Inter-rater reliability of the neonatal adverse event severity scale using real-world Neonatal clinical trial data

The neonatal adverse event severity scale: current status, a stakeholders' assessment, and future perspectives

To support informed decisions on drug registration and prescription, clinical trials need tools to assess the efficacy and safety signals related to a given therapeutic intervention. Standardized assessment facilitates reproducibility of results. Furthermore, it enables weighted comparison between different interventions, instrumental to facilitate shared decisions. When focused on adverse events in clinical trials, tools are needed to assess seriousness, causality and severity. As part of such a toolbox, the international Neonatal Consortium (INC) developed a first version of the neonatal adverse event severity scale (NAESS). This version underwent subsequent validation in retro-and prospective trials to assess its applicability and impact on the inter-observer variability. Regulators, sponsors and academic researchers also reported on the use of the NAESS in regulatory documents, trial protocols and study reports. In this paper, we aim to report on the trajectory, current status and impact of the NAESS score, on how stakeholders within INC assess its relevance, and on perspectives to further develop this tool.

Prospective assessment of inter-rater reliability of a neonatal adverse event severity scale

Introduction: To ensure the quality of clinical trial safety data, universal data standards are required. In 2019 the International Neonatal Consortium (INC) published a neonatal adverse event severity scale (NAESS) to standardize the reporting of adverse event (AE) severity. In this study the reliability of AE severity grading with INC NAESS was prospectively assessed in a real-world setting. Methods: Severity of AEs was assessed by two independent observers at each of four centers across the world. In each center two series of 30 neonatal adverse events were assessed by both observers: in a first phase with a generic (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, CTCAE) severity scale not specific to neonates, and in a second phase with INC NAESS (after a structured training). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated to express inter-rater agreement in both phases, and bootstrap sampling was used to compare them. Results: 120 AEs were included in each of both phases. The ICC with the use of INC NAESS in phase 2 was 0.69. This represents a significant but modest improvement in comparison to the initial ICC of 0.66 in phase 1 (confidence interval of ratio of ICC in phase 2 to phase 1 = 1.005-1.146; excludes 1). The ICC was higher for those AEs for which a diagnosis specific AE severity table was available in INC NAESS (ICC 0.80). Discussion: Good inter-rater reliability of the INC NAESS was demonstrated in four neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) across the globe. The ICC is comparable to what is reported for scales with similar purposes in different populations. There is a modest, but significant, improvement in inter-rater agreement in comparison to the naïve phase without INC NAESS. The better performance when reviewers use AE-specific NAESS tables highlights the need to expand the number of AEs that are covered by specific criteria in the current version of INC NAESS.

Prenatal Somatic Cell Gene Therapies: Charting a Path Toward Clinical Applications (Proceedings of the CERSI-FDA Meeting)

We are living in a golden age of medicine in which the availability of prenatal diagnosis, fetal therapy, and gene therapy/editing make it theoretically possible to repair almost any defect in the genetic code. Furthermore, the ability to diagnose genetic disorders before birth and the presence of established surgical techniques enable these therapies to be delivered safely to the fetus. Prenatal therapies are generally used in the second or early third trimester for severe, life-threatening disorders for which there is a clear rationale for intervening before birth. While there has been promising work for prenatal gene therapy in preclinical models, the path to a clinical prenatal gene therapy approach is complex. We recently held a conference with the University of California, San Francisco-Stanford Center of Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation, researchers, patient advocates, regulatory (members of the Food and Drug Administration), and other stakeholders to review the scientific background and rationale for prenatal somatic cell gene therapy for severe monogenic diseases and initiate a dialogue toward a safe regulatory path for phase 1 clinical trials. This review represents a summary of the considerations and discussions from these conversations.

Challenges and opportunities for improving access to approved neonatal drugs and devices

Neonatal drug and device development has lagged behind other patient populations. Oftentimes, providers are using drugs and devices without adequate study of safety and efficacy. Neonates deserve dedicated drug and device development programs, which will require novel approaches and unique collaborations between multiple key stakeholders. Legislative efforts, infrastructure, clinical trial methodology, and international collaborations have all contributed to improvements in neonatal drug and device development, but more work is still needed. Leadership from neonatologists, clinical care providers, and parents is essential to implement needed changes.