Background/Aims: This preference study aimed to identify the maximum number of mini-tablets of two different sizes that children and adolescents would be willing to take, and parents, nurses, and pediatricians would be willing to administer to children and adolescents. Methods: A total of 336 participants (24 per cohort) were stratified into 14 cohorts: Acutely and chronically sick children/adolescents aged 6–<12 years (y) and 12–<18 y, parents of acutely and chronically sick children/adolescents aged 0–<2 y, 2–<6 y, 6–<12 y, and 12–<18 y, nurses, and pediatricians. After participants were shown seven different numbers of 2 and 3 mm mini-tablets, they were asked to assess the maximum number acceptable for short-, middle-, and long-term treatment using cohort-specific questionnaires. Results: Within all groups and treatment durations, the specified maximum accepted number of 2 mm mini-tablets was higher than the number of 3 mm mini-tablets. The maximum number of mini-tablets acceptable to the participants increased with increasing age of the children and ranged from 40–500 (30–400) for the 2 mm (3 mm) mini-tablets. With increasing duration of treatment, a lower maximum number of mini-tablets was considered tolerable. Chronically sick children were willing to take higher numbers of mini-tablets than acutely sick children. The maximum accepted numbers of mini-tablets specified by pediatric patients, parents, and healthcare professionals were similar for each age group; however, pediatricians consistently specified slightly higher numbers of mini-tablets than parents and nurses. Conclusions: The study demonstrated that even a high number of mini-tablets would be well-accepted by children during middle- or long-term treatment.

Pharmaceutical Medicine (PM) was defined by its founding pharmaceutical physicians as a "medical/scientific discipline concerned with the discovery, development, evaluation, registration, monitoring, and medical aspects of the commercialization of medicines, for the benefit and the health of the community." Conceived as a medical specialty, the discipline encompassed several health-related professions and occupations, such as medicine, pharmacy, clinical pharmacology, drug safety and pharmacovigilance, pharmaceutical sciences, biology, health economics and others. Historically, non-medically qualified medicines development scientists from health-related disciplines have gradually grown into the medical roles within pharmaceutical organizations, regulatory agencies, and contract research organizations and today physicians and non-physicians lead drug development groups. Medicines Development Sciences (MDS) has been accepted as an alternative name. The practice of the disciplines involved in PM/MDS has evolved from an occupation to be accepted as a distinct profession, by meeting well established criteria. Despite thousands of health professionals participating today in medicines development, their awareness of the existence of this discipline, and its evolution from occupation to profession is low. The lack of professional identity and a clear career path have been identified as key factors limiting the advancement of this profession. This position paper aims to consolidate PM/MDS as an advanced profession in health sciences and propose a career path that is envisioned and championed by educational standards setting organizations like the International Federation of Association of Pharmaceutical Physicians and Pharmaceutical Medicine (IFAPP), PharmaTrain, and Global Medicines Development Professionals (GMDP) Academy with education and training as pillars for its achievement.

Introduction A medicine’s acceptability is likely to have significant impact on pediatric adherence. The importance is underlined in EMA and FDA guidance on this topic where investigation of acceptability is stated as a regulatory expectation. Demonstrating acceptability can be challenging given there is no globally recognized definition and no standardized testing methodology or assessment criteria. Palatability and swallowability are generally recognized as important elements of acceptability, and this work proposes a definition of acceptability using these elements to give a composite endpoint for acceptability for pediatric subjects across all age ranges. Methods This composite acceptability endpoint is based on validated assessment methods for swallowability and palatability in children of different age groups using different galenic placebo formulations, in line with criteria proposed by EMA for assessing acceptability in children from newborn to 18 years of age. Data from two studies investigating mini-tablets, oblong tablets, orodispersible films, and syrup were analyzed to establish the validity, expediency, and applicability of the suggested composite acceptability assessment tool. Results The new composite endpoint is an efficient and suitable way to distinguish preferences of oral formulations: Mini-tablets and oblong tablets had significantly better acceptability than syrups and orodispersible films. Conclusion Since the suggested acceptability criteria takes both swallowability and palatability into account as composite endpoint, it is highly sensitive to detect acceptability differences between oral formulations. It is a well-defined valid approach, which meets regulatory requirements in an appropriate and comprehensive manner and may in future serve as a pragmatic, standardized method to assess and compare acceptability of pediatric formulations with active substances.

