Search

ZusammenfassungMit der Implementierung der neuen EU-Verordnung 536/2014 (Clinical Trials Regulation – CTR) zum 31.01.2022 sollen Genehmigung und Durchführung klinischer Prüfungen mit Humanarzneimitteln innerhalb der Europäischen Union (EU) harmonisiert werden. Die Genehmigung erfolgt über das elektronische Portal CTIS (Clinical Trials Information System) der Europäischen Arzneimittel-Agentur (EMA). Neben kommerziellen Sponsoren sind im Rahmen von wissenschaftsinitiierten klinischen Prüfungen (IIT) auch Sponsoren an akademischen Einrichtungen von der Implementierung der CTR betroffen. Zahlreiche Änderungen in der Prozesslandkarte für regulierte Arzneimittelstudien sind notwendig.Neue Aspekte betreffen die generelle Nutzerstruktur und das Rechtekonzept des CTIS. Anforderungen, die bislang nur für Prüfpräparate/Placebo galten, gelten nun auch für Hilfspräparate. In der EU noch nicht zugelassene Prüf- und Hilfspräparate müssen in der Arzneimitteldatenbank XEVMPD registriert werden. Weitere wesentliche Neuerungen sind die Meldung von „schwerwiegenden Verstößen“, die Veröffentlichung relevanter Studiendokumente, die Einführung einer „laienverständlichen Zusammenfassung“, die Archivierungsdauer von 25 Jahren, das Konzept der „minimalinterventionellen klinischen Prüfung“ und die Möglichkeit einer Co-Sponsorenschaft.Die ersten Erfahrungen bei der Antragstellung zeigen, dass das neue System noch weiter verbessert werden muss. Dies betrifft z. B. die EU-weite Harmonisierung der Anforderungen und die Behebung technischer Mängel. Mittel- und langfristig dürften aber Erleichterungen in Bezug auf regulatorische Prozesse spürbar sein. Hier sind intensivierte Absprachen mit nationalen Oberbehörden und Ethikkommissionen, effektives Wissensmanagement und verbesserte Kommunikation gefragt.

Human fingertips can regenerate functionally and cosmetically excellent skin and soft tissues. Physiological conditions suppress scar formation and are thus a prerequisite for regenerative healing. Self-adhesive film dressings can provide such favorable conditions. The semi-occlusive treatment is superior to surgery. However, standard dressings leak malodorous wound fluid eventually until the wound is dry. Therefore, we developed and tested a silicone finger cap that forms a mechanically protected, wet chamber around the injury. Its puncturable reservoir allows access to the wound fluid for diagnostic and research purposes and the delivery of pro-regenerative drugs in the future.Patients2 years with full-thickness fingertip injuries unsuitable for simple primary closure were randomized to start treatment with either the film dressing or the silicone finger cap. After 2 weeks, we changed to the other treatment. Patients' choice on the preferred treatment after 4 weeks was the primary outcome parameter. Additionally, we monitored adverse events, unplanned visits, tissue gain, functionality, cosmetic outcome, and quality of life.We randomized 11 patients 2 to 72 years to each group. Eighteen to 20 (90%, intention-to-treat) patients preferred the finger cap. All patients were satisfied with the cosmetic outcome, 88.9% had no disturbing sensibility changes, and 73.7% could report no distortion in the finger's daily use. Epithelialization took between 5 weeks for Allen II and up to 9 weeks in Allen IV injuries. There were 19 device-related adverse events under film dressing and 13 under the finger cap. There were neither severe adverse device effects nor unexpected severe adverse device effects.Employing the summative or synthetic primary endpoint "patient decision for one or the other procedure," our pseudocross-over-designed RCT succeeded in statistically significantly demonstrating the superiority of the silicone finger cap over conventional film therapy. The finger cap was safe and effective, reaching excellent results on all treated injuries without any need for disinfection, antibiotics, shortening of protruding bones, or treatment of hypergranulations. Distal to the tendon insertions, we did not see any limitations regarding injury mechanism, amputation plane, or patients' age.

