scholarly journals Recommendations by the European Network of Paediatric Research at the European Medicines Agency (Enpr-EMA) Working Group on preparedness of clinical trials about paediatric medicines process

2021 ◽  
pp. archdischild-2020-321433
Author(s):  
Angeliki Siapkara ◽  
Claudio Fracasso ◽  
Gunter F Egger ◽  
Carmelo Rizzari ◽  
Cristina Serén Trasorras ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Working Group ◽  
Time Frame ◽  
European Medicines Agency ◽  
Children And Families ◽  
Paediatric Research ◽  
European Network ◽  
Children And Young People ◽  
Present Information ◽  
Patient Advocacy Groups

Conduct of clinical trials in babies, children and young people is often hindered by issues that could have been foreseen before the trial opened; that is, some clinical trials are often underprepared. In order to identify a good approach to trial preparedness, the European Network of Paediatric Research at the European Medicines Agency formed a working group. The Working Group included representation from regulators, industry, academics, paediatric clinical research networks and parents.The Working Group consulted widely about how to prepare for paediatric clinical trials. The Group’s detailed recommendations have been published (https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/other/preparedness-medicines-clinical-trials-paediatrics-recommendations-enpr-ema-working-group-trial_en.pdf).This paper is a summary of the key recommendations including the following: start early, preferably in parallel to designing the medicine’s development plan and individual protocols; identify the rationale and clinical need; listen to the perspectives of children and families, and of patient advocacy groups; identify how many people will be eligible for the trial; identify the resources needed, such as clinical facilities (including play therapy) and out-of-pocket expenditure by participants and their families; use all available data to estimate what is possible; present information about preparedness in a structured way; deploy proportionate resources to support the preparation of trials.A well-prepared, well-designed trial is likely to require fewer changes during its course, be run in a shorter time frame and achieve expected objectives.

A European Network of Paediatric Research at the European Medicines Agency (Enpr-EMA)

2011 ◽  
Vol 97 (3) ◽  
pp. 185-188 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicolino Ruperto ◽  
Irmgard Eichler ◽  
Ralf Herold ◽  
Gilles Vassal ◽  
Carlo Giaquinto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
European Medicines Agency ◽  
Paediatric Research ◽  
European Network

scholarly journals Standardising neonatal and paediatric antibiotic clinical trial design and conduct: the PENTA-ID network view

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (12) ◽  
pp. e032592
Author(s):  
Laura Folgori ◽  
Irja Lutsar ◽  
Joseph F Standing ◽  
A Sarah Walker ◽  
Emmanuel Roilides ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial Design ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
European Medicines Agency ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Paediatric Research ◽  
European Network ◽  
Exclusion Criteria ◽  
Clinical Investigator ◽  
Key Stakeholders ◽  
Safety Studies

Antimicrobial development for children remains challenging due to multiple barriers to conducting randomised clinical trials (CTs). There is currently considerable heterogeneity in the design and conduct of paediatric antibiotic studies, hampering comparison and meta-analytic approaches. The board of the European networks for paediatric research at the European Medicines Agency (EMA), in collaboration with the Paediatric European Network for Treatments of AIDS—Infectious Diseases network (www.penta-id.org), recently developed a Working Group on paediatric antibiotic CT design, involving academic, regulatory and industry representatives. The evidence base for any specific criteria for the design and conduct of efficacy and safety antibiotic trials for children is very limited and will evolve over time as further studies are conducted. The suggestions being put forward here are based on the adult EMA guidance, adapted for neonates and children. In particular, this document provides suggested guidance on the general principles of harmonisation between regulatory and strategic trials, including (1) standardised key inclusion/exclusion criteria and widely applicable outcome measures for specific clinical infectious syndromes (CIS) to be used in CTs on efficacy of antibiotic in children; (2) key components of safety that should be reported in paediatric antibiotic CTs; (3) standardised sample sizes for safety studies. Summarising views from a range of key stakeholders, specific criteria for the design and conduct of efficacy and safety antibiotic trials in specific CIS for children have been suggested. The recommended criteria are intended to be applicable to both regulatory and clinical investigator-led strategic trials and could be the basis for harmonisation in the design and conduct of CTs on antibiotics in children. The next step is further discussion internationally with investigators, paediatric CTs networks and regulators.

Prerequisites to support high-quality clinical trials in children and young people

2020 ◽  
pp. archdischild-2019-318677
Author(s):  
Steven Hirschfeld ◽  
Florian B Lagler ◽  
Jenny M Kindblom
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Healthcare Delivery ◽  
Paediatric Population ◽  
Ecosystem Functions ◽  
Healthcare Delivery System ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Children And Young People ◽  
The Right ◽  
Support Decision Making

Children have the right to treatment based on the same quality of information that guides treatment in adults. Without the proper evaluation of medicinal products and devices in paediatric clinical trials that are designed to meet the rigorous standards of the competent authorities, children are discriminated from advances in medicine. There are regulatory, scientific and ethical incentives to address the knowledge gap regarding efficacy and safety of medicines in the paediatric population. High-quality clinical trials involving children of all ages can generate data that will ultimately close the knowledge gaps and support decision making.For clinical trials that enrol children, the needs are specialised and often resource intensive. Prerequisites for successful paediatric clinical trials are personnel with training in both paediatrics and neonatology and expertise in clinical trials in these populations. Moreover, national and international networks for efficient collaboration, dissemination of information, and sharing of resources and expertise are also needed, together with competent, efficient and high-quality local infrastructure with effective processes. Monitoring and oversight bodies with the relevant competence, including expertise in paediatrics, is also an important prerequisite for paediatric clinical trials. Compromise in any of these components will compromise the downstream results.This paper discusses the structures and competences needed in order to perform effective, high-quality paediatric clinical trials with the ultimate goal of better medicines and treatments for children. We propose a model of examining the process as a series of components that each has to be optimised, then all the components are actively optimised to function together as an ecosystem, and the resulting ecosystem functions well with the general research system and the healthcare delivery system.

