Adverse events clinical trials

The DPDP ligand was synthesized in order to lower the toxicity of the man-ganese(II) ion and to provide selective tissue uptake [40]. The LD50 of an i.v. dose of Mn-DPDP is between 1.9-5.4 mmol kg1 in mice [18, 41]. No mortalities occurred in dogs injected i.v. with 1.8 mmol kg-1 [41]. With the recommended clinical dose of 0.005 mmol kg1, the safety factor for Mn-DPDP is at least 360 [41]. In the European phase III clinical trials adverse events were reported for 46 of 624 patients (7%) [42]. In comparison, 123 of 546 patients (23%) in the U.S. clinical trials reported at least one adverse event [43]. In both trials the most common complaints were headache, vomiting and nausea. In addition, 377 of 546 patients (69%) in the U.S. trials and 26 of 624 patients (4%) in the European trials reported discomfort at the site of injection. The difference between the two trials is likely due to the method of administration and formulation of the Mn-DPDP solution. In the European trials, a 0.010 mM solution of the agent was slowly infused while in the U. S. trials Mn-DPDP was administered as a bolus injection of a 0.050 mM solution. Experiments have demonstrated a lower incidence of adverse events with infusion of the agent [44]. 

In systematic reviews of clinical trials, adverse events reported in the milk thistle groups were noted as being low in frequency, minor in nature, and indistinguishable from adverse events reported in placebo groups (Jacobs et al. 2002 Mulrow et al. 2000). 

The problem is that the regular-trial adverse events database and the serious adverse events database do not join well if at all programmatically. You can attempt to join or merge the two databases by event start date and coded term, and that will join many regular-trial adverse events to the serious events. However, this is far from foolproof, because of mismatches in adverse event start dates and because the adverse events may have been coded slightly differently in the two systems. The best way to link the serious adverse events and adverse events databases is to have the clinical data management system create a linking variable key for you. In lieu of that, the only way to reliably link the two data sources is manually. 

Fonr randomized, double-blind clinical trials in which rizatriptan was compared with sumatriptan have been reviewed (9). The two drugs have similar safety profiles, but the frequency of adverse effects depends largely on the dose, which varied from trial to trial. Adverse events reported in over 5% of patients were somnolence. 

Systematic reviews Montelukast has been examined in seven randomized controlled trials and their open extensions in 2751 children [101Montelukast had a clinical and laboratory safety profile similar to placebo or active control/usual care therapies, which did not change with long-term use. Clinical/laboratory adverse events were generally mild and transient. The commonest adverse events included upper... 

The following points are worthy of note in terms of the placement of data. In the case of studies with multiple objectives, reports should be placed in the section corresponding to their primary purpose. Reports of laboratory studies conducted with human materials to investigate pharmacokinetic effects should be placed in Section 5.3.2 of the clinical module, as opposed to the non-clinical module. A US submission requires that the individual case report forms of all trial subjects that died or were dropped from a study due to adverse events are included in Section 5.3.7. 

Zanamivir was generally well tolerated in clinical trials (Fleming 2003). During treatment with oseltamivir, nausea and vomiting have been reported as side effects (Oxford 2005). A small number of severe adverse reactions in children, including neuropsychiatric events and skin hypersensitivity, have, however, been reported, primarily in Japan which has the highest use of oseltamivir (Li et al. 2007). 

The first issue lies in the whole realm of the human disease process itself. Many adverse drug events mimic diseases and vice versa. Is an adverse event really an adverse event, or is it merely a natural occurrence of a disease process that is entirely independent of drug exposure The science of drug safety is often complicated by the lack of objective markers of drug toxicity that can systematically separate a disease process from an adverse drug event process [2]. Clinical trials, often viewed as the gold standard to assess efficacy, are simply too limited in scope to answer safety questions in a systematic way. 

Figure 27.2 A display that summarizes the duration of treatment (black sqnares) and the timing of serious vascular events (circles) for the subset of patients who withdrew from treatment because of an adverse event. Each line represents a single patient s experience over time in days for the test (left panel) and the control drug (right panel). Patients are sorted by decreased duration of treatment. In this 1 1 randomized clinical trial there were 18 withdrawals due to a severe vascular adverse event with the test drug. This is in contrast with the control drug, with 11 withdrawals. Withdrawals with the test drug occurred sooner than with the control drug.

Limited Knowledge of Exposure and Reporting Rates in Postmarketing Data. Unlike clinical trials and electronic medical records in clinical practice, postmarketing voluntarily reported data contain limited information about the total number of patients exposed and the duration of exposure. This problem is compounded by the fact that adverse events are often underreported [2,9]. 

Class Drug Name and Oral Dose (mg/day) Compelling Indications2 Clinical Trials Select Adverse Events Comments... 

CrCl greater than or equal to 30 to less than 50 mL/minute) and severe (CrCl less than 30 mL/minute) renal impairment respectively. Renal function monitoring is recommended prior to initiation and periodically thereafter. Adverse events in clinical trials included nasopharyngitis (5.2%), upper respiratory tract infection (6.3%), and headache (5.1%). Currently, no significant drug interactions are known. 

Sirolimus is currently the only FDA-approved ToR inhibitor. One of its derivatives, everolimus, is in phase III clinical trials and has been approved for use in some European countries.30 Sirolimus is a macrolide antibiotic that has no effect on cal-cineurin phosphatase.11,31,32 Sirolimus inhibits T cell activation and proliferation by binding to and inhibiting the activation of the mammalian ToR, which suppresses cellular response to IL-2 and other cytokines (i.e., IL-4 and IL-15J.11,31 Studies have shown that sirolimus may be used safely and effectively with either cyclosporine or tacrolimus as a replacement for either azathioprine or mycophenolate mofetil.33 However, when using both sirolimus and cyclosporine as part of a patient s immunosuppressant therapy, because of a drug interaction between the two resulting in a marked increase in sirolimus concentrations, it is recommended to separate the sirolimus and cyclosporine doses by at least 4 hours. Sirolimus also can be used as an alternative agent for patients who do not tolerate calcineurin inhibitors due to nephrotoxicity or other adverse events.34... 

Demographics and Trial-Specific Baseline Data 27 Concomitant or Prior Medication Data 27 Medical History Data 29 Investigational Therapy Drug Log 30 Laboratory Data 31 Adverse Event Data 32 Endpoint/Event Assessment Data 35 Clinical Endpoint Committee (CEC) Data 36 Study Termination Data 37 Treatment Randomization Data 38 Quality-of-Life Data 40... 

The adverse event form is fairly standard across clinical trials. The form consists of a list of events for which data are entered as free text and are later coded with a dictionary such as MedDRA and some associated event attribute variables. In just about any clinical trial, an adverse event form very similar to the following sample will be found. 

Time is a critical measure for clinical trial analysis. Time is captured in clinical trial databases in a study day variable. Study day can be defined as the number of days from therapeutic intervention to any given time point or event. By defining study day, you create a common metric for measuring time across a population of patients in a clinical trial. There can be a study day calculation for any time point of interest. Adverse event start, study termination, and clinical endpoint event date all make good choices for study day calculations. The study day calculation is performed with one of the two following approaches. 

---