Inquiry into adverse events in trial blames drug, not study design
BMJ 2006; 332 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.332.7546.870-a (Published 13 April 2006) Cite this as: BMJ 2006;332:870Data supplement
Inquiry into adverse events in UK trial blames drug rather than study design
LondonSusan Mayor
A preliminary investigation of a UK trial in which six healthy volunteers became critically ill said this was probably due to effects of the drug in humans not predicted by animal studies. But the report stopped short of questioning how the study was carried out.
The investigation into the phase I trial of the monoclonal antibody TGN1412, carried out by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), the body that approves clinical trials in England, said the trial was run according to the agreed protocol, using the correct dose. It also found no evidence of a manufacturing problem or contamination of the product given to the trial volunteers.
The MHRA’s report did not comment on suggestions that it might have been more prudent to have tested the drug in one volunteer at a time, leaving enough time to observe any adverse effects before giving it to another person, rather than giving it to the whole group at once (BMJ 2006;332:683, 25 Mar).
The protocol for the trial of TGN1412, which the MHRA released at the same time as its report, says that the drug would be administered intravenously within a two hour period to all participants.
However, a report on testing antibody treatments published last week by a working group of the Academy of Medical Sciences—a group of medical scientists from hospitals, academia, industry, and the public service—argued: "It would be usual practice to administer a single dose in a single patient, who would then be observed for an appropriate period of time."
In response a spokesperson for the MHRA said: "The protocol specifying that all dosing would take place within two hours appeared to be reasonable, based on the large safety margin allowed for by use of a much lower dose than used in previous animal studies."
The academy’s working group, which is chaired by Patrick Vallance, head of the division of medicine at University College London, pointed out that the specificity of antibody action and the relative youth of this field of research "means there is a smaller body of knowledge to draw on when attempting to predict unwanted effects."
The MHRA said that its inquiry indicated that TGN1412 showed "a pharmacological effect in man which was not seen in preclinical tests in animals at much higher doses."
It said that the six men who became ill suffered life threatening incidents of "cytokine release syndrome," in which cytokines released by activated T cells produce a type of systemic inflammatory response.
The inquiry noted that although several monoclonal antibodies are already licensed to treat a range of human diseases, TGN1412 is from a new class that stimulates T cells in the immune system.
"In this case the resulting activity seen in humans was not predicted from apparently adequate preclinical testing," it said. While the trial protocol and the investigators’ brochure on TGN1412 noted that a "cytokine burst" or "storm" could theoretically occur within the first few hours after infusion, the patient information sheet mentioned the less alarming possibility of "cytokine release (causing a hives-like allergic reaction)."
On this issue an MHRA spokesman said: "There was no evidence of a cytokine burst shown at any dose given to non-human primates." He said that the inclusion of the warning about this in the trial documents was to remind investigators of the possibility and of the need to be prepared to treat it.
Joe Collier, professor of medicines policy at St George’s University of London, said: "It seems to me that the MHRA is covering its back. It is saying that everything was OK in the trial design, when in reality it was clearly not OK."
Professor Collier said that staggering the dosing of the drug by giving it to the volunteers one at a time could have meant that fewer experienced serious adverse effects. "All of us who have been involved in clinical trials know that the unexpected can occur."
The MHRA has said that a group of leading international experts will be set up"to review the evidence from the TGN1412 case and consider what necessary changes to clinical trials may be required."
The group willconsider factors that ought be taken into account in the transition from preclinical to phase I studies as well as the design of trials of biological molecules with novel mechanisms of action, new agents with action that is highly species specific, and agents that target the immune system. The group willprovide advice on how future trials should be authorised and willproduce an interim report within three months.
Until this expert group has completed its work, the MHRA said that it will take a precautionary approach towards all further applications to it for clinical trials involving phase I trials of any monoclonal antibody, regardless of the intended target, and all applications for trials of novel molecules targeting the immune system acting through a novel mechanism. Trials with these agents will be not be authorised without additional expert opinion on whether the effects seen in the TGN1412 case may be repeated.
The Academy of Medical Sciences’ report argued that the potential risks of antibody treatments mean that the appropriate regulatory authorities should be involved in continual dialogue with researchers throughout the drug development process. It added that it may be necessary for regulators to enrol specialist consultants or advisers during the treatment’s development.
The academy’s working group also recommended that participants in clinical trials should always be fully informed of the level of risk involved and the degree of uncertainty. It said that ideally there should be a "cooling off" period between the provision of information on the trial and consent being given, or attendance by a friend or relative of the participant (or both). Financial inducements to take part in trials should be considered carefully by the relevant ethics committees and regulators, it said. In addition, it advised that a central source of data on adverse effects and a central repository of information about the treatment of adverse effects of antibody treatments should be set up. Ideally these should be international and be backed up by a national expert panel available for telephone consultation.
A report on the MHRA inquiry and other documents on the TGN1412 trial can be found at www.mhra.gov.uk. The Academy of Medical Sciences’ report, Testing Antibody Therapies: Position Paper, is at www.acmedsci.ac.uk.
Related articles
- News Published: 23 March 2006; BMJ 332 doi:10.1136/bmj.332.7543.683
See more
- Constitutional symptoms in a young personBMJ December 07, 2016, 355 i5781; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i5781
- An adolescent with disabling abdominal painBMJ December 07, 2016, 355 i6101; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i6101
- Andrew Wakefield calls Trump “on our side” over vaccines after meetingBMJ December 05, 2016, 355 i6545; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i6545
- Doctors in Pakistan call for workers deported from the UAE to be screened for HIVBMJ December 05, 2016, 355 i6544; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i6544
- Communicating risk to patients in the emergency departmentBMJ December 05, 2016, 355 i6437; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i6437
Cited by...
- Textbook of Pharmaceutical Medicine warns of trial risks