scholarly journals Reporting of harms in oncological clinical study reports submitted to the European Medicines Agency compared to trial registries and publications—a methodological review

BMC Medicine ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Asger S. Paludan-Müller ◽  
Perrine Créquit ◽  
Isabelle Boutron
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Clinical Study ◽  
Primary Source ◽  
European Medicines Agency ◽  
Clinical Trial Registries ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Journal Publications ◽  
Clinical Study Reports ◽  
Completeness Of Reporting

Abstract Background An accurate and comprehensive assessment of harms is a fundamental part of an accurate weighing of benefits and harms of an intervention when making treatment decisions; however, harms are known to be underreported in journal publications. Therefore, we sought to compare the completeness of reporting of harm data, discrepancies in harm data reported, and the delay to access results of oncological clinical trials between three sources: clinical study reports (CSRs), clinical trial registries and journal publications. Methods We used the EMA clinical data website to identify all trials submitted to the EMA between 2015 and 2018. We retrieved all CSRs and included all phase II, II/III or III randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing targeted therapy and immunotherapy for cancer. We then identified related records in clinical trial registries and journals. We extracted harms data for eight pre-specified variables and determined the completeness of reporting of harm data in each of the three sources. Results We identified 42 RCTs evaluating 13 different drugs. Results were available on the EMA website in CSRs for 37 (88%) RCTs, ClinicalTrials.gov for 36 (86%), the European Clinical Trials Register (EUCTR) for 20 (48%) and in journal publications for 32 (76%). Harms reporting was more complete in CSRs than other sources. We identified marked discrepancies in harms data between sources, e.g. the number of patients discontinuing due to adverse events differed in CSRs and clinical trial registers for 88% of trials with data in both sources. For CSRs and publications, the corresponding number was 90%. The median (interquartile range) delay between the primary trial completion date and access to results was 4.34 (3.09–7.22) years for CSRs, 2.94 (1.16–4.52) years for ClinicalTrials.gov, 5.39 (4.18–7.33) years for EUCTR and 2.15 (0.64–5.04) years for publications. Conclusions Harms of recently approved oncological drugs were reported more frequently and in more detail in CSRs than in trial registries and journal publications. Systematic reviews seeking to address harms of oncological treatments should ideally use CSRs as the primary source of data; however, due to problems with access, this is currently not feasible.

Data and safety monitoring policy for National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases clinical trials

2011 ◽  
Vol 8 (6) ◽  
pp. 727-735 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dennis O Dixon ◽  
Susanna Weiss ◽  
Kelly Cahill ◽  
Lawrence Fox ◽  
Joni Love ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Infectious Diseases ◽  
Working Group ◽  
Safety Monitoring ◽  
Organizational Policy ◽  
Policy Document ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Responsible Conduct ◽  
Inclusive Approach ◽  
User Friendly

Background Historically, four divisions of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) that manage clinical trials and oversee data and safety monitoring have operated fairly autonomously with respect to their approaches to Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) operations. We recognized the need for a revised policy on DSMB operations in an effort to encourage greater harmonization of procedures across the four divisions. Purpose The purpose of this article is to describe the considerations that motivated the development of the new policy, summarize current DSMB policies and ongoing harmonization efforts across the four divisions, and offer some recommendations for DSMB operations in the hope that other organizations may benefit from our experience. Methods From 2005 to 2009, a working group undertook a review of DSMB responsibilities, policies, and operations. We analyzed and summarized the final policy document that the working group produced, gathered data describing current DSMB activities, and developed a tabular, cross-sectional overview highlighting how divisions are harmonizing their DSMB operations. Results In 2010, there were 44 DSMBs in NIAID monitoring 169 protocols, and those DSMBs conducted 209 reviews of the protocols. Review and analysis of DSMB practices across the four divisions have led to recommendations for efficient and successful DSMB operations: adopt an inclusive approach, whereby the trial investigators assist in the process of forming and utilizing DSMBs; structures other than DSMBs can often provide many of the features of DSMBs but with greater flexibility in membership, access to interim data, and scheduling; the trial protocol should specify what safety and other concerns should trigger a DSMB review and what data should be included in prespecified reviews; present data in thoughtful and user-friendly ways that answer specific questions; allow sufficient time to plan for working with the DSMB. Limitations We recognize that NIAID’s specific circumstances and DSMB policy may not apply to the operation of DSMBs in every organization. Nevertheless, we believe that useful lessons can be learned from our experiences and efforts toward harmonization. Conclusions Homogeneity in DSMB operations and management has appeal as a matter of organizational policy and efficiency. Some limited flexibility, as long as it honors fundamental principles of independence, confidentiality of interim trial results, and clear lines of reporting and approval, may be appropriate on occasion. NIAID’s 2009 institute-level policy established a collective understanding of the important contribution that DSMBs make to the responsible conduct of clinical trials. Thinking will continue to evolve, leading to further policy refinements and the continued assurance of patient safety in our clinical trials.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document