BackgroundAlthough clinical peer review is a well-established instrument for improving quality of care, clinical effectiveness is unclear.MethodsIn a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial, we randomly assigned 60 German Initiative Qualitätsmedizin member hospitals with the highest mortality rates in ventilated patients in 2016 to intervention and control groups. The primary outcome was hospital mortality rate in patients ventilated fore more than 24 hours. Clinical peer review was conducted in intervention group hospitals only. We assessed the impact of clinical peer review on mortality using a difference-in-difference approach by applying weighted least squares (WLS) regression to changes in age-adjusted and sex-adjusted standardised mortality ratios (SMRs) 1 year before and 1 year after treatment. Recommendations for improvement from clinical peer review and hospital survey data were used for impact and process analysis.ResultsWe analysed 12 058 and 13 016 patients ventilated fore more than 24 hours in the intervention and control hospitals within the 1-year observation period. In-hospital mortality rates and SMRs were 40.6% and 1.23 in intervention group and 41.9% and 1.28 in control group hospitals in the preintervention period, respectively. The groups showed similar hospital (bed size, ownership) and patient (age, sex, mortality, main indications) characteristics. WLS regression did not yield a significant difference between intervention and control groups regarding changes in SMRs (estimate=0.04, 95% CI= −0.05 to 0.13, p=0.38). Mortality remained high in both groups (intervention: 41.8%, control: 42.1%). Impact and process analysis indicated few perceived outcome improvements or implemented process improvements following the introduction of clinical peer review.ConclusionsThis study did not provide evidence for reductions in mortality in patients ventilated for more than 24 hours due to clinical peer review. A stronger focus on identification of structures and care processes related to mortality is required to improve the effectiveness of clinical peer review.

Background: Dialysis and kidney transplant patients are vulnerable populations for COVID-19 related disease and mortality. Methods: We conducted a prospective study exploring the eight week time course of specific cellular (interferon-I³ release assay and flow cytometry) or/and humoral immune responses (ELISA) to SARS-CoV-2 boost vaccination in more than 3100 participants including medical personnel, dialysis patients and kidney transplant recipients using mRNA vaccines BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273. Results: SARS-CoV-2-vaccination induced seroconversion efficacy in dialysis patients was similar to medical personnel (> 95%), but markedly impaired in kidney transplant recipients (42%). T-cellular immunity largely mimicked humoral results. Major risk factors of seroconversion failure were immunosuppressive drug number and type (belatacept, MMF-MPA, calcineurin-inhibitors) as well as vaccine type (BNT162b2 mRNA). Seroconversion rates induced by mRNA-1273 compared to BNT162b2 vaccine were 97% to 88% (p

SPIRIT 2013 checklist: recommended items to address in a clinical trial protocol and related documents. (DOC 127 kb)

Aims Variability in responsiveness to clopidogrel is a clinical problem in secondary prevention after cerebral ischaemia which has been suggested to be linked to competitive metabolization of clopidogrel and cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4-oxidated statins such as simvastatin. We assessed the hypothesis that simvastatin, in contrast to CYP 2C9-metabolized fluvastatin, reduces clopidogrel-mediated platelet inhibition. Methods We performed a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, two period crossover study in 13 patients with cerebral ischaemia (8F, 5 M), aged 64.1 ± 8.0 years (mean ± SD). After a 14 day period in which all patients received 75 mg clopidogrel day−1, patients additionally received either 20 mg simvastatin day−1 or 80 mg fluvastatin day−1 for 14 days. Regimens were crossed over after a 14 day wash-out period and switched regimens were continued for another 14 days. Platelet aggregation, clopidogrel active metabolite (CAM) plasma concentrations and routine laboratory parameters including prothrombin time (PT) Quick percent value were assessed at baseline and following each treatment phase. Results Clopidogrel reduced platelet aggregation in all patients as expected. Platelet aggregation and CAM plasma concentrations were unaltered when simvastatin or fluvastatin was added to clopidogrel. Simvastatin decreased PT Quick percent value (decrease from 109 ± 10.5% to 103 ± 11%, P < 0.05) when combined with clopidogrel but there was no such change following treatment with fluvastatin and clopidogrel. Conclusions Our data indicate that treatment with CYP 3A4-metabolized simvastatin does not jeopardize clopidogrel-mediated inhibition of platelet aggregation. After co-administration of simvastatin and clopidogrel we observed a decrease in the PT Quick percent value which could be due to simvastatin-induced reduction of activity of prothrombin fragment 1 + 2.