Plain language resources (PLR) are lay summaries of clinical trial results or plain language summaries of publications, in digital/visual/language formats. They aim to provide accurate information in jargon-free, and easy-to-understand language that can meet the health information needs of the general public, especially patients and caregivers. These are typically developed by the study sponsors or investigators, or by national public health bodies, research hospitals, patient organizations, and non-profit organizations. While the usefulness of PLR seems unequivocal, they have never been analyzed from the perspective of ethics. In this commentary, we do so and reflect on whether PLR are categorically advantageous or if they solve certain issues but raise new problems at the same time. Ethical concerns that PLR can potentially address include but are not limited to individual and community level health literacy, patient empowerment and autonomy. We also highlight the ethical issues that PLR may potentially exacerbate, such as fair balanced presentation and interpretation of medical knowledge, positive publication bias, and equitable access to information. PLR are important resources for patients, with promising implications for individual as well as community health. However, they require appropriate oversight and standards to optimize their potential value. Hence, we also highlight recommendations and best practices from our reading of the literature, that aim to minimize these biases.

BACKGROUND:This article focuses on potential strategies to support primary care researchers in working in partnership with the public and healthcare professionals. Partnership working can potentially to improve the relevance and usefulness of research and ensure better research and health outcomes. DISCUSSION:We describe what we mean by partnership working and the importance of reflecting on power and building trusting relationships. To share power in partnership working, it is essential to critically reflect on the multiple dimensions of power, their manifestations, and your own power. Power can influence relationships and therefore, it is essential to build trust with partners. Next, we outline how the context of primary care research and decisions about who you work with and how to work together, are vital considerations that are imbued with power. Lastly, we suggest different ways of working in partnership to address different dimensions of power. We provide examples from primary care research across Europe regarding how to recognise, tackle, and challenge, invisible, hidden and visible power. CONCLUSION:We conclude by proposing three calls to actions to encourage researchers working in primary care to consider the multiple dimensions of power and move towards partnership working. First is to use participatory methods to improve the inclusivity of your research. Second is to include patients and the public in decisions about the design, delivery and development of research and its outcomes. Third is to address various systemic and institutional barriers which hinder partnership working.

Since the acceptability of a medicine can significantly impact therapeutic outcomes, this study aimed to determine and compare the preferences of children, parents, and healthcare professionals for the most commonly used pediatric oral medicine formulations (syrup, mini-tablets, oblong tablets, round tablets) addressing all pediatric age groups, 0–<18 years (y). This survey study employed sex-, age-, and participant group-adapted questionnaires for eight cohorts of participants, i.e., children 6–<12 y, adolescents 12–<18 y, parents of children in four age groups (0–<2 y, 2–<6 y, 6–<12 y, and 12–<18 y), nurses, and pediatricians. Descriptive statistics were used for data analysis. In the age groups 0–<2 y and 2–<6 y, mini-tablets were preferred over syrup by all participants. In the age group 6–12 y, solid dosage forms were also preferred over syrup by all participants. In the age group 12–<18 y, healthcare professionals preferred solid dosage forms over syrup. Parents preferred higher amounts of mini-tablets and syrup compared to round and oblong tablets, while adolescents’ preferences did not differentiate between these formulations. Based on the study results and in contrast to current practice, it is suggested to consider solid dosage forms for future age-appropriate medicinal products already for younger age groups.

