Literature DB >> 35581446

Improving the Approach to Defining, Classifying, Reporting and Monitoring Adverse Events in Seriously Ill Older Adults: Recommendations from a Multi-stakeholder Convening.

Abigail Baim-Lance1,2, Katelyn B Ferreira3, Harvey Jay Cohen4, Susan S Ellenberg5, George A Kuchel6, Christine Ritchie7, Greg A Sachs8,9, Dalane Kitzman10, R Sean Morrison3,11, Albert Siu3,11.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials are needed to study topics relevant to older adults with serious illness. Investigators conducting clinical trials with this population are challenged by how to appropriately define, classify, report, and monitor serious and non-serious adverse events (SAEs/AEs), given that some traditionally reported AEs (pressure ulcers, delirium) and SAEs (death, hospitalization) are common in persons with serious illness, and may be consistent with their goals of care.
OBJECTIVES: A multi-stakeholder group convened to establish greater clarity on and new approaches to address this critical issue. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-two study investigators, members of regulatory and sponsor agencies, and patient stakeholders took part. APPROACH: The group met virtually four times and, using a collaborative approach, conducted a survey, select interviews, and reviewed regulatory guidance to collectively define the problem and identify a new approach.
RESULTS: SAE/AE challenges fell into two areas: (1) definitions and classifications, including (a) implausible relationships, (b) misalignment with patient-centered care goals, and (c) well-known associations, and (2) reporting and monitoring, including (a) limited guidance, (b) inconsistent standards across regulators, and (c) Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) member knowledge gaps. Problems largely reflected practice norms rather than regulatory requirements that already support context-specific and aggregate reporting. Approaches can be improved by adopting principles that better align strategies for addressing adverse events with the type of intervention being tested, favoring routine and aggregate over expedited reporting, and prioritizing how SAE/AEs relate to patient-centered care goals. Reporting plans and decisions should follow an algorithm underpinned by these principles.
CONCLUSIONS: Adoption of the proposed approach-and supporting it with education and better alignment with regulatory guidance and procedures-could improve the quality and efficiency of clinical trials' safety involving older adults with serious illness and other vulnerable populations.
© 2022. This is a U.S. government work and not under copyright protection in the U.S.; foreign copyright protection may apply.

Entities:  

Keywords:  adverse event reporting; adverse events; clinical trials; serious adverse events; serious illness

Year:  2022        PMID: 35581446     DOI: 10.1007/s11606-022-07646-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Gen Intern Med        ISSN: 0884-8734            Impact factor:   5.128


  7 in total

1.  Clarifying adverse drug events: a clinician's guide to terminology, documentation, and reporting.

Authors:  Jonathan R Nebeker; Paul Barach; Matthew H Samore
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2004-05-18       Impact factor: 25.391

Review 2.  The conceptual basis for interprofessional collaboration: core concepts and theoretical frameworks.

Authors:  Danielle D'Amour; Marcela Ferrada-Videla; Leticia San Martin Rodriguez; Marie-Dominique Beaulieu
Journal:  J Interprof Care       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 2.338

3.  Clinical trials bureaucracy: unintended consequences of well-intentioned policy.

Authors:  Robert M Califf
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 2.486

Review 4.  Rescuing clinical trials in the United States and beyond: a call for action.

Authors:  Zubin J Eapen; John P Vavalle; Christopher B Granger; Robert A Harrington; Eric D Peterson; Robert M Califf
Journal:  Am Heart J       Date:  2013-03-13       Impact factor: 4.749

5.  Identifying Older Adults with Serious Illness: A Critical Step toward Improving the Value of Health Care.

Authors:  Amy S Kelley; Kenneth E Covinsky; Rebecca J Gorges; Karen McKendrick; Evan Bollens-Lund; R Sean Morrison; Christine S Ritchie
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2016-03-18       Impact factor: 3.402

6.  A method for estimating the probability of adverse drug reactions.

Authors:  C A Naranjo; U Busto; E M Sellers; P Sandor; I Ruiz; E A Roberts; E Janecek; C Domecq; D J Greenblatt
Journal:  Clin Pharmacol Ther       Date:  1981-08       Impact factor: 6.875

7.  Priorities for treatment, care and information if faced with serious illness: a comparative population-based survey in seven European countries.

Authors:  Irene J Higginson; Barbara Gomes; Natalia Calanzani; Wei Gao; Claudia Bausewein; Barbara A Daveson; Luc Deliens; Pedro L Ferreira; Franco Toscani; Marjolein Gysels; Lucas Ceulemans; Steffen T Simon; Joachim Cohen; Richard Harding
Journal:  Palliat Med       Date:  2013-05-23       Impact factor: 4.762

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.