Clinical Trials Research Centre, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, Merseyside, United Kingdom.
PLoS One. 2013;8(3):e51787. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0051787. Epub 2013 Mar 15.
Adequate sedation is crucial to the management of children requiring assisted ventilation on Paediatric Intensive Care Units (PICU). The evidence-base of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in this area is small and a trial was planned to compare midazolam and clonidine, two sedatives widely used within PICUs neither of which being licensed for that use. The application to obtain a Clinical Trials Authorisation from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) required a dossier summarising the safety profiles of each drug and the pharmacovigilance plan for the trial needed to be determined by this information. A systematic review was undertaken to identify reports relating to the safety of each drug.
METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) were obtained for each sedative. The MHRA were requested to provide reports relating to the use of each drug as a sedative in children under the age of 16. Medline was searched to identify RCTs, controlled clinical trials, observational studies, case reports and series. 288 abstracts were identified for midazolam and 16 for clonidine with full texts obtained for 80 and 6 articles respectively. Thirty-three studies provided data for midazolam and two for clonidine. The majority of data has come from observational studies and case reports. The MHRA provided details of 10 and 3 reports of suspected adverse drug reactions.
CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: No adverse reactions were identified in addition to those specified within the SmPC for the licensed use of the drugs. Based on this information and the wide spread use of both sedatives in routine practice the pharmacovigilance plan was restricted to adverse reactions. The Clinical Trials Authorisation was granted based on the data presented in the SmPC and the pharmacovigilance plan within the clinical trial protocol restricting collection and reporting to adverse reactions.
在儿科重症监护病房(PICU)中,为需要辅助通气的儿童提供充分的镇静至关重要。该领域的随机对照试验(RCT)证据基础较小,因此计划进行一项试验比较咪达唑仑和可乐定,这两种镇静剂在 PICU 中广泛使用,但均未获得该用途的许可。向药品和医疗保健产品监管局(MHRA)申请临床试验授权的申请需要一份文件包,其中总结了每种药物的安全性概况,并且需要根据这些信息确定试验的药物警戒计划。进行了系统评价以确定与每种药物安全性相关的报告。
方法/主要发现:为每种镇静剂获得了产品特性摘要(SmPC)。要求 MHRA 提供与在 16 岁以下儿童中作为镇静剂使用每种药物有关的报告。在 Medline 上搜索了 RCT、对照临床试验、观察性研究、病例报告和系列报告,以确定 288 篇咪达唑仑摘要和 16 篇可乐定摘要,并获得了 80 篇和 6 篇文章的全文。33 项研究提供了咪达唑仑的数据,2 项研究提供了可乐定的数据。大多数数据来自观察性研究和病例报告。MHRA 提供了 10 项和 3 项疑似药物不良反应报告的详细信息。
结论/意义:除了 SmPC 中规定的许可用途的药物不良反应外,未发现其他不良反应。基于这些信息以及两种镇静剂在常规实践中的广泛使用,药物警戒计划仅限于不良反应。临床试验授权是基于 SmPC 中提供的数据以及临床试验方案中的药物警戒计划授予的,该计划限制了不良反应的收集和报告。