Serious adverse drug events related to non-investigational drugs in academic clinical trials: another source of safety data for risk assessment?

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

PURPOSE

To follow the European Directive 2001/20/EC, institutional sponsors created or reinforced their vigilance units. Since 2007, the working group "REflexion sur la VIgilance et la Sécurité des Essais" (REVISE) rallies French institutional vigilance units (IVUs) to share their experience. The group decided to elaborate a collective work to provide a real-life descriptive picture of French IVUs activities and resources over the 2011-2016 period.

METHOD

A questionnaire was sent to the 60 IVUs of the group. It included questions on staff and activities, such as the number of received and analyzed serious adverse events (SAEs). All results and proposals were discussed and consensus was achieved in general meeting.

RESULTS/CONCLUSION

The results highlight the commitment of IVU staffs at many steps of CTs, but also the frailty of some units, leading to 6 proposals intended to institutional sponsors and competent authorities for ensuring (1) IVU visibility to all actors; (2) sustainable IVU staff; (3) IVU resources adapted to sponsor's ambitions; (4) valorization of IVUs in publications; (5) recognition of IVU's value in clinical research quality; (6) involvement of IVUs in regulatory changes and their procedures of implementation.

Detection of drug safety signals from clinical trials data: Role of SUSARs

One of the main goals of safety management in clinical trials is to detect suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions (SUSARs). The unexpectedness concerns the nature, frequency or severity of an adverse reaction. Drug safety signals could thus be retrieved, and a study was performed to investigate whether SUSARs allow signal detection in pharmacovigilance. Data from six academic safety units were collected from 2005 to 2016. Characteristics of SUSARs were analysed and signals were identified i) by evaluating the presence of other causes, ii) by assessing the summary of product characteristics (SPC), iii) by searching for specific safety information in Pubmed and health agencies, and iv) by investigating the narrative of each case. Pharmacological plausibility was evaluated by compatible mechanism of reaction and time-to-onset. During the study period, 211 SUSARs were collected. They mostly concerned general disorders (26.1%) and protein kinase inhibitors (24.6%). After eliminating SUSARs with other causes or those considered as expected, 50 SUSARs (23.7%), involving a total of 115 drug-reaction pairs, concerned potential safety signals. Among these pairs, 12 (10.4%) were considered as pharmacologically plausible. This study indicates that one quarter of SUSARs collected in academic clinical trials refers to potential safety signals, especially for oncologic drugs. One tenth of drug-reaction pairs was considered to have a pharmacological plausibility and could merit further evaluation. This is the first study suggesting that SUSARs could be a source of safety signals and that their routine analysis should be complementary to spontaneous reporting.

Serious adverse drug events related to non-investigational drugs in academic clinical trials: another source of safety data for risk assessment?

AIMS

Sponsors of clinical trials have to analyze serious adverse events (SAEs). Both sponsors and investigators determine the relationship between the investigational medicinal product, the investigational device or procedure and SAEs. SAEs related to another cause, such as a non-investigational medicinal product (NIMP), do not have clear pharmacovigilance reporting requirements. The aim of this study was to evaluate the amount and the nature of NIMP-related SAEs recorded by three French academic sponsors and to propose pharmacovigilance requirements for these cases.

METHODS

This was a retrospective descriptive study including all cases of NIMP-related SAEs occurring in clinical trials and reported to three academic sponsors between January 2009 and October 2014.

RESULTS

Among 5870 cases of SAEs, 300 (5%) were related to a NIMP in 50 clinical trials. Involved NIMPs were mainly antithrombotics, cytostatics and immunosuppressants. Some of these drugs were currently followed by a risk management plan (e.g. rivoxaban). The most frequent NIMP-related SAEs were neurological, gastrointestinal and infectious disorders. Seven NIMP-related SAEs were known as 'rare' or 'very rare' and two were 'unlabelled'.

CONCLUSIONS

As far as we know, this is the first study to focus about NIMP-related SAEs occurring in clinical trials. This work highlights the potential high quality source of safety data via NIMP-related SAE collection. Globally, we propose that NIMP-related SAEs occurring in clinical trials should systematically be notified to the pharmacovigilance system of the concerned country. Clearer procedures of interactions between safety units of academic sponsors and pharmacovigilance systems are needed to allow an effective recording of NIMP-related SAEs.