Dataset Information

Validation of Instruments for Assessing Drug Safety Management During the Conduction of Clinical Trials.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Saumell Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6037497 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Validation of Instruments for Assessing Drug Safety Management During the Conduction of Clinical Trials.

Saumell Yaimarelis Y Torres Olga O Batista Maritza M Sánchez Lizet L

International journal of health policy and management 20180701 7

<h4>Background</h4>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 d ...[more]

PMID: 29996582

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate whether responses to dynamic case-vignettes accurately reflect actual practices in complex emergency situations. We hypothesized that when obstetricians were faced with vignette of emergency situation identical to one they previously managed, they would report the management strategy they actually used. On the other hand, there is no reason to suppose that their response to a vignette based on a source case managed by another obstetrician would be the same as the actual management.MethodsA multicenter vignette-based study was used in 7 French maternity units. We chose the example of severe postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) to study the use of case-vignettes for assessing the management of complex situations. We developed dynamic case-vignettes describing incidents of PPH in several steps, using documentation in patient files. Vignettes described the postpartum course and included multiple-choice questions detailing proposed clinical care. Each participating obstetrician was asked to evaluate 4 case-vignettes: 2 directly derived from cases they previously managed and 2 derived from other obstetricians' cases. We compared the final treatment decision in vignette responses to those documented in the source-case by the overall agreement and the Kappa coefficient, both for the cases the obstetricians previously managed and the cases of others.ResultsThirty obstetricians participated. Overall agreement between final treatment decisions in case-vignettes and documented care for cases obstetricians previously managed was 82% (Kappa coefficient: 0.75, 95% CI [0.62-0.88]). Overall agreement between final treatment decisions in case-vignettes and documented care in vignettes derived from other obstetricians' cases was only 48% (Kappa coefficient: 0.30, 95% CI [0.12-0.48]). Final agreement with documented care was significantly better for cases based on their own previous cases than for others (p<0.001).ConclusionsDynamic case-vignettes accurately reflect actual practices in complex emergency situations. Therefore, they can be used to assess the quality of management in these situations.

Project description:BackgroundDuring 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.MethodsIn Trial A, 12 healthy volunteers received various doses of an interferon β-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.ResultsIn 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.ConclusionsThese 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.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT02515695 (Trial A) and NCT02517788 (Trial B). Registered on 24 July and 5 August 2015, respectively.

Project description:Background and objectiveThe number of reports on suspected drug-induced memory impairment submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration increased 30-fold from 2000 to 2022. Drugs are the most common cause of reversible dementia. However, there is very little research on drug-induced cognitive impairment. The aim of this study was to investigate if and how an assessment of cognitive safety was included in recent, registered, controlled, clinical drug trials.MethodsThe clinical trials registry ( www.Clinicaltrialsgov ) was searched for randomized controlled clinical trials with available study protocols. After excluding irrelevant trials such as surgical procedures, local or short-term treatment, and dietary supplements, 803 trials were included in this study. The protocols were manually reviewed for information on if, and how, cognitive safety had been assessed. Trial drugs were categorized into those targeting the central nervous system or not, as well as older and newer drugs. Methods used for the assessment of cognitive function were categorized into questionnaires, screening instruments, and neuropsychological tests. If the trial results were published, we examined whether the publication contained any data on cognitive safety that had emerged from the trial.ResultsThe start dates of the screened trials ranged from 31 July, 2009, to 4 April, 2021. Out of the 803 trials, 52 (6.5%) actively assessed cognitive safety. The remaining trials relied solely on spontaneous reporting. Of 429 trials studying a new drug, 32 (7.5%) actively assessed cognitive safety. One hundred and fifty-eight trials examined drugs intended to, or known to have, pharmacological effects on the central nervous system. Of these, 21 (13.5%) assessed cognitive safety. Most of the trials that assessed cognitive safety used either crude screening tools or questionnaires.ConclusionsCognitive safety is largely ignored by recent controlled clinical trials. This applies even to trials assessing new drugs and trials assessing central nervous system drugs. There is an urgent need for drug manufacturers, regulatory authorities, and the medical profession to address the cognitive safety of drugs.

Dataset Information

Validation of Instruments for Assessing Drug Safety Management During the Conduction of Clinical Trials.

Publications

Validation of Instruments for Assessing Drug Safety Management During the Conduction of Clinical Trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets