Clinical trial designs of new medicinal products for treating schizophrenia: discussion of EMA's Guideline and a Better Long Term Trial Design

Background and Objectives: Schizophrenia is a severe chronic disease. Endpoint variables lack objectivity and the diagnostic criteria have evolved with time. In order to guide the development of new drugs, European Medicines Agency (EMA) issued a guideline on the clinical investigation of medicinal products for the treatment of schizophrenia. Methods: Authors reviewed and discussed the efficacy trial part of the Guideline. Results: The Guideline divides clinical efficacy trials into short-term trials and long-term trials. The short-term three-arm trial is recommended to replace the short-term two-arm active-controlled non-inferiority trial because the latter has sensitivity issues. The Guideline ultimately makes that three-arm trial a superiority trial. The Guideline discusses four types of long-term trial designs. The randomized withdrawal trial design has some disadvantages. Long-term two-arm active-controlled non-inferiority trial is not recommended due to the sensitivity issue. Extension of the short-term trial is only suitable for extension of the short-term two-arm active-controlled superiority trial. The Guideline suggests that a hybrid design of a randomized withdrawal trial incorporated into a long-term parallel trial might be optimal. However, such a design has some disadvantages and might be too complex to be carried out. Authors suggest instead a three-group long-term trial design, which could provide comparison between test drug and active comparator along with comparison between the test drug and placebo. This alternative could arguably be much easier to carry out compared with the hybrid design. Conclusions: The three-group long-term design merits further discussion and evaluation.

Comparison of the traditional pharmaceutical validation method versus an assisted pharmaceutical validation in hospitalized patients

Objective: To analyze pharmaceutical interventions that have been carried out with the support of an automated system for validation of treatments vs. the traditional method without computer support. Method: The automated program, ALTOMEDICAMENTOS® version 0, has 925 052 data with information regarding approximately 20 000 medicines, analyzing doses, administration routes, number of days with such a treatment, dosing in renal and liver failure, interactions control, similar drugs, and enteral medicines. During eight days, in four different hospitals (high complexity with over 1 000 beds, 400-bed intermediate, geriatric and monographic), the same patients and treatments were analyzed using both systems. Results: 3,490 patients were analyzed, with 42 155 different treatments. 238 interventions were performed using the traditional system (interventions 0.56% / possible interventions) vs. 580 (1.38%) with the automated one. Very significant pharmaceutical interventions were 0.14% vs. 0.46%; significant was 0.38% vs. 0.90%; non-significant was 0.05% vs. 0.01%, respectively. If both systems are simultaneously used, interventions are performed in 1.85% vs. 0.56% with just the traditional system. Using only the traditional model, 30.5% of the possible interventions are detected, whereas without manual review and only the automated one, 84% of the possible interventions are detected. Conclusions: The automated system increases pharmaceutical interventions between 2.43 to 3.64 times. According to the results of this study the traditional validation system needs to be revised relying on automated systems. The automated program works correctly in different hospitals.