Search

Molecular target anticancer drugs are commonly used in various forms of cancers. It is a concern that the risk of serious adverse events (SAEs) and fatal adverse events (FAEs) of molecular target drugs are increasing. An up-to-date meta-analysis of all Phase II/III/IV randomized trials of molecular target anticancer drugs was conducted to calculate the increased risk of SAEs and FAEs. A systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library up to April 6, 2017, was conducted. The study enrolled Phase II/III/IV randomized trials of cancer that compared molecular target drugs alone versus placebo or performed single-arm analysis of molecular target drugs. Data on SAEs and FAEs were extracted from the included studies and pooled to compute risk ratio (RR), the overall incidence, and 95% confidence interval (CI). In this meta-analysis, a total of 19,965 and 26,642 patients in randomized 53 and 65 Phase II/II/IV trials were included in the analysis of SAEs and FAEs associated with molecular target anticancer drug, respectively. There were significant differences in the relationship of molecular target anticancer drugs with SAEs (RR = 1.57, 95% CI = 1.35–1.82, P < 0.01, I² = 81%) and FAEs (RR = 1.51, 95% CI = 1.19–1.91, P < 0.01, I² = 0%) compared to placebo. The overall incidence of SAEs and FAEs was 0.269 (95% CI = 0.262–0.276, P < 0.01) and 0.023 (95% CI = 0.020–0.025, P < 0.01), respectively. Molecular target anticancer drugs significantly increased the risk of SAEs and FAEs. For patients taking molecular target drugs, efforts are needed to prevent the occurrence of SAEs and FAEs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One of the reasons that a research molecule undergoes through different phases of clinical trials is to establish the safety and efficacy of the drug. To establish the safety profile of any drug, the most important aspect is to evaluate every adverse event (AE) that a clinical trial individual experiences. This detail is provided by any investigator or sponsor through the narratives that is prepared post the analysis of a serious AE. The purpose of this article is to emphasize the importance of these narratives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Clinical trial related injury and serious adverse events (SAE) are a major area of concern. In all such scenarios the investigator is responsible for medical care of the trial participant and also ethically bound to report the event to all the stakeholders of the clinical trial. The trial sponsor is responsible for ongoing safety evaluation of the investigational product, reporting and compensating the participant in case of any SAE. The Ethics Committee and regulatory body of the country are to uphold the ethical principles of beneficence, justice, non-maleficence in such cases. Any unwanted and noxious effect of a drug when used in recommended doses is an adverse drug reaction (ADR) whereas if causal association is not yet established it is termed adverse event (AE). An AE or ADR that is associated with death, in-patient hospitalization, prolongation of hospitalization, persistent or significant disability or incapacity, a congenital anomaly, or is otherwise life threatening is termed as an SAE. The principal investigator reports the event to the licensing authority (DCGI), sponsor and Chairperson of the Ethics Committee (EC) within 24 hours of occurrence of the SAE. This report is furthered by a detailed report by both the investigator and the EC and given to the DCGI who then gives a final decision on the amount of compensation to be given by the sponsor or the sponsor's representative to the grieving party. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Keeping in mind India's increasing participation in multinational trials, this article explores potential areas of Indian pharmacovigilance, requiring reform and provides recommendations for building a robust safety reporting system. Internal discrepancies exist between Schedule Y and Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation approval letter regarding what to report. Schedule Y's silence on expedited reporting requirements creates confusion for Indian sites that are part of multinational trial. Not allowing waiver for serious adverse events that are protocol specified or are study endpoints, along with lack of emphasis on causality as reporting criteria, adds substantial burden of uninformative cases for regulatory review. Despite global focus on Development Safety Update Report, Indian regulators are not yet insistent on real-time update of a drug's cumulative safety profile. Issues like reporting requirements for generic trials, pregnancy reporting and lenient timeline for death/life-threatening events need attention. Finally, the need to formulate an all-encompassing pharmacovigilance guideline for India, in sync with global practice cannot be overemphasized. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Some rare cases of erysipelas-like or pseudocellulitis have been reported in relation to gemcitabine. This rare adverse event is more frequent in the presence of edema. Here, we report a case of pseudocellulitis after adjuvant treatment for pancreatic cancer. Oncologists should be aware of this infrequent and non-well understood adverse event. They should be especially careful when administering gemcitabine in the presence of lymphedema. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]