Browsing by Subject "Safety"
Now showing 1 - 6 of 6
Results Per Page
Sort Options
- ItemOpen AccessHow experiences become data: the process of eliciting adverse event, medical history and concomitant medication reports in antimalarial and antiretroviral interaction trials(BioMed Central Ltd, 2013) Allen, Elizabeth; Mushi, Adiel; Massawe, Isolide; Vestergaard, Lasse; Lemnge, Martha; Staedke, Sarah; Mehta, Ushma; Barnes, Karen; Chandler, ClareBACKGROUND:Accurately characterizing a drug's safety profile is essential. Trial harm and tolerability assessments rely, in part, on participants' reports of medical histories, adverse events (AEs), and concomitant medications. Optimal methods for questioning participants are unclear, but different methods giving different results can undermine meta-analyses. This study compared methods for eliciting such data and explored reasons for dissimilar participant responses. METHODS: Participants from open-label antimalarial and antiretroviral interaction trials in two distinct sites (South Africa, n=18 [all HIV positive]; Tanzania, n=80 [86% HIV positive]) were asked about ill health and treatment use by sequential use of (1) general enquiries without reference to particular conditions, body systems or treatments, (2) checklists of potential health issues and treatments, (3) in-depth interviews. Participants' experiences of illness and treatment and their reporting behaviour were explored qualitatively, as were trial clinicians' experiences with obtaining participant reports. Outcomes were the number and nature of data by questioning method, themes from qualitative analyses and a theoretical interpretation of participants' experiences. RESULTS: There was an overall cumulative increase in the number of reports from general enquiry through checklists to in-depth interview; in South Africa, an additional 12 medical histories, 21 AEs and 27 medications; in Tanzania an additional 260 medical histories, 1 AE and 11 medications. Checklists and interviews facilitated recognition of health issues and treatments, and consideration of what to report. Information was sometimes not reported because participants forgot, it was considered irrelevant or insignificant, or they feared reporting. Some medicine names were not known and answers to questions were considered inferior to blood tests for detecting ill health. South African inpatient volunteers exhibited a "trial citizenship", working to achieve researchers' goals, while Tanzanian outpatients sometimes deferred responsibility for identifying items to report to trial clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: Questioning methods and trial contexts influence the detection of adverse events, medical histories and concomitant medications. There should be further methodological work to investigate these influences and find appropriate questioning methods.
- ItemOpen AccessProtocol for a drugs exposure pregnancy registry for implementation in resource-limited settings(BioMed Central Ltd, 2012) Mehta, Ushma; Clerk, Christine; Allen, Elizabeth; Yore, Mackensie; Sevene, Esperanca; Singlovic, Jan; Petzold, Max; Mangiaterra, Viviana; Elefant, Elizabeth; Sullivan, Frank; Holmes, Lewis; Gomes, MelbaBACKGROUND: The absence of robust evidence of safety of medicines in pregnancy, particularly those for major diseases provided by public health programmes in developing countries, has resulted in cautious recommendations on their use. We describe a protocol for a Pregnancy Registry adapted to resource-limited settings aimed at providing evidence on the safety of medicines in pregnancy.METHODS/DESIGN:Sentinel health facilities are chosen where women come for prenatal care and are likely to come for delivery. Staff capacity is improved to provide better care during the pregnancy, to identify visible birth defects at delivery and refer infants with major anomalies for surgical or clinical evaluation and treatment. Consenting women are enrolled at their first antenatal visit and careful medical, obstetric and drug-exposure histories taken; medical record linkage is encouraged. Enrolled women are followed up prospectively and their histories are updated at each subsequent visit. The enrolled woman is encouraged to deliver at the facility, where she and her baby can be assessed.DISCUSSION:In addition to data pooling into a common WHO database, the WHO Pregnancy Registry has three important features: First is the inclusion of pregnant women coming for antenatal care, enabling comparison of birth outcomes of women who have been exposed to a medicine with those who have not. Second is its applicability to resource-poor settings regardless of drug or disease. Third is improvement of reproductive health care during pregnancies and at delivery. Facility delivery enables better health outcomes, timely evaluation and management of the newborn, and the collection of reliable clinical data. The Registry aims to improve maternal and neonatal care and also provide much needed information on the safety of medicines in pregnancy.
