The role of systematic reviews in pharmacovigilance planning and Clinical Trials Authorisation application: example from the SLEEPS trial

Prospective multicentre randomised, double-blind, equivalence study comparing clonidine and midazolam as intravenous sedative agents in critically ill children: the SLEEPS (Safety profiLe, Efficacy and Equivalence in Paediatric intensive care Sedation) study

BACKGROUND

Children in paediatric intensive care units (PICUs) require analgesia and sedation but both undersedation and oversedation can be harmful.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluation of intravenous (i.v.) clonidine as an alternative to i.v. midazolam.

DESIGN

Multicentre, double-blind, randomised equivalence trial.

SETTING

Ten UK PICUs.

PARTICIPANTS

Children (30 days to 15 years inclusive) weighing ≤ 50 kg, expected to require ventilation on PICU for > 12 hours.

INTERVENTIONS

Clonidine (3 µg/kg loading then 0-3 µg/kg/hour) versus midazolam (200 µg/kg loading then 0-200 µg/kg/hour). Maintenance infusion rates adjusted according to behavioural assessment (COMFORT score). Both groups also received morphine.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary end point Adequate sedation defined by COMFORT score of 17-26 for ≥ 80% of the time with a ± 0.15 margin of equivalence. Secondary end points Percentage of time spent adequately sedated, increase in sedation/analgesia, recovery after sedation, side effects and safety data.

RESULTS

The study planned to recruit 1000 children. In total, 129 children were randomised, of whom 120 (93%) contributed data for the primary outcome. The proportion of children who were adequately sedated for ≥ 80% of the time was 21 of 61 (34.4%) - clonidine, and 18 of 59 (30.5%) - midazolam. The difference in proportions for clonidine-midazolam was 0.04 [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.13 to 0.21], and, with the 95% CI including values outside the range of equivalence (-0.15 to 0.15), equivalence was not demonstrated; however, the study was underpowered. Non-inferiority of clonidine to midazolam was established, with the only values outside the equivalence range favouring clonidine. Times to reach maximum sedation and analgesia were comparable hazard ratios: 0.99 (95% CI 0.53 to 1.82) and 1.18 (95% CI 0.49 to 2.86), respectively. Percentage time spent adequately sedated was similar [medians clonidine 73.8% vs. midazolam 72.8%: difference in medians 0.66 (95% CI -5.25 to 7.24)]. Treatment failure was 12 of 64 (18.8%) on clonidine and 7 of 61 (11.5%) on midazolam [risk ratio (RR) 1.63, 95% CI 0.69 to 3.88]. Proportions with withdrawal symptoms [28/60 (46.7%) vs. 30/58 (52.6%)] were similar (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.28), but a greater proportion required clinical intervention in those receiving midazolam [11/60 (18.3%) vs. 16/58 (27.6%) (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.31)]. Post treatment, one child on clonidine experienced mild rebound hypertension, not requiring intervention. A higher incidence of inotropic support during the first 12 hours was required for those on clonidine [clonidine 5/45 (11.1%) vs. midazolam 3/52 (5.8%)] (RR 1.93 95% CI 0.49 to 7.61).

CONCLUSIONS

Clonidine is an alternative to midazolam. Our trial-based economic evaluation suggests that clonidine is likely to be a cost-effective sedative agent in the PICU in comparison with midazolam (probability of cost-effectiveness exceeds 50%). Rebound hypertension did not appear to be a significant problem with clonidine but, owing to its effects on heart rate, specific cardiovascular attention needs to be taken during the loading and early infusion phase. Neither drug in combination with morphine provided ideal sedation, suggesting that in unparalysed patients a third background agent is necessary. The disappointing recruitment rates reflect a reluctance of parents to provide consent when established on a sedation regimen, and reluctance of clinicians to allow sedation to be studied in unstable critically ill children. Future studies will require less exacting protocols allowing enhanced recruitment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN02639863.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 18, No. 71. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Continuous infusion of clonidine in ventilated newborns and infants: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

To assess the influence of an infusion of clonidine 1 μg/kg/hr on fentanyl and midazolam requirement in ventilated newborns and infants.

DESIGN

Prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled multicenter trial. Controlled trials.com/ISRCTN77772144.

SETTING

Twenty-eight level 3 German PICUs/neonatal ICUs.

PATIENTS

Ventilated newborns and infants: stratum I (1-28 d), stratum II, (29-120 d), and stratum III (121 d to 2 yr).

INTERVENTIONS

Patients received clonidine 1 μg/kg/hr or placebo on day 4 after intubation. Fentanyl and midazolam were adjusted to achieve a defined level of analgesia and sedation according to Hartwig score.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Two hundred nineteen infants were randomized; 212 received study medication, 69.7% were ventilated in the postoperative care and 30.3% for other reasons. Primary endpoint: consumption of fentanyl and midazolam in the 72 hours following the onset of study medication (main observation period) in the overall study population. The confirmatory analysis of the overall population showed no difference in the consumption of fentanyl and midazolam. Explorative age-stratified analysis demonstrated that in stratum I (n = 112) the clonidine group had a significantly lower consumption of fentanyl (clonidine: 2.1 ± 1.8 μg/kg/hr, placebo: 3.2 ± 3.1 μg/kg/hr; p = 0.032) and midazolam (clonidine: 113.0 ± 100.1 μg/kg/hr, placebo: 180.2 ± 204.0 μg/kg/hr; p = 0.030). Strata II (n = 43) and III (n = 46) showed no statistical difference. Sedation and withdrawal-scores were significantly lower in the clonidine group of stratum I (p < 0.001). Frequency of severe adverse events did not differ between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Clonidine 1 μg/kg/hr in ventilated newborns reduced fentanyl and midazolam demand with deeper levels of analgesia and sedation without substantial side effects. This was not demonstrated in older infants, possibly due to lower clonidine serum levels.

Paediatric drug development: the impact of evolving regulations

Children deserve medicines that are adapted to their needs. The need to include children in drug development has been recognised increasingly over the past few decades. Legal and regulatory frameworks are well established in the EU and US. The amount of work done to study medicines for children is significantly greater than it was 10 years go. Proof-of-concept has been demonstrated for all segments of the paediatric drug development pipeline. It is now time to examine how the practice of developing medicines for children has evolved within those frameworks and to determine how that work should be generalised. This review describes the development of medicines for children and critically appraises the work that has been done within those frameworks. Significant effort is needed to realize the potential provided by the current regulatory framework. Using the work programme of the Global Research in Paediatrics (GRiP) Network of Excellence as a template we outline current work and future growing points.

Risk-proportionate clinical trial monitoring: an example approach from a non-commercial trials unit

Background

Some level of monitoring is usually required during a clinical trial to protect the rights and safety of trial participants and to safeguard the quality and reliability of trial results. Although there is increasing support for the use of risk-proportionate approaches to achieve these aims, the variety of methods and lack of an empirical evidence base can present challenges for clinical trial practitioners.

Methods

This paper describes the monitoring methods and procedures that are utilised by a non-commercial clinical trials unit which coordinates a range of clinical trials across a variety of clinical areas with different associated risks.

Results

Monitoring activities and approaches should be selected to be proportionate to the risks identified within a trial. A risk-proportionate approach to monitoring is described giving details of methods that may be considered by clinical trial practitioners during the development of a trial monitoring plan. An example risk assessment and corresponding monitoring plan for a low risk (type A in the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) classification system) pediatric trial is provided for illustration.

Conclusion

We present ideas for developing a monitoring plan for a clinical trial of an investigational medicinal product based on our experience. Alternative approaches may be relevant or preferable in other settings based on inherent risk.