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

INTRODUCTION: The evaluation of clinical trial (CT) safety is the main task of CT vigilance units. In addition to the management of adverse events, the units must review the literature to identify information that may impact the benefit-risk assessment of studies. In this survey, we investigated the literature monitoring (LM) activity of French Institutional Vigilance Units (IVU) from the working group "REflexion sur la VIgilance et la SEcurite des essais cliniques" (REVISE). MATERIAL AND METHODS: We sent a questionnaire of 26 questions, divided into four themes, to the 60 IVU: (1) Presentation of the IVU and the LM activity; (2) Used sources, queries and criteria for selecting articles; (3) Valuation of the LM and (4) Practical organisation. RESULTS: Of the 27 IVU that responded to the questionnaire, 85% of them carried out LM. This was mainly provided by medical staff to improve general knowledge (83%), to detect Adverse Reactions (AR) not listed in the reference documents (70%) and to detect new safety information (61%). Due to lack of time, staff, available recommendations and sources, only 21% of IVU conducted LM for all CT. On average, units reported four sources: ANSM information (96%), PubMed database (83%), EMA alerts (57%) and the subscription to APM international (48%). The LM had an impact on the CT of 57% of the IVU such as changing the conditions of a study (39%) or suspending a study (22%). DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: LM is an important but time-consuming activity with heterogeneous practices. According to the results of this survey, we proposed seven ways to improve this practice: (1) Target the highest risk CT; (2) Refine the PubMed queries; (3) Use other tools; (4) Create a decision flowchart for the selection of PubMed articles; (5) Improve training; (6) Value the activity and (7) Outsource the activity.

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.

How Should we Use Multicolumn Spinal Cord Stimulation to Optimize Back Pain Spatial Neural Targeting? A Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Controlled Trial (ESTIMET Study).

BACKGROUND: Recent studies have highlighted multicolumn spinal cord stimulation (SCS) efficacy, hypothesizing that optimized spatial neural targeting provided by new-generation SCS lead design or its multicolumn programming abilities could represent an opportunity to better address chronic back pain (BP). OBJECTIVE: To compare multicolumn vs. monocolumn programming on clinical outcomes of refractory postoperative chronic BP patients implanted with SCS using multicolumn surgical lead. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twelve centers included 115 patients in a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, controlled trial. After randomization, leads were programmed using only one or several columns. The primary outcome was change in BP visual analogic scale (VAS) at six months. All patients were then programmed using the full potential of the lead up until 12-months follow-up. RESULTS: At six months, there was no significant difference in clinical outcomes whether the SCS was programmed using a mono or a multicolumn program. At 12 months, in all patients having been receiving multicolumn SCS for at least six months (n = 97), VAS decreases were significant for global pain (45.1%), leg pain (55.8%), and BP (41.5%) compared with baseline (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The ESTIMET study confirms the significant benefit experienced on chronic BP by patients implanted with multicolumn SCS, independently from multicolumn lead programming. These good clinical outcomes might result from the specific architecture of the multicolumn lead, giving the opportunity to select initially the best column on a multicolumn grid and to optimize neural targeting with low-energy requirements. However, involving more columns than one does not appear necessary, once initial spatial targeting of the "sweet spot" has been achieved. Our findings suggest that this spatial concept could also be transposed to cylindrical leads, which have drastically improved their capability to shape the electrical field, and might be combined with temporal resolution using SCS new modalities.

Compliance of French academic clinical trials with the Clinical Trial Facilitation and Coordination Group recommendations on contraception and pregnancy testing requirements.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The Clinical Trials Coordination and Facilitation Group has issued recommendations on contraception and pregnancy testing to help sponsors meet regulatory expectations and harmonize practices to limit embryofetal risks in clinical trials. Our objective was to assess the compliance of French academic clinical trials with these recommendations and to describe the mitigation measures required by sponsors in their trials. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was performed on the French academic drug trials authorized by the national competent authority between January 2015 and June 2018. We included trials which tested systemic administration of drugs and enrolled men or women of childbearing potential. RESULTS: Data from 97 trials included were compiled. One-third of the trials (23.8%-43.3%, 95% confidence interval) complied with the Clinical Trial Facilitation and Coordination Group recommendations. No improvement over time or according to embryofetotoxic status or drug duration exposure was found. Contraception was required in 56.7% of trials and was more often required in case of potentially embryofetotoxic drugs (68.5% vs 41.9%, p = 0.013) or exposure over 1 month (71.7% vs 43.8%, p = 0.006). Pregnancy testing at inclusion was required in 59.1% of trials and additional testing in 17.2%. Pregnancy testing at inclusion was more often required in trials with drug exposure above 1 month (67.4% vs 45.8%, p = 0.035). CONCLUSION: French academic sponsors barely met the recommendations on contraception and pregnancy testing potentially leading to potential embryofetal risks in case of pregnancy. They need to implement these recommendations quickly.

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.