Background: Evidence-based treatment algorithms, successfully established for asthma, are missing for atopic eczema (AE). Objectives: To investigate whether treatment according to an evidence-based algorithm is an effective and applicable concept for the management of AE. Methods: Based on a systematic literature review, we developed an evidence-based severity-score-oriented treatment algorithm for AE and compared its effectiveness to that of an individualised symptom-oriented treatment (individual therapy) in a randomised controlled trial. Sixty-three participants were randomised to algorithm (n = 32) or individual therapy (n = 31) and treated accordingly for 12 months. Study end points included difference between baseline SCORAD and mean SCORAD under treatment (primary end point), quality of life and treatment utilisation. Analysis was by intention to treat (registration: ClinicalTrials.gov:NCT00148746). Results: No statistically significant differences in clinical or subjective response were observed between groups. Treatment following the algorithm and individual treatment both effectively controlled AE. Mean SCORAD reductions were 47% (95% confidence interval, CI = 38–55; algorithm) and 42% (95% CI = 29–54; individual). Clinical response was paralleled by improved quality of life in both groups. Physicians adhered to the algorithm option in 93% of their treatment decisions. Conclusion: Treatment following an evidence-based algorithm is an effective and applicable concept for the management of AE but does not show clear advantages compared to individualised treatment in a dermatological setting.

Variability in responsiveness to clopidogrel is a clinical problem in secondary prevention after cerebral ischaemia which has been suggested to be linked to competitive metabolization of clopidogrel and cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4-oxidated statins such as simvastatin. We assessed the hypothesis that simvastatin, in contrast to CYP 2C9-metabolized fluvastatin, reduces clopidogrel-mediated platelet inhibition.We performed a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, two period crossover study in 13 patients with cerebral ischaemia (8F, 5 M), aged 64.1 ± 8.0 years (mean ± SD). After a 14 day period in which all patients received 75 mg clopidogrel day(-1) , patients additionally received either 20 mg simvastatin day(-1) or 80 mg fluvastatin day(-1) for 14 days. Regimens were crossed over after a 14 day wash-out period and switched regimens were continued for another 14 days. Platelet aggregation, clopidogrel active metabolite (CAM) plasma concentrations and routine laboratory parameters including prothrombin time (PT) Quick percent value were assessed at baseline and following each treatment phase.Clopidogrel reduced platelet aggregation in all patients as expected. Platelet aggregation and CAM plasma concentrations were unaltered when simvastatin or fluvastatin was added to clopidogrel. Simvastatin decreased PT Quick percent value (decrease from 109 ± 10.5% to 103 ± 11%, P0.05) when combined with clopidogrel but there was no such change following treatment with fluvastatin and clopidogrel.Our data indicate that treatment with CYP 3A4-metabolized simvastatin does not jeopardize clopidogrel-mediated inhibition of platelet aggregation. After co-administration of simvastatin and clopidogrel we observed a decrease in the PT Quick percent value which could be due to simvastatin-induced reduction of activity of prothrombin fragment 1 + 2.

Background 'Compassionate use' programmes allow medicinal products that are not authorised, but are in the development process, to be made available to patients with a severe disease who have no other satisfactory treatment available to them. We sought to understand how such programmes are regulated in ten European Union countries. Methods The European Clinical Research Infrastructures Network (ECRIN) conducted a comprehensive survey on clinical research regulatory requirements, including questions on regulations of 'compassionate use' programmes. Ten European countries, covering approximately 70% of the EU population, were included in the survey (Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Sweden, and the UK). Results European Regulation 726/2004/EC is clear on the intentions of 'compassionate use' programmes and aimed to harmonise them in the European Union. The survey reveals that different countries have adopted different requirements and that 'compassionate use' is not interpreted in the same way across Europe. Four of the ten countries surveyed have no formal regulatory system for the programmes. We discuss the need for 'compassionate use' programmes and their regulation where protection of patients is paramount. Conclusions 'Compassionate use' is a misleading term and should be replaced with 'expanded access'. There is a need for expanded access programmes in order to serve the interests of seriously ill patients who have no other treatment options. To protect these patients, European legislation needs to be more explicit and informative with regard to the regulatory requirements, restrictions, and responsibilities in expanded access programmes.

