↓ Skip to main content

Biases affecting injected doses of an experimental drug during clinical trials

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
18 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Biases affecting injected doses of an experimental drug during clinical trials
Published in
Trials, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13063-016-1463-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nancy Perrottet, Françoise Brunner-Ferber, Eric Grouzmann, François Spertini, Jérôme Biollaz, Thierry Buclin, Nicolas Widmer

Abstract

During clinical trials, researchers rarely question nominal doses specified on labels of investigational products, overlooking the potential for inaccuracies that may result when calculating pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic parameters. This study evaluated the disparity between nominal doses and the doses actually administered in two Phase I trials of a biosimilar drug. In Trial A, 12 healthy volunteers received various doses of an interferon β-1a biosimilar via either subcutaneous or intravenous injection, prepared by partially emptying 0.53 ml syringes supplied by the manufacturer. In Trial B, 12 volunteers received three different formulations of the drug via intravenous injection (biosimilar with and without albumin and a comparator), followed by multiple subcutaneous injections. In both trials, the dose administered was calculated as D = C × V - losses, where C is the drug concentration assessed using ELISA, V is the volume administered calculated using syringe weighing and losses are deduced from in-vitro experiments. Interferon binding to added albumin and infusion lines was evaluated using a (125)I-interferon tracer with gel-filtration chromatography. In Trial A, measured concentrations were close to the nominal strength indicated by the manufacturer (median bias: -6 %), whereas in Trial B they differed significantly for all three formulations (median biases: +67 %, +73 % and +31 % for the biosimilar with albumin, the biosimilar without albumin and the comparator, respectively). In Trial A, the doses actually administered showed large variability and biases, especially at the lowest doses. Indeed, actually injected volumes differed by as much as 74 % from theoretical volumes - a phenomenon mainly attributed to unnoticed fluid re-aspiration through the syringe needle. This was corrected in Trial B. Interferon was not significantly adsorbed on the infusion lines used for intravenous administration. Its binding to albumin was slow, reaching 50 % after a 16 h incubation. These examples illustrate the importance of assessing the actual doses administered in clinical trials, to ensure accuracy in the determination of clearance, distribution volume, bioavailability and dose-response relationships. Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02515695 (Trial A) and NCT02517788 (Trial B). Registered on 24 July and 5 August 2015, respectively.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 28%
Student > Master 3 17%
Student > Bachelor 2 11%
Other 2 11%
Lecturer 2 11%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 3 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 11%
Computer Science 1 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 4 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 July 2016.
All research outputs
#5,855,150
of 8,088,508 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#1,667
of 2,235 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#153,801
of 236,193 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#85
of 114 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,088,508 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,235 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 236,193 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 114 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.