Children in clinical trials: survey on the current situation in paediatric university clinics in Germany

Many prescribed treatments for children have not been adequately tested in children, sometimes resulting in harmful treatments being given and beneficial treatments being withheld. In the absence of specific trial-based data in children, results of studies in adults are extrapolated, which is often inappropriate because children have different range of diseases and metabolize medications differently. Trials in children are more challenging than those in adults and the pool of eligible children entering trials is often small. Children must have at last the same rights as adults in relation to receiving treatment with medicinal products that have been fully tested. The need for more studies to obtain paediatric information for medicines used in children is now a matter of consensus on a global basis and is considered a public health priority. Therefore a survey was performed in university hospitals in Germany targeting the current and future situation of children in clinical trials. The questionnaire of this survey was sent to 68 paediatric departments in 31 university clinics in Germany with a respond rate of 27% with respect to 18 returned questionnaires. With regard to new laws, guidelines and strong governmental support and funding an increasing number of clinical trials is expected. Surprisingly, the number of trials in the paediatric population remains unchanged within a period of 4 years (2005-2008). Added to the surveys performed within the pharmaceutical industry from Heinrich and Hark the number of trials in children remains unchanged even within a period of 9 years (2000-2008). The efforts undertaken by the government regarding funding and supporting KKS (Coordinating Centers for Clinical Trials) and affiliated PAED-Net (Pediatric Network on Medication Development and Testing in Children and Adolescents at KKS) appear to be insufficient. Beginning of this year the legal framework with the urgent expected "Paediatric Regulation" was established. May be the implementation by clinicians and pharmaceutical industry will improve the current situation.

The effect of anti-L-selectin (aselizumab) in multiple traumatized patients--results of a phase II clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

The objectives of this study were to evaluate safety (primary) and clinical efficacy (secondary) of the humanized monoclonal anti-L-selectin antibody aselizumab in severely injured patients.

DESIGN

Prospective phase II, parallel group, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial.

SETTING

Fourteen medical intensive care units or trauma units in level I trauma centers in Belgium, Germany, and Poland.

PATIENTS

Eighty-four patients with a sustained trauma due to a blunt or penetrating injury and a total Injury Severity Scale score of > or =25.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients received either aselizumab at dosages of 0.5, 1, or 2 mg/kg or placebo within 6 hrs of the traumatic event and were followed for 6 wks.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The number of expeditable adverse events increased dose dependently over the aselizumab groups compared with placebo. There were no statistically significant differences between all groups regarding leukopenia and risk of infection. No immunologic response following infusion of aselizumab was noted. The number of patients with multiple organ failure, defined as a median value of the total Goris Multiple Organ Failure score of > or =5 on > or =2 consecutive days within 14 days, was not significantly different for the 0.5 mg/kg, 1 mg/kg, 2 mg/kg, and placebo groups. There were no statistically significant differences in time of mechanical ventilation, length of stay in an intensive care unit, and total duration of hospitalization between treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Aselizumab was associated with a higher rate of infections and leucopenia; however, this difference was not significantly different compared with placebo. For all efficacy variables, aselizumab presented no significant trends but only a few scattered statistically significant differences between groups.

Measuring the efficacy of psychopharmacological treatment of psychomotoric restlessness in dementia: clinical evaluation of tiapride

A major problem in psychogeriatrics is the treatment of demented patients suffering from severe restlessness and aggressive behavior. There have been few controlled studies of the efficacy of antipsychotic drugs in the treatment of this condition. Therefore, a multi-centre, double-blind, randomized study, measuring the efficacy and safety of tiapride vs. melperone in hospitalized dementia patients suffering from psychomotoric agitation, was conducted in 24 psychiatric hospitals in Germany. A total of 176 patients were enrolled: 175 of them were included in the safety analysis and 156 were evaluated for efficacy. Both treatment groups were comparable regarding the severity of disease and demographic data as well as with regard to the neuropsychological baseline assessment. The CGI (item, 2) was the primary efficacy parameter. Both groups yielded an identical response rate of 74.36%. The secondary efficacy parameters (NOSIE, AIMS, RAPSU, BePU, VAS) showed correspondingly a marked improvement for both groups. No significant changes of the safety parameters (blood pressure, pulse rate, ECG, clinical examination) occurred in the study. The overall number of adverse events was slightly higher in the tiapride group, serious events occurring less frequently. This study demonstrates that tiapride is as effective and as safe as melperone. These results are consistent with international experience on tiapride.