Background Thorough knowledge of the regulatory requirements is a challenging prerequisite for conducting multinational clinical studies in Europe given their complexity and heterogeneity in regulation and perception across the EU member states. Methods In order to summarise the current situation in relation to the wide spectrum of clinical research, the European Clinical Research Infrastructures Network (ECRIN) developed a multinational survey in ten European countries. However a lack of common classification framework for major categories of clinical research was identified, and therefore reaching an agreement on a common classification was the initial step in the development of the survey. Results The ECRIN transnational working group on regulation, composed of experts in the field of clinical research from ten European countries, defined seven major categories of clinical research that seem relevant from both the regulatory and the scientific points of view, and correspond to congruent definitions in all countries: clinical trials on medicinal products; clinical trials on medical devices; other therapeutic trials (including surgery trials, transplantation trials, transfusion trials, trials with cell therapy, etc.); diagnostic studies; clinical research on nutrition; other interventional clinical research (including trials in complementary and alternative medicine, trials with collection of blood or tissue samples, physiology studies, etc.); and epidemiology studies. Our classification was essential to develop a survey focused on protocol submission to ethics committees and competent authorities, procedures for amendments, requirements for sponsor and insurance, and adverse event reporting following five main phases: drafting, consensus, data collection, validation, and finalising. Conclusion The list of clinical research categories as used for the survey could serve as a contribution to the, much needed, task of harmonisation and simplification of the regulatory requirements for clinical research in Europe.

Background In order to facilitate multinational clinical research, regulatory requirements need to become international and harmonised. The EU introduced the Directive 2001/20/EC in 2004, regulating investigational medicinal products in Europe. Methods We conducted a survey in order to identify the national regulatory requirements for major categories of clinical research in ten European Clinical Research Infrastructures Network (ECRIN) countries-Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Sweden, and United Kingdom-covering approximately 70% of the EU population. Here we describe the results for regulatory requirements for typical investigational medicinal products, in the ten countries. Results Our results show that the ten countries have fairly harmonised definitions of typical investigational medicinal products. Clinical trials assessing typical investigational medicinal products require authorisation from a national competent authority in each of the countries surveyed. The opinion of the competent authorities is communicated to the trial sponsor within the same timelines, i.e., no more than 60 days, in all ten countries. The authority to which the application has to be sent to in the different countries is not fully harmonised. Conclusion The Directive 2001/20/EC defined the term 'investigational medicinal product' and all regulatory requirements described therein are applicable to investigational medicinal products. Our survey showed, however, that those requirements had been adopted in ten European countries, not for investigational medicinal products overall, but rather a narrower category which we term 'typical' investigational medicinal products. The result is partial EU harmonisation of requirements and a relatively navigable landscape for the sponsor regarding typical investigational medicinal products.

Gastrointestinal graft–versus-host disease (GvHD) is a potentially life-threatening complication after allogeneic stem cell transplantation (SCT). Since therapeutic options are still limited, a prophylactic approach seems to be warranted. In this randomised, double-blind-phase III trial, we evaluated the efficacy of budesonide in the prophylaxis of acute intestinal GvHD after SCT. The trial was registered at https://clinicaltrials.gov , number NCT00180089. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either 3 mg capsule three times daily oral budesonide or placebo. Budesonide was applied as a capsule with pH-modified release in the terminal ileum. Study medication was administered through day 56, follow-up continued until 12 months after transplantation. If any clinical signs of acute intestinal GvHD appeared, an ileocolonoscopy with biopsy specimens was performed. The crude incidence of histological or clinical stage 3–4 acute intestinal GvHD until day 100 observed in 91 (n =48 budesonide, n =43 placebo) evaluable patients was 12.5% (95% CI 3-22%) under treatment with budesonide and 14% (95% CI 4-25%) under placebo (p = 0.888). Histologic and clinical stage 3–4 intestinal GvHD after 12 months occurred in 17% (95% CI 6-28%) of patients in the budesonide group and 19% (CI 7-32%) in the placebo group (p = 0.853). Although budesonide was tolerated well, we observed a trend towards a higher rate of infectious complications in the study group (47.9% versus 30.2%, p = 0.085). The cumulative incidences at 12 months of intestinal GvHD stage >2 with death as a competing event (budesonide 20.8% vs. placebo 32.6%, p = 0.250) and the cumulative incidence of relapse (budesonide 20.8% vs. placebo 16.3%, p = 0.547) and non-relapse mortality (budesonide 28% (95% CI 15-41%) vs. placebo 30% (95% CI 15-44%), showed no significant difference within the two groups (p = 0.911). The trial closed after 94 patients were enrolled because of slow accrual. Within the limits of the final sample size, we were unable to show any benefit for the addition of budesonide to standard GvHD prophylaxis. Budesonide did not decrease the occurrence of intestinal GvHD in this trial. These results imply most likely that prophylactic administration of budenoside with pH-modified release in the terminal ileum is not effective.