Healthcare professional experiences and attitudes on unlicensed/off-label paediatric prescribing and paediatric clinical trials.

Objectives: To investigate the knowledge and views of a range of healthcare professionals (consultant paediatricians, general practitioners (GPs), community pharmacists and paediatric nurses) regarding the use of unlicensed/off-label medicines in children and the participation of children in clinical trials.

Methods: A regional study in which a survey instrument with 39 items was issued to 500 randomly selected GPs, all community pharmacists (n?=?512), 50 hospital consultants and 150 paediatric nurses in Northern Ireland.

Results: Approximately half (46.5%) of the 1,212 healthcare professionals approached responded to the questionnaire. The majority of respondents indicated their familiarity with the term unlicensed (82.9%) or off-label (58.6%) prescribing with the most frequently quoted reason for such prescribing being younger age (33.6%). Apart from community pharmacists, most respondents reported having gained their knowledge through personal experience. Even though a large percentage of respondents expressed concerns about the safety (77.8%) or efficacy (87.9%) of unlicensed/off-label prescribing in children, only 30.7% reported informing parents/guardians of these concerns on the use of such medicines in children. In addition, only 56% of respondents believed that unlicensed/off-label medicines should undergo clinical trials in children. Overall, 28.4% of respondents (20.1% of GPs, 41.4% of community pharmacists, 27.7% of paediatric nurses and 94% of consultant paediatricians) indicated their willingness to be actively involved in, and recruit their patients for paediatric clinical research.

Conclusion: The use of unlicensed and off-label medicines remains a major issue in paediatric medicine. Until such times as more licensed medicines are available for children, clear guidance should be developed to allow consistency in practice across the spectrum of healthcare professionals who are involved with such medicines in their routine practice.

The Paediatric Rheumatology International Trials Organisation provisional criteria for the evaluation of response to therapy in juvenile dermatomyositis.

Objective To develop a provisional definition for the evaluation of response to therapy in juvenile dermatomyositis (DM) based on the Paediatric Rheumatology International Trials Organisation juvenile DM core set of variables. Methods Thirty-seven experienced pediatric rheumatologists from 27 countries achieved consensus on 128 difficult patient profiles as clinically improved or not improved using a stepwise approach (patient's rating, statistical analysis, definition selection). Using the physicians' consensus ratings as the “gold standard measure,” chi-square, sensitivity, specificity, false-positive and-negative rates, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, and kappa agreement for candidate definitions of improvement were calculated. Definitions with kappa values >0.8 were multiplied by the face validity score to select the top definitions. Results The top definition of improvement was at least 20% improvement from baseline in 3 of 6 core set variables with no more than 1 of the remaining worsening by more than 30%, which cannot be muscle strength. The second-highest scoring definition was at least 20% improvement from baseline in 3 of 6 core set variables with no more than 2 of the remaining worsening by more than 25%, which cannot be muscle strength (definition P1 selected by the International Myositis Assessment and Clinical Studies group). The third is similar to the second with the maximum amount of worsening set to 30%. This indicates convergent validity of the process. Conclusion We propose a provisional data-driven definition of improvement that reflects well the consensus rating of experienced clinicians, which incorporates clinically meaningful change in core set variables in a composite end point for the evaluation of global response to therapy in juvenile DM.

Adjuvant chemotherapy in oestrogen-receptor-poor breast cancer: patient-level meta-analysis of randomised trials