The currently valid Regulation (EU) 536/2014 on clinical trials with medicinal products for human use brings some innovations that are of great importance for patients who participate in clinical trials and patients with a need for innovative therapies. These concern patient protection, especially for vulnerable patient groups, as well as the conditions for further use of data obtained in clinical trials. The introduction of the largely publicly available information system CTIS (Clinical Trials Information System) will significantly improve the transparency of ongoing clinical trials. However, the possibilities of redacting commercially confidential information and postponing the publication of trial-related data and documents for several years may affect the scope of transparency. The request for the sponsor to provide a summary of the protocol and a summary of results of the clinical trial in layman's language (within one year after the end of the trial) also means a massive improvement in transparency for patients, even if this period seems too long, especially for patients with life-threatening diseases. Not all patient-relevant goals originally hoped for have been achieved. The systematic involvement of patients and patient organisations in the clinical trial protocol design is not required by the legislation enacted in 2014. The involvement of patients in the ethical review of the authorisation application dossier is only recommended in the introductory justification, but not codified in the law.

Abstract Background In line with the European Paediatric Regulation, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) asks for investigation of a medicine’s acceptability in paediatric medicines development. A standardised acceptability testing method combining the outcome of “swallowability” and “palatability” assessments to a “composite endpoint on acceptability” was recently developed. Before this method’s suitability for selection of the most acceptable drug formulation of a new medicine for children can be broadly recommended, the acceptance and relevance of such established acceptability needs the critical review and input from young patients with understanding of the medicines development methodology. The benefit of involving patients in drug product development, clinical research and innovation is well established. Methods During a focus group meeting with the KIDS Barcelona (young people advisory group, age 16–23 years) the suitability of the “composite endpoint on acceptability” methodology was assessed. Via electronic questionnaires the importance of involving patients in the medicines development and in the acceptability method development was investigated. Questions on how best to determine palatability and swallowability were asked. The relevance of all EMA-listed acceptability elements was assessed via coloured and numbered stickers and questionnaires. Results The results showed that the involvement of young people in the medicines and acceptability method development was rated high. The group worked out that a 5-point smiley Likert Scale is preferred for assessing acceptability by 6–11 year old patients, while a Visual Analogue Scale is preferred for collecting adolescents’ opinion. The ranking of the EMA-listed acceptability elements showed that palatability and swallowability are the most relevant parameters, while colour of the medicine was rated as least relevant. These results, established face-to-face, were confirmed in a repeat of the ranking through an electronic questionnaire, completed by the participants individually and remotely, 5 weeks later. Conclusion This work reinforced the need and value to involve young people in the medicines lifecycle, and specifically in this acceptability method development. As next step other focus group meetings with more young people from different European countries are planned.

In Silico Trials methodologies will play a growing and fundamental role in the development and de-risking of new medical devices in the future. While the regulatory pathway for Digital Patient and Personal Health Forecasting solutions is clear, it is more complex for In Silico Trials solutions, and therefore deserves a deeper analysis. In this position paper, we investigate the current state of the art towards the regulatory system for in silico trials applied to medical devices while exploring the European regulatory system toward this topic. We suggest that the European regulatory system should start a process of innovation: in principle to limit distorted quality by different internal processes within notified bodies, hence avoiding that the more innovative and competitive companies focus their attention on the needs of other large markets, like the USA, where the use of such radical innovations is already rapidly developing.

