Validation of a risk-assessment scale and a risk-adapted monitoring plan for academic clinical research studies--the Pre-Optimon study.

CONTEXT: Good Clinical Practice regulates monitoring activities in clinical research. Due to question and design diversity, and limited resources, on-site monitoring is often less intensive in the academic context, and variable. Standardization is needed, and relies on definition and validation of tools accounting for risk. OBJECTIVE: To define, and validate tools, to implement a risk-based monitoring strategy for academic clinical research. METHODS: Working groups of experienced professionals searched the literature, and built a consensus risk-assessment scale (RAS), and a risk-adapted monitoring plan (RAMP). We allocated 200 protocols to 49 assessors. We assessed the RAS relevance vs. a visual analogue scale (VAS), and its reproducibility through Kraemer's kappa, and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) from a random proportional odds model. We identified sources of disagreement through a logistic regression. We described assessors' difficulties during assessment. We applied the RAMP to 10 protocols per risk level, and rated its feasibility (0 = easy to 4 = impossible). RESULTS: RAS and RAMP were defined in 4 levels. RAS relevance was good: RAS-risk levels were evenly distributed on VAS-risk (0.6, 2.6, 5.6, and 7.9). Reproducibility was moderate to good: kappa=0.48, ICC=0.70. Major disagreements (36%) arose from decision-makers, rather than hands-on managers. Most difficulties occurred in ill-written protocols (17%). RAMP was easily feasible for most protocols (mean score: 0.2 to 0.9). We proposed a standard synopsis for evaluation purpose. CONCLUSION: We defined, and validated risk-based tools. This risk-adapted strategy will be compared to an intensive one in a randomized trial, Optimon, to define a standard of practice for academic clinical research.

Benefit of therapeutic drug monitoring of protease inhibitors in HIV-infected patients depends on PI used in HAART regimen--ANRS 111 trial.

As a result of high inter-patient variability, and efficacy-concentration and toxicity-concentration relationships, optimization of HIV-protease inhibitor (PI) doses based on plasma concentrations could be beneficial. During a 48-week open prospective non-randomized interventional study of 115 protease inhibitor-naïve patients initiating an indinavir/ritonavir- or lopinavir/ritonavir-, or nelfinavir-containing therapy, protease inhibitor dose was modified when plasma trough concentrations (C(trough)) at weeks 2, 8, 16 and 24 were outside predefined optimal concentration ranges. Failure of the strategy was defined as the proportions of patients with HIV-RNA above 200 copies/mL from weeks 24 to 48 and/or experiencing grades 2, 3 or 4 PI-related adverse events during the study; proportion of patients with last C(trough) measurement outside the concentration range was determined at each visit. Virological failure and/or occurrence of adverse event were observed in 37/94 assessable patients (39%; 95% CI: 29.4-50.0). In the on-treatment analysis, failure of the strategy was noted in 16% of indinavir/r- or lopinavir/r-treated patients (8/51; 95% CI: 7.0-28.6; virological failure: 2; adverse event: 6) but in 44% of nelfinavir-treated patients (11/25; 95% CI: 24.4-65.1; virological failure: 10; adverse event: 1); C(trough) concentrations outside the range were less frequent at the last measurement than at W2 (41% vs. 66%; P < 0.05), with proportions of 35% for indinavir/r- or lopinavir/r-treated patients, but 57% for nelfinavir-treated patients. The proposed strategy of therapeutic drug monitoring may be beneficial to indinavir/r- and lopinavir/r-treated patients, but failed to move concentrations into the predefined range and to produce the expected virological success for nelfinavir-treated patients.