Astrid Prioul , Dorine Fournier , Cécile Lefeuvre , Sophie Duranton , Pascale Olivier , Emeline Blanc , Laure Peyro-Saint-Paul , Sophie Ruault , Aurélie Jamet , Catherine Mouchel
{"title":"法国机构赞助者临床试验警戒单位的文献监测实践综述——来自修订工作组的一项研究。","authors":"Astrid Prioul , Dorine Fournier , Cécile Lefeuvre , Sophie Duranton , Pascale Olivier , Emeline Blanc , Laure Peyro-Saint-Paul , Sophie Ruault , Aurélie Jamet , Catherine Mouchel","doi":"10.1016/j.therap.2023.02.008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>The evaluation of clinical trial (CT) safety is the main task of CT vigilance units. In addition to the management of adverse events, the units must review the literature to identify information that may impact the benefit-risk assessment of studies. In this survey, we investigated the literature monitoring (LM) activity of French Institutional Vigilance Units (IVU) from the working group “REflexion sur la VIgilance et la SEcurite des essais cliniques” (REVISE).</p></div><div><h3>Material and methods</h3><p>We sent a questionnaire of 26 questions, divided into four themes, to the 60 IVU: (1) Presentation of the IVU and the LM activity; (2) Used sources, queries and criteria for selecting articles; (3) Valuation of the LM and (4) Practical organisation.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Of the 27 IVU that responded to the questionnaire, 85% of them carried out LM. This was mainly provided by medical staff to improve general knowledge (83%), to detect Adverse Reactions (AR) not listed in the reference documents (70%) and to detect new safety information (61%). Due to lack of time, staff, available recommendations and sources, only 21% of IVU conducted LM for all CT. On average, units reported four sources: ANSM information (96%), PubMed database (83%), EMA alerts (57%) and the subscription to APM international (48%). The LM had an impact on the CT of 57% of the IVU such as changing the conditions of a study (39%) or suspending a study (22%).</p></div><div><h3>Discussion/Conclusion</h3><p>LM is an important but time-consuming activity with heterogeneous practices. According to the results of this survey, we proposed seven ways to improve this practice: (1) Target the highest risk CT; (2) Refine the PubMed queries; (3) Use other tools; (4) Create a decision flowchart for the selection of PubMed articles; (5) Improve training; (6) Value the activity and (7) Outsource the activity.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":23147,"journal":{"name":"Therapie","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Overview of literature monitoring practice of clinical trials vigilance units in French institutional sponsors – A study from the REVISE working group\",\"authors\":\"Astrid Prioul , Dorine Fournier , Cécile Lefeuvre , Sophie Duranton , Pascale Olivier , Emeline Blanc , Laure Peyro-Saint-Paul , Sophie Ruault , Aurélie Jamet , Catherine Mouchel\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.therap.2023.02.008\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>The evaluation of clinical trial (CT) safety is the main task of CT vigilance units. In addition to the management of adverse events, the units must review the literature to identify information that may impact the benefit-risk assessment of studies. In this survey, we investigated the literature monitoring (LM) activity of French Institutional Vigilance Units (IVU) from the working group “REflexion sur la VIgilance et la SEcurite des essais cliniques” (REVISE).</p></div><div><h3>Material and methods</h3><p>We sent a questionnaire of 26 questions, divided into four themes, to the 60 IVU: (1) Presentation of the IVU and the LM activity; (2) Used sources, queries and criteria for selecting articles; (3) Valuation of the LM and (4) Practical organisation.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Of the 27 IVU that responded to the questionnaire, 85% of them carried out LM. This was mainly provided by medical staff to improve general knowledge (83%), to detect Adverse Reactions (AR) not listed in the reference documents (70%) and to detect new safety information (61%). Due to lack of time, staff, available recommendations and sources, only 21% of IVU conducted LM for all CT. On average, units reported four sources: ANSM information (96%), PubMed database (83%), EMA alerts (57%) and the subscription to APM international (48%). The LM had an impact on the CT of 57% of the IVU such as changing the conditions of a study (39%) or suspending a study (22%).</p></div><div><h3>Discussion/Conclusion</h3><p>LM is an important but time-consuming activity with heterogeneous practices. According to the results of this survey, we proposed seven ways to improve this practice: (1) Target the highest risk CT; (2) Refine the PubMed queries; (3) Use other tools; (4) Create a decision flowchart for the selection of PubMed articles; (5) Improve training; (6) Value the activity and (7) Outsource the activity.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23147,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Therapie\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Therapie\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040595723000367\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Therapie","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040595723000367","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Overview of literature monitoring practice of clinical trials vigilance units in French institutional sponsors – A study from the REVISE working group
Introduction
The evaluation of clinical trial (CT) safety is the main task of CT vigilance units. In addition to the management of adverse events, the units must review the literature to identify information that may impact the benefit-risk assessment of studies. In this survey, we investigated the literature monitoring (LM) activity of French Institutional Vigilance Units (IVU) from the working group “REflexion sur la VIgilance et la SEcurite des essais cliniques” (REVISE).
Material and methods
We sent a questionnaire of 26 questions, divided into four themes, to the 60 IVU: (1) Presentation of the IVU and the LM activity; (2) Used sources, queries and criteria for selecting articles; (3) Valuation of the LM and (4) Practical organisation.
Results
Of the 27 IVU that responded to the questionnaire, 85% of them carried out LM. This was mainly provided by medical staff to improve general knowledge (83%), to detect Adverse Reactions (AR) not listed in the reference documents (70%) and to detect new safety information (61%). Due to lack of time, staff, available recommendations and sources, only 21% of IVU conducted LM for all CT. On average, units reported four sources: ANSM information (96%), PubMed database (83%), EMA alerts (57%) and the subscription to APM international (48%). The LM had an impact on the CT of 57% of the IVU such as changing the conditions of a study (39%) or suspending a study (22%).
Discussion/Conclusion
LM is an important but time-consuming activity with heterogeneous practices. According to the results of this survey, we proposed seven ways to improve this practice: (1) Target the highest risk CT; (2) Refine the PubMed queries; (3) Use other tools; (4) Create a decision flowchart for the selection of PubMed articles; (5) Improve training; (6) Value the activity and (7) Outsource the activity.
期刊介绍:
Thérapie is a peer-reviewed journal devoted to Clinical Pharmacology, Therapeutics, Pharmacokinetics, Pharmacovigilance, Addictovigilance, Social Pharmacology, Pharmacoepidemiology, Pharmacoeconomics and Evidence-Based-Medicine. Thérapie publishes in French or in English original articles, general reviews, letters to the editor reporting original findings, correspondence relating to articles or letters published in the Journal, short articles, editorials on up-to-date topics, Pharmacovigilance or Addictovigilance reports that follow the French "guidelines" concerning good practice in pharmacovigilance publications. The journal also publishes thematic issues on topical subject.
The journal is indexed in the main international data bases and notably in: Biosis Previews/Biological Abstracts, Embase/Excerpta Medica, Medline/Index Medicus, Science Citation Index.