Background: The long-term effects of adjuvant polychemotherapy regimens in oestrogen-receptor-poor (ER-poor) breast cancer, and the extent to which these effects are modified by age or tamoxifen use, can be assessed by an updated meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomised trials. Methods: Collaborative meta-analyses of individual patient data for about 6000 women with ER-poor breast cancer in 46 trials of polychemotherapy versus not (non-taxane-based polychemotherapy, typically about six cycles; trial start dates 1975-96, median 1984) and about 14 000 women with ER-poor breast cancer in 50 trials of tamoxifen versus not (some trials in the presence and some in the absence of polychemotherapy; trial start dates 1972-93, median 1982). Findings: In women with ER-poor breast cancer, polychemotherapy significantly reduced recurrence, breast cancer mortality, and death from any cause, in those younger than 50 years and those aged 50-69 years at entry into trials of polychemotherapy versus not. In those aged younger than 50 years (1907 women, 15% node-positive), the 10-year risks were: recurrence 33% versus 45% (ratio of 10-year risks 0·73, 2p<0·00001), breast cancer mortality 24% versus 32% (ratio 0·73, 2p=0·0002), and death from any cause 25% versus 33% (ratio 0·75, 2p=0·0003). In women aged 50-69 years (3965 women, 58% node-positive), the 10-year risks were: recurrence 42% versus 52% (ratio 0·82, 2p<0·00001), breast cancer mortality 36% versus 42% (ratio 0·86, 2p=0·0004), and death from any cause 39% versus 45% (ratio 0·87, 2p=0·0009). Few were aged 70 years or older. Tamoxifen had little effect on recurrence or death in women who were classified in these trials as having ER-poor disease, and did not significantly modify the effects of polychemotherapy. Interpretation: In women who had ER-poor breast cancer, and were either younger than 50 years or between 50 and 69 years, these older adjuvant polychemotherapy regimens were safe (ie, had little effect on mortality from causes other than breast cancer) and produced substantial and definite reductions in the 10-year risks of recurrence and death. Current and future chemotherapy regimens could well yield larger proportional reductions in breast cancer mortality.

Indirect comparisons of treatments based on systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials

Randomised controlled trials are the most effective way to differentiate between the effects of competing interventions. However, head-to-head studies are unlikely to have been conducted for all competing interventions.

Children’s views on unlicensed/off-label paediatric prescribing and paediatric clinical trials.

Objectives: To explore the views and perspectives of children on the unlicensed/off-label use of medicines in children and on the participation of children in clinical trials. Methods: Focus-group discussions, involving school children, were carried out in a range of primary and secondary schools in Northern Ireland. A purposeful sample was chosen to facilitate representation of various socioeconomic groupings. Results: A total of 123 pupils, aged from 10 to 16 years, from six schools, participated in 16 focus groups. In general, pupils viewed the unlicensed/off-label use of medicines in children as unsafe and unethical and felt it is necessary to test medicines in children to improve the availability of licensed products. The majority felt that older children should be told, and that parents should be told, about the unlicensed/off-label use of medicines in children, yet they recognised some implications of this, such as potential medication non-adherence. Conclusions: This is the first study to explore the views of healthy children on unlicensed medicine use in children. Children were able to recognise potential risks associated with the unlicensed use of medicines and felt it is necessary to test and license more medicines in children. Practice implications Health care professionals should consider the views of children in decisions that affect their health.

Patient selection for oncology phase I trials: a multi-institutional study of prognostic factors.

PURPOSE The appropriate selection of patients for early clinical trials presents a major challenge. Previous analyses focusing on this problem were limited by small size and by interpractice heterogeneity. This study aims to define prognostic factors to guide risk-benefit assessments by using a large patient database from multiple phase I trials. PATIENTS AND METHODS Data were collected from 2,182 eligible patients treated in phase I trials between 2005 and 2007 in 14 European institutions. We derived and validated independent prognostic factors for 90-day mortality by using multivariate logistic regression analysis. Results The 90-day mortality was 16.5% with a drug-related death rate of 0.4%. Trial discontinuation within 3 weeks occurred in 14% of patients primarily because of disease progression. Eight different prognostic variables for 90-day mortality were validated: performance status (PS), albumin, lactate dehydrogenase, alkaline phosphatase, number of metastatic sites, clinical tumor growth rate, lymphocytes, and WBC. Two different models of prognostic scores for 90-day mortality were generated by using these factors, including or excluding PS; both achieved specificities of more than 85% and sensitivities of approximately 50% when using a score cutoff of 5 or higher. These models were not superior to the previously published Royal Marsden Hospital score in their ability to predict 90-day mortality. CONCLUSION Patient selection using any of these prognostic scores will reduce non-drug-related 90-day mortality among patients enrolled in phase I trials by 50%. However, this can be achieved only by an overall reduction in recruitment to phase I studies of 20%, more than half of whom would in fact have survived beyond 90 days.