Bioavailability of dissolved and crushed single tablets of bictegravir, emtricitabine, tenofovir alafenamide in healthy adults: the SOLUBIC randomized crossover study.

BACKGROUND: Crushing or dissolving bictegravir/tenofovir alafenamide/emtricitabine (BIC/TAF/FTC) tablets is not recommended because there are no data supporting this practice. METHODS: A crossover, randomized trial in healthy adults (NCT04244448) investigated the bioavailability of two off-label uses of BIC/TAF/FTC (50/200/25 mg), dissolved in water or crushed in apple compote, compared with the solid tablet. Pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters were estimated from sequential intensive plasma antiretroviral concentrations over a 72 h period post dose. Bioequivalence was met if the 90% CIs of the geometric least-squares means ratios comparing BIC/TAF/FTC exposures (AUC and Cmax) from the experimental phases were within 80%-125% of the reference. RESULTS: Eighteen subjects participated in each of the three phases. Dissolved tablet Cmax geometric mean ratio (90% CI) for BIC/TAF/FTC was 105% (93-119)/97% (87-108)/96% (74-124), respectively. Dissolved tablet AUC geometric mean ratio (90% CI) for BIC/TAF/FTC was 111% (100-122)/100% (94 to 105)/99% (81 to 120), respectively. Crushed tablet Cmax geometric mean ratio (90%) CI for BIC/TAF/FTC was 110% (97 to 124)/70% (63-78)/66% (51-85), respectively. Crushed tablet AUC geometric mean ratio (90%) CI for BIC/TAF/FTC was 107% (96-118)/86% (82-91)/84% (69-103), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Crushing BIC/TAF/FTC tablets may lead to suboptimal emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide drug exposures. Dissolving BIC/TAF/FTC in water may be acceptable if the tablet cannot be swallowed whole.

Rapid Push vs Pump-Infused Subcutaneous Immunoglobulin Treatment: a Randomized Crossover Study of Quality of Life in Primary Immunodeficiency Patients.

PURPOSE: Subcutaneous immunoglobulin replacement therapy (IgRT) may be administered once a week with a pump or every other day with a syringe (rapid push). The objective of the study was to compare the impact of pump and rapid push infusions on patient's life quality index (LQI). METHODS: This study was a randomized, crossover, multicenter, non-inferiority trial conducted in adults with primary immunodeficiency (PID) accustomed to weekly infusions at home by pump. Patients used pump or rapid push for 3 months each according to the randomized sequence. Main criterion was PID-LQI factor I (treatment interference). Non-inferiority ratio was set at 90%. RESULTS: Thirty patients entered the study; 28 completed the two periods. IgRT exposure was similar during each period. At the end of each period, mean LQI factor 1 was 87.0 (IC95% [80.3; 94.3]) and 77.80 (IC95% [71.5; 84.7]) for pump and rapid push, respectively. There was a slightly larger effect of rapid push on treatment interference than with pump so that the primary endpoint could not be met. No difference was found on other LQI components, satisfaction (TSQM), or quality of life (SF36v2). Eight patients declared to prefer rapid push while 19 others preferred pump. Of rapid push infusions, 67.2% led to local reactions vs 71.8% of pump infusions (p = 0.11) illustrating its good tolerance. Rapid push and pump infusions achieved similar trough IgG levels with similar incidence of infections. Rapid push saved 70% of administration cost when compared to pump. CONCLUSIONS: Since IgRT is a lifelong treatment in PID patients, individualization of treatment is of paramount importance. Rapid push is a new administration method in the physician's armamentarium which is preferred by some patients and is cost-effective. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT02180763 CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Self-administration of small volumes of immunoglobulins at home, every other day, using a syringe (rapid push) is a cost-effective alternative to administration of larger volumes by pump once a week. This study compared subcutaneous infusions of immunoglobulins either weekly via a pump or every other day via a syringe (rapid push). Rapid push is preferred by some patients and is cost-effective, therefore completing a physician's armamentarium.

[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.

Intravenous versus subcutaneous route pharmacokinetics of paracetamol (acetaminophen) in palliative care patients: study protocol for a randomized trial (ParaSCIVPallia).

BACKGROUND: Among palliative care (PC) patients who are administered paracetamol, the subcutaneous (SC) route is often an alternative to the intravenous (IV) route. Yet pharmacological and clinical data on whether these are equivalent pharmacokinetically are lacking. Many French palliative teams are now empirically using paracetamol by the SC route, but there are no data to support this practice. This trial aims to compare the pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters of paracetomol between the IV and SC routes in PC patients. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a randomized, open, crossover study in two PC centers. The primary endpoints are AUC0-t, AUC0-∞, Cmax, Vd, and t1/2. All adverse events will be reported for a safety analysis. Twenty adult PC patients with an IV device having spontaneous pain not related to care, with a numeric pain rate scale > 3/10, or having a systematic prescription of paracetamol as the usual treatment will be included. All patients also have to meet all eligibility criteria. CONCLUSION: This is the first study comparing PK parameters for IV paracetamol versus SC paracetamol in PC patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03944044. Registered on 4 June 2019. Committee for the protection of persons (CPP) 18.09.05.58206 approval 4 October 2018. National Drug Safety Agency (ANSM; Agence Nationale de Sécurité Médicament) MEDAECNAT-2018-09-00009 approval 29 November 2018.