Working towards consensus on methods used to elicit participant-reported safety data in uncomplicated malaria clinical drug studies: a Delphi technique study.

Nyaradzo Mandimika, Karen I Barnes, Clare I R Chandler, Cheryl Pace, Elizabeth N Allen
Author Information
  1. Nyaradzo Mandimika: Division of Clinical Pharmacology, Department of Medicine, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa. ORCID
  2. Karen I Barnes: Division of Clinical Pharmacology, Department of Medicine, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.
  3. Clare I R Chandler: Department of Global Health & Development, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
  4. Cheryl Pace: Department of Clinical Sciences, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK.
  5. Elizabeth N Allen: Division of Clinical Pharmacology, Department of Medicine, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa. elizabeth.allen@uct.ac.za.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: 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.

Keywords

References

  1. Nurse Res. 2012;19(2):37-44 [PMID: 22338807]
  2. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005 Dec 01;5:37 [PMID: 16321161]
  3. PLoS One. 2012;7(3):e32704 [PMID: 22479335]
  4. Br Med J. 1977 Dec 10;2(6101):1523-4 [PMID: 338116]
  5. Drug Saf. 2005;28(11):1057-63 [PMID: 16231957]
  6. Trials. 2012 Aug 20;13:138 [PMID: 22906139]
  7. PLoS Med. 2011 Jan 25;8(1):e1000393 [PMID: 21283604]
  8. Malar J. 2013 Sep 16;12:325 [PMID: 24041367]
  9. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1995 Nov;33(11):598-604 [PMID: 8688984]
  10. Malar J. 2015 May 15;14:204 [PMID: 25971688]
  11. Ann Intern Med. 2006 Feb 21;144(4):257-61 [PMID: 16490911]
  12. J Adv Nurs. 2000 Oct;32(4):1008-15 [PMID: 11095242]
  13. Ann Intern Med. 2006 Feb 21;144(4):298-300 [PMID: 16490917]
  14. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013 Nov 14;13:140 [PMID: 24229315]
  15. PLoS One. 2011;6(6):e20476 [PMID: 21694759]
  16. PLoS One. 2012;7(11):e48395 [PMID: 23185256]
  17. Parasitology. 2014 Jan;141(1):128-39 [PMID: 23863111]
  18. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2009 Mar;5(1):40-50 [PMID: 19285288]
  19. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2004 Dec;43(12):1488-96 [PMID: 15564818]

MeSH Term

Antimalarials
Clinical Trials as Topic
Consensus
Delphi Technique
Humans
Malaria
Safety
Self Report

Chemicals

Antimalarials

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0datadrugDelphinon-studymedicationclinicalsafetymethodsanti-malarialconsensusconsideredoptimalparticipantsquestionimportantusemalariastudyitemsgeneralquestionsAEreportsresearchusingstudiestreatmentinvitedtechniquerelevantfeasibletoolsparticipant-reporteduncomplicatedpanellistsquestioningratinghealthstructuredapproachBACKGROUND:ElicitingadverseeventintegralevaluatingHoweverdifferentyieldsinconsistentresultscompromisinginterpretationcomparisonpoolingacrossparticularlygivenwidespreadanti-malarialsvulnerablepopulationsincreasinghealthyat-riskindividualspreventivereducetransmissionMETHODS:ExperiencedknowledgeableresearchersparticipatefacilitateapproachesdetectingRESULTS:72251610respondedfirstsecondthirdroundsrespectivelyOverall68%68/100presentedachievedaskingagreedutilityquestion/conceptchangetakingcareensurequestions/conceptsimplycausalityEighty-ninepercent39/44specificsignssymptomsratedmedicationsmobilephonespatientdiariesscaleswellopenlyengagingdiscussconcernsalsocomplementarydata-elicitationCONCLUSIONS:succeededreachingwithinsectioncommunityconceptelicitingAEsconceptsinvestigatedpotentialinclusionharmonizedcollectparticipant-elicitedturnimproveunderstandingWorkingtowardsusedelicitstudies:AdverseeventsClinicaltrialsElicitationNon-studySafety

Similar Articles

Cited By