- ItemOpen AccessSafety and tolerability of single low-dose primaquine in a low-intensity transmission area in South Africa: an open-label, randomized controlled trial(2019-06-24) Raman, Jaishree; Allen, Elizabeth; Workman, Lesley; Mabuza, Aaron; Swanepoel, Hendrik; Malatje, Gillian; Frean, John; Wiesner, Lubbe; Barnes, Karen IAbstract Background To reduce onward falciparum malaria transmission, the World Health Organization recommends adding single low-dose (SLD) primaquine to artemisinin-based combination treatment in low transmission areas. However, uptake of this recommendation has been relatively slow given concerns about whether individual risks justify potential community benefit. This study was undertaken to generate comprehensive local data on the risk–benefit profile of SLD primaquine deployment in a pre-elimination area in South Africa. Methods This randomized, controlled open-label trial investigated adding a single low primaquine dose on day 3 to standard artemether–lumefantrine treatment for uncomplicated falciparum malaria. Efficacy, safety and tolerability of artemether–lumefantrine and primaquine treatment were assessed on days 3, 7, 14, 28 and 42. Lumefantrine concentrations were assayed from dried blood spot samples collected on day 7. Results Of 217 patients screened, 166 were enrolled with 140 randomized on day 3, 70 to each study arm (primaquine and no primaquine). No gametocytes were detected by either microscopy or PCR in any of the follow-up samples collected after randomization on day 3, precluding assessment of primaquine efficacy. Prevalence of the CYP2D6*4, CYP2D6*10 and CYP2D6*17 mutant alleles was low with allelic frequencies of 0.02, 0.11 and 0.16, respectively; none had the CYP2D6*4/*4 variant associated with null activity. Among 172 RDT-positive patients G6PD-genotyped, 24 (14%) carried the G6PD deficient (A−) variant. Median haemoglobin concentrations were similar between treatment arms throughout follow-up. A third of participants had a haemoglobin drop > 2 g/dL; this was not associated with primaquine treatment but may be associated with G6PD genotype [52.9% (9/17) with A− genotype vs. 31% (36/116) with other genotypes (p = 0.075)]. Day 7 lumefantrine concentrations and the number and nature of adverse events were similar between study arms; only one serious adverse event occurred (renal impairment in the no primaquine arm). The artemether–lumefantrine PCR-corrected adequate clinical and parasitological response rate was 100%, with only one re-infection found among the 128 patients who completed 42-day follow-up. Conclusions Safety, tolerability, CYP2D6 and G6PD variant data from this study support the deployment of the WHO-recommended SLD primaquine without G6PD testing to advance malaria elimination in South African districts with low-intensity residual transmission. Trial registration Pan African Clinical Trial Registry, PACTR201611001859416. Registered 11 November 2016, https://pactr.samrc.ac.za/TrialDisplay.aspx?TrialID=1859
- ItemOpen AccessWorking towards consensus on methods used to elicit participant-reported safety data in uncomplicated malaria clinical drug studies: a Delphi technique study(2017) Mandimika, Nyaradzo; Barnes, Karen I; Chandler, Clare I R; Pace, Cheryl; Allen, Elizabeth NBACKGROUND: Eliciting adverse event (AE) and non-study medication data reports from clinical research participants is integral to evaluating drug safety. However, using different methods to question participants yields inconsistent results, compromising the interpretation, comparison and pooling of data across studies. This is particularly important given the widespread use of anti-malarials in vulnerable populations, and their increasing use in healthy, but at-risk individuals, as preventive treatment or to reduce malaria transmission. METHODS: Experienced and knowledgeable anti-malarial drug clinical researchers were invited to participate in a Delphi technique study, to facilitate consensus on what are considered optimal (relevant, important and feasible) methods, tools, and approaches for detecting participant-reported AE and non-study medication data in uncomplicated malaria treatment studies. RESULTS: Of 72 invited, 25, 16 and 10 panellists responded to the first, second and third rounds of the Delphi, respectively. Overall, 68% (68/100) of all questioning items presented for rating achieved consensus. When asking general questions about health, panellists agreed on the utility of a question/concept about any change in health, taking care to ensure that such questions/concepts do not imply causality. Eighty-nine percent (39/44) of specific signs and symptoms questions were rated as optimal. For non-study medications, a general question and most structured questioning items were considered an optimal approach. The use of mobile phones, patient diaries, rating scales as well as openly engaging with participants to discuss concerns were also considered optimal complementary data-elicitation tools. CONCLUSIONS: This study succeeded in reaching consensus within a section of the anti-malarial drug clinical research community about using a general question concept, and structured questions for eliciting data about AEs and non-study medication reports. The concepts and items considered in this Delphi to be relevant, important and feasible should be further investigated for potential inclusion in a harmonized approach to collect participant-elicited anti-malarial drug safety data. This, in turn, should improve understanding of anti-malarial drug safety.
