Theranostic AGuIX nanoparticles as radiosensitizer: A phase I, dose-escalation study in patients with multiple brain metastases (NANO-RAD trial).

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Brain metastasis impacts greatly on patients' quality of life and survival. The phase I NANO-RAD trial assessed the safety and maximum tolerated dose of systemic administration of a novel gadolinium-based nanoparticle, AGuIX, in combination with whole brain radiotherapy in patients with multiple brain metastases not suitable for stereotactic radiotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with measurable brain metastases received escalating doses of AGuIX nanoparticles (15, 30, 50, 75, or 100 mg/kg intravenously) on the day of initiation of WBRT (30 Gy in 10 fractions) in 5 cohorts of 3 patients each. Toxicity was assessed using NCI Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4.03. RESULTS: Fifteen patients with 354 metastases were included. No dose-limiting toxic effects were observed up to AGuIX 100 mg/kg. Plasma elimination half-life of AGuIX was similar for all groups (mean 1.3 h; range 0.8-3 h). Efficient targeting of metastases (T1 MRI enhancement, tumor selectivity) and persistence of AGuIX contrast enhancement were observed in metastases from patients with primary melanoma, lung, breast, and colon cancers. The concentration of AGuIX in metastases after administration was proportional to the injected dose. Thirteen of 14 evaluable patients had a clinical benefit, with either stabilization or reduction of tumor volume. MRI analysis showed significant correlation between contrast enhancement and tumor response, thus supporting a radiosensitizing effect. CONCLUSION: Combining AGuIX with radiotherapy for patients with brain metastases is safe and feasible. AGuIX specifically targets brain metastases and is retained within tumors for up to 1 week; ongoing phase II studies will more definitively assess efficacy.

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.

[Medication errors reporting in drug clinical trials: Role of the clinical research pharmacist?] / Déclaration des erreurs médicamenteuses dans les recherches portant sur le médicament : place du pharmacien des essais cliniques ?

The investigational drugs circuit has specific risks, and medication errors may occur in clinical trials, possibly associated with adverse reactions. These risks must therefore be managed. In fact, there are few reports of medication errors during clinical trials. In a context of regulatory interpretation difficulties on this subject, we conducted a national survey that highlighted the heterogeneity of the methods used by academic sponsors to collect, code and report medication errors and the need to develop a culture of reporting these errors in clinical trials. This is why the REVISE group (safety officers of French institutional sponsors) has issued recommendations to clarify the sponsor and investigator responsibilities and guide them in the management of medication errors. These new guidelines recommend that any serious or potentially serious medication error or other "special situation" (e.g. overdose, misuse, quality defect) should be notified immediately to the sponsor by the investigator. The clinical research pharmacist place is strategic to detect medication errors and other special situations. The integration of the pharmacist into the reporting system, in collaboration with the investigator, could be discussed with clinical research professionals and health authorities.

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.