authorisation application: example from the SLEEPS trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets