Library

feed icon rss

Your email was sent successfully. Check your inbox.

An error occurred while sending the email. Please try again.

Proceed reservation?

Export
  • 1
    ISSN: 1432-1041
    Keywords: Key words Reference values ; Reference changes ; Phase I clinical trials
    Source: Springer Online Journal Archives 1860-2000
    Topics: Chemistry and Pharmacology , Medicine
    Notes: Abstract Objective: Laboratory data are key evaluation procedures for Phase I clinical pharmacology for two reasons. Firstly, laboratory data are used within the screening process to exclude subjects with asymptomatic diseases, which could result in increased danger to themselves or confuse interpretation of the study results. Secondly, during study implementation, safety evaluation and in particular maximum tolerated dose determination have to be done by a case-by-case analysis, sometimes using laboratory adverse events (LAEs). Thus, relevant limits are needed to discriminate between a usual common variation and a significant abnormality, which is considered to be a LAE. This report presents laboratory data distribution, reference values and reference changes and, based on previously published new methods, suggests inclusion limits at screening and laboratory adverse event limits for analysis during study implementation. Subjects and methods: Nine hundred and twenty-seven young healthy male volunteers were recruited in one centre (Association de Recherche Thérapeutique). A standard screening process was carried out. Protocols were approved by the local ethics committee. Blood sampling was performed in the same conditions. Reference values (at screening and at baseline) were determined by a non-parametric procedure selecting 2.5% and 97.5% of the distribution of data. Reference changes were also defined as the 2.5–97.5% interval of distribution of the variations between the end of treatment and baseline. Inclusion limit and LAE limit methods of determination used had been specified in previous articles. Results: Detailed results of laboratory data distribution, reference values at screening and at baseline, reference changes, inclusion limits and LAE limits are presented in tables with number of subjects, mean, median, standard deviation, minimal and maximal values and the 2.5–97.5% interval for each laboratory parameter. Conclusion: The key aims of this paper are to provide clinical pharmacologists with data, reference values or changes obtained in the real conditions of Phase I study implementation, and to propose relevant limits, either for screening as inclusion limits, or during studies as LAE limits. Thus, these data, reference values and specific limits improve the capacity to screen healthy volunteers and to analyse LAEs during Phase I studies.
    Type of Medium: Electronic Resource
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 2
    Electronic Resource
    Electronic Resource
    Springer
    European journal of clinical pharmacology 52 (1997), S. 81-86 
    ISSN: 1432-1041
    Keywords: Key words Phase I study ; Adverse events; critical limits ; drug developments
    Source: Springer Online Journal Archives 1860-2000
    Topics: Chemistry and Pharmacology , Medicine
    Notes: Abstract Objective: The first goal of phase I drug development is the determination of maximal tolerated dose, which must be established by case-by-case analysis, sometimes using a laboratory adverse event. Since no accurate rule defining lab adverse events, has been validated yet, we propose a new “combined method” based on combination of two thresholds: inclusion values and magnitude of variation. Using this combined method, the label “lab adverse event” is applied if any lab value exceeds the inclusion threshold and is associated with a variation from baseline exceeding the variation threshold defined from reference change limit. Thus, this study aimed to test this combined method on a large healthy volunteer population, studied in 19 phase I centres worldwide, and on five lab parameters: alanine amino transferase, aspartate amino transferase, alkaline phosphatases, creatinine and polymorphonuclear leukocytes. Methods: The inclusion threshold from each center was used. Reference change limits were defined from volunteers previously included in comparable studies and were expressed as absolute values: increases of 10 IU · l−1 for alanine amino transferase or aspartate amino transferase, 15 IU · l−1 for alkaline phosphatases, 15 μmol · l−1 for creatinine and a 0.34 109 · l−1 decrease for polymorphonuclear leukocytes. Comparison between the “combined method” and a normal range method was made using positive predictive value and a ratio between relevant and irrelevant results. This application was implemented in all young healthy volunteers (1134) included in 38 phase I studies sponsored by Rhône Poulenc Rorer from 1991 to 1993. Results: Seventy seven subjects (6.7%) were indicated in final study reports as having a lab adverse event (reference group). Of 179 subjects with lab abnormalities defined by the normal range method, 77 belonged to the reference group, inducing a poor 0.43 positive predictive value. Of ninety subjects with lab adverse events defined by the “combined method”, seventy-five belonged to the reference group, inducing a two-fold higher 0.83 positive predictive value. The combined method produced a high ratio of relevant/irrelevant results ( ) compared with the low ratio ( ) achieved using the normal range method. Conclusion: This new “combined method”, leading to a better definition of lab adverse event, seems an accurate and useful tool for routine case-by-case analysis within phase I drug development studies.
    Type of Medium: Electronic Resource
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
Close ⊗
This website uses cookies and the analysis tool Matomo. More information can be found here...