- ItemOpen AccessWorking towards consensus on methods used to elicit participant-reported safety data in uncomplicated malaria clinical drug studies: a Delphi technique study(BioMed Central, 2017-01-28) Mandimika, Nyaradzo; Barnes, Karen I; Chandler, Clare I R; Pace, Cheryl; Allen, Elizabeth NBackground: Eliciting adverse event (AE) and non-study medication data reports from clinical research participants is integral to evaluating drug safety. However, using different methods to question participants yields inconsistent results, compromising the interpretation, comparison and pooling of data across studies. This is particularly important given the widespread use of anti-malarials in vulnerable populations, and their increasing use in healthy, but at-risk individuals, as preventive treatment or to reduce malaria transmission. Methods: Experienced and knowledgeable anti-malarial drug clinical researchers were invited to participate in a Delphi technique study, to facilitate consensus on what are considered optimal (relevant, important and feasible) methods, tools, and approaches for detecting participant-reported AE and non-study medication data in uncomplicated malaria treatment studies. Results: Of 72 invited, 25, 16 and 10 panellists responded to the first, second and third rounds of the Delphi, respectively. Overall, 68% (68/100) of all questioning items presented for rating achieved consensus. When asking general questions about health, panellists agreed on the utility of a question/concept about any change in health, taking care to ensure that such questions/concepts do not imply causality. Eighty-nine percent (39/44) of specific signs and symptoms questions were rated as optimal. For non-study medications, a general question and most structured questioning items were considered an optimal approach. The use of mobile phones, patient diaries, rating scales as well as openly engaging with participants to discuss concerns were also considered optimal complementary data-elicitation tools. Conclusions: This study succeeded in reaching consensus within a section of the anti-malarial drug clinical research community about using a general question concept, and structured questions for eliciting data about AEs and nonstudy medication reports. The concepts and items considered in this Delphi to be relevant, important and feasible should be further investigated for potential inclusion in a harmonized approach to collect participant-elicited antimalarial drug safety data. This, in turn, should improve understanding of anti-malarial drug safety.
- ItemOpen AccessWrong drug administration errors amongst anaesthetists in a South African teaching hospital(South African Society of Anesthesiologist, 2004) Gordon, P CA confidential, self-reporting survey was sent out to all 65 anaesthetists (25 specialists and 40 registrars) in the Department of Anaesthesia at the University of Cape Town with the aim of determining the incidence and possible causes of “wrong drug” administrations. The response rate was 95%. 93.5 % of respondents admitted to having administered the wrong drug at some stage of their anaesthetic career. 19/62 (30.6%) have injected the wrong drug or the correct drug into the wrong site on at least three occasions. 56.9 % of incidents involved muscle relaxants with suxamethonium chloride administered instead of fentanyl accounting for nearly a third of cases. 17.6 % of reported incidents were classified as being dangerous, with the potential to cause either severe haemodynamic instability and/or neurological damage or seizures.