Dataset Information

Biases affecting injected doses of an experimental drug during clinical trials.

ABSTRACT: During clinical trials, researchers rarely question nominal doses specified on labels of investigational products, overlooking the potential for inaccuracies that may result when calculating pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic parameters. This study evaluated the disparity between nominal doses and the doses actually administered in two Phase I trials of a biosimilar drug.In Trial A, 12 healthy volunteers received various doses of an interferon ?-1a biosimilar via either subcutaneous or intravenous injection, prepared by partially emptying 0.53 ml syringes supplied by the manufacturer. In Trial B, 12 volunteers received three different formulations of the drug via intravenous injection (biosimilar with and without albumin and a comparator), followed by multiple subcutaneous injections. In both trials, the dose administered was calculated as D?=?C?×?V?-?losses, where C is the drug concentration assessed using ELISA, V is the volume administered calculated using syringe weighing and losses are deduced from in-vitro experiments. Interferon binding to added albumin and infusion lines was evaluated using a (125)I-interferon tracer with gel-filtration chromatography.In Trial A, measured concentrations were close to the nominal strength indicated by the manufacturer (median bias: -6 %), whereas in Trial B they differed significantly for all three formulations (median biases: +67 %, +73 % and +31 % for the biosimilar with albumin, the biosimilar without albumin and the comparator, respectively). In Trial A, the doses actually administered showed large variability and biases, especially at the lowest doses. Indeed, actually injected volumes differed by as much as 74 % from theoretical volumes - a phenomenon mainly attributed to unnoticed fluid re-aspiration through the syringe needle. This was corrected in Trial B. Interferon was not significantly adsorbed on the infusion lines used for intravenous administration. Its binding to albumin was slow, reaching 50 % after a 16 h incubation.These examples illustrate the importance of assessing the actual doses administered in clinical trials, to ensure accuracy in the determination of clearance, distribution volume, bioavailability and dose-response relationships.Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02515695 (Trial A) and NCT02517788 (Trial B). Registered on 24 July and 5 August 2015, respectively.

SUBMITTER: Perrottet N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4947517 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Biases affecting injected doses of an experimental drug during clinical trials.

Perrottet Nancy N Brunner-Ferber Françoise F Grouzmann Eric E Spertini François F Biollaz Jérôme J Buclin Thierry T Widmer Nicolas N

Trials 20160716 1

<h4>Background</h4>During clinical trials, researchers rarely question nominal doses specified on labels of investigational products, overlooking the potential for inaccuracies that may result when calculating pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic parameters. This study evaluated the disparity between nominal doses and the doses actually administered in two Phase I trials of a biosimilar drug.<h4>Methods</h4>In Trial A, 12 healthy volunteers received various doses of an interferon β-1a biosimilar ...[more]

PMID: 27423899

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:Language and indexing biases may exist among Chinese-sponsored randomized clinical trials (CS-RCTs). Such biases may threaten the validity of systematic reviews. Objective:To evaluate the existence of language and indexing biases among CS-RCTs on drug interventions. Design, Setting, and Participants:In this retrospective cohort study, eligible CS-RCTs were retrieved from trial registries, and bibliographic databases were searched to determine their publication status. Eligible CS-RCTs were for drug interventions conducted from January 1, 2008, to December 31, 2014. The search and analysis were conducted from March 1 to August 31, 2019. Primary trial registries were recognized by the World Health Organization and the Drug Clinical Trial Registry Platform sponsored by the China Food and Drug Administration. Exposures:Individual CS-RCTs with positive vs negative results (positive vs negative CS-RCTs). Main Outcomes and Measures:For assessing language bias, the main outcome was the language of the journal in which CS-RCTs were published (English vs Chinese). For indexing bias, the main outcome was the language of the bibliographic database where the CS-RCTs were indexed (English vs Chinese). Results:The search identified 891 eligible CS-RCTs. Four hundred seventy CS-RCTs were published by August 31, 2019, of which 368 (78.3%) were published in English. Among CS-RCTs registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR), positive CS-RCTs were 3.92 (95% CI, 2.20-7.00) times more likely to be published in English than negative CS-RCTs; among CS-RCTs in English-language registries, positive CS-RCTs were 3.22 (95% CI, 1.34-7.78) times more likely to be published in English than negative CS-RCTs. These findings suggest the existence of language bias. Among CS-RCTs registered in ChiCTR, positive CS-RCTs were 2.89 (95% CI, 1.55-5.40) times more likely to be indexed in English bibliographic databases than negative CS-RCTs; among CS-RCTs in English-language registries, positive CS-RCTs were 2.19 (95% CI, 0.82-5.82) times more likely to be indexed in English bibliographic databases than negative CS-RCTs. These findings support the existence of indexing bias. Conclusions and Relevance:This study suggests the existence of language and indexing biases among registered CS-RCTs on drug interventions. These biases may distort evidence synthesis toward more positive results of drug interventions.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The management of drug safety with the collection of reliable safety data during the conduction of clinical trials conduct is essential for the registry and marketing of products. The systematic evaluation of this process, based on objective measures, requires the application of quality instruments. This study was aimed to design and validate eight instruments through the components of quality (structure, process, and results), for characterizing and assessing the process of drug safety management, during the conduction of clinical trials. METHODS:The eight instruments were designed according to the international recommendations for Good Clinical Practice (GCP) and comprise a knowledge survey for professionals at the investigational sites, a satisfaction scale of internal and external clients and a satisfaction survey for patients with the treatment of the adverse events. The instruments also include a checklist to evaluate the safety management infrastructure (human, material and organizational resources) in the sponsoring center, a checklist to evaluate the same criterion at the investigational sites and three checklists that evaluate adherence to regulatory requirements of essential documents (investigator's brochure, protocol, and informed consent form). The content validity was evaluated by Delphi method and the reliability was determined by Cronbach ? test. RESULTS:All the items were valued as very adequate after the second round of the expert panel. The instruments were deemed as appropriate and understandable in the pre-test performed. All responders agreed with the options given and the accessibility of the application. Only 10% of professionals at the research sites suggested that the knowledge survey was too long. Cronbach ? values between .66 and .93 were obtained. CONCLUSION:The structure, process, and outcome framework allowed for the characterization of drug safety management during clinical trials, providing a useful approach for the promoter to systematically measure and evaluate the process. The eight instruments were deemed as reliable, feasible and easy to be used for examining drug safety management while carrying out clinical trials.

Dataset Information

Biases affecting injected doses of an experimental drug during clinical trials.

Publications

Biases affecting injected doses of an experimental drug during clinical trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets