1 / 21

Droperidol Study Proposals

Droperidol Study Proposals. ANESTHETIC & LIFE SUPPORT DRUGS ADVISORY COMMITTEE November 18-19, 2003 Lex Schultheis, M.D., Ph.D. Medical Officer Division of Anesthetic, Critical Care & Addition Drug Products. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

aric
Télécharger la présentation

Droperidol Study Proposals

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Droperidol Study Proposals ANESTHETIC & LIFE SUPPORT DRUGS ADVISORY COMMITTEE November 18-19, 2003 Lex Schultheis, M.D., Ph.D. Medical Officer Division of Anesthetic, Critical Care & Addition Drug Products Center for Drug Evaluation and Research

  2. Challenge to the Scientific Advisory Committee • Weigh the value of performing additional studies to assess the risk of dysrhythmias that may be related to droperidol. • Consider alternative study designs, outcomes and resources required.

  3. Summary of Findings • What do we know about droperidol and QTc prolongation? • Droperidol seems to prolong QTc in a dose-dependent fashion • There appear to be outlier responders

  4. What Additional Data Will Improve Safe Use of Droperidol for PONV? • The incidence of serious cardiac dysrhythmias related to droperidol. • Particular patient populations who may be at risk. • The dose-response of QTc prolongation associated with droperidol.

  5. Additional Data: continued • Interaction of droperidol with other drugs that may affect dysrhythmic properties. • The type of patient assessment needed to insure the safest use of droperidol.

  6. Three Approaches to Gather More Data • Registry of serious dysrhythmias comparing patients who receive droperidol to patients who do not receive droperidol for treatment of PONV. • Randomized trial of QTc prolongation in a patient population comparing treatment/prophylaxis with low-dose droperidol to placebo for PONV. • Thorough QTc study in volunteers. Dose-ranging, randomized, placebo controlled.

  7. Registry of Patients Managed for PONV • Estimates incidence of serious dysrhythmias • Includes all patients managed for PONV, regardless of agent used. • Captures all serious dysrhythmias in a standardized fashion. • To relate serious dysrhythmias to droperidol, large numbers of patients would have to be enrolled.

  8. Registry: Advantages • Examines incidence of serious dysrhythmias, not biomarkers. • Wide spectrum of patients and comorbidities are evaluated.

  9. Registry: Disadvantages • No randomization • High level of patient variability • Data acquisition and management nightmare • Potential to miss significant QTc prolongation without an adverse event (near miss)

  10. Randomized Trial: Design • Randomized, blinded • Droperidol (PONV doses) vs control • Treatment or prophylaxis • Enriched population to reflect actual use • Main outcomes: QTc values, serious dysrhythmias

  11. Randomized Trial: Patient Population Considerations Patients at particular risk for PONV Patients at particular risk for prolonged QTc

  12. Randomized Trial: Patient Factors Factors that may increase QTc/TdP Patients managed with droperidol • Female, young outpatients • Elderly, eye surgery • Female • Elderly • Electrolyte imbalance • Cardiac disease • P-450 inhibition • Autonomic dysfunction • Congenital long QT syndrome

  13. Randomized Trial: Advantages • Randomization • Clinically relevant population • Manageable size of dataset

  14. Randomized Trial: Disadvantages • Recruitment may be difficult. • Practical data collection requirements may reduce data completeness. • Rare events may be missed.

  15. Thorough QTc Study: Design • Expansion of crossover volunteer study • Focus on lower (PONV) doses • Consider controlled heart rate study in patients with atrial pacing • Outcome measures: QTc, dose-response

  16. Thorough QTc Study: Advantage • Complete control over randomization and dosing • Complete ECG data

  17. Thorough QTc Study: Disadvantages • Little to no benefit to participants despite potential risk • Reduced chance of detecting outliers • May be difficult to apply results to clinical practice

  18. Other Steps That May Reduce the Risk to Vulnerable Patients • Estimate interaction of droperidol with other drugs that may affect QTc prolongation. • Determine the type of patient assessment needed to insure the safest use of droperidol (screening and monitoring).

  19. Some Other QTc Prolonging Drugs • Anesthetic vapors • Other drugs used to treat PONV • Antiarrythmics • Antibiotics: erythromycin • Antimalarial or antiprotozoal: chloroquine, quinine, mefloquine, pentamidine • Gastrointestinal prokinetic: cisapride • Psychoactive, haloperidol, phenothiazines, tricyclic antidepressants • Miscellaneous: amantadine, vasopressin • Many others

  20. Can We Reduce the Risk When We Treat Patients With Droperidol? • Improve patient selection based on comorbidities or other risk factors • Improve our understanding of the role of ECG as a preadministration screen and monitor • Define the risk period after administration

  21. Summary • Each of our presented study designs is limited. • The Scientific Advisory Committee is invited to comment on the value of additional studies to understanding the potential risk of cardiac dysrhythmias that may be related to droperidol. • Elucidation of the relationship of QTc prolongation to droperidol should consider the Agency white paper (working document) on the study of QTc prolonging drugs.

More Related