Health technology assessment (HTA) aims to be a systematic, transparent, unbiased synthesis of clinical efficacy, safety, and value of medical products (MPs) to help policymakers, payers, clinicians, and industry to make informed decisions. The evidence available for HTA has gaps-impeding timely prediction of the individual long-term effect in real clinical practice. Also, appraisal of an MP needs cross-stakeholder communication and engagement. Both aspects may benefit from extended use of modeling and simulation. Modeling is used in HTA for data-synthesis and health-economic projections. In parallel, regulatory consideration of model informed drug development (MIDD) has brought attention to mechanistic modeling techniques that could in fact be relevant for HTA. The ability to extrapolate and generate personalized predictions renders the mechanistic MIDD approaches suitable to support translation between clinical trial data into real-world evidence. In this perspective, we therefore discuss concrete examples of how mechanistic models could address HTA-related questions. We shed light on different stakeholder's contributions and needs in the appraisal phase and suggest how mechanistic modeling strategies and reporting can contribute to this effort. There are still barriers dissecting the HTA space and the clinical development space with regard to modeling: lack of an adapted model validation framework for decision-making process, inconsistent and unclear support by stakeholders, limited generalizable use cases, and absence of appropriate incentives. To address this challenge, we suggest to intensify the collaboration between competent authorities, drug developers and modelers with the aim to implement mechanistic models central in the evidence generation, synthesis, and appraisal of HTA so that the totality of mechanistic and clinical evidence can be leveraged by all relevant stakeholders.

Die nun gültige Verordnung (EU) 536/2014 über klinische Prüfungen mit Humanarzneimitteln bringt einige Neuerungen, die für PatientInnen in klinischen Prüfungen und PatientInnen mit Bedarf an innovativen Therapien von großer Bedeutung sind. Diese betreffen den Patientenschutz, vor allem für vulnerable Patientengruppen, sowie die Bedingungen für eine weitergehende Nutzung von in klinischen Prüfungen gewonnenen Daten. Die Einführung des weitgehend öffentlich zugänglichen Informationssystems CTIS (Clinical Trials Information System) wird die Transparenz über laufende klinische Prüfungen deutlich verbessern, wenn auch die Möglichkeiten zur Schwärzung von kommerziell vertraulicher Information sowie einer Verschiebung der Veröffentlichung von prüfungsbezogenen Daten und Dokumenten um mehrere Jahre den Umfang der Transparenz möglicherweise beeinflussen werden. Auch die vom Sponsor geforderte Bereitstellung einer Zusammenfassung des Prüfplans und der Ergebnisse der klinischen Prüfung in Laiensprache (innerhalb eines Jahres nach Ende der Prüfung) bedeutet eine massive Verbesserung der Transparenz für PatientInnen, auch wenn selbst dieser Zeitraum vor allem für PatientInnen mit lebensbedrohlichen Erkrankungen zu lang erscheint. Aber nicht alle ursprünglich erhofften patientenrelevanten Ziele wurden erreicht. Die systematische Einbindung von PatientInnen und Patientenorganisationen in die Gestaltung des Prüfplans wird in dem 2014 erlassenen Gesetz nicht verlangt. Die Beteiligung von PatientInnen bei der ethischen Bewertung des Genehmigungsantragsdossiers wird nur in der einleitenden Begründung empfohlen, nicht aber im Gesetz festgeschrieben.

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI), such as enalapril, are a cornerstone of treatment for pediatric heart failure which is still used off-label. Using a novel age-appropriate formulation of enalapril orodispersible minitablets (ODMTs), phase II/III open-label, multicenter pharmacokinetic (PK) bridging studies were performed in pediatric patients with heart failure due to dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) and congenital heart disease (CHD) in five participating European countries. Children were treated for 8 weeks with ODMTs according to an age-appropriate dosing schedule. The primary objective was to describe PK parameters (area under the curve (AUC), maximal concentration (Cmax), time to reach maximal concentration (t-max)) of enalapril and its active metabolite enalaprilat. Of 102 patients, 89 patients (n = 26, DCM; n = 63 CHD) were included in the primary PK endpoint analysis. Rate and extent of enalapril and its active metabolite enalaprilat were described and etiology and age could be identified as potential PK modifying factors. The dosing schedule appeared to be tolerated well and did not result in any significant drug-related serious adverse events. The PK analysis and the lack of severe safety events supports the applied age-appropriate dosing schedule for the enalapril ODMTs.

In order to propose a more precise definition and explore how to reduce ethical losses in randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs), we set out to identify trial participants who do not contribute to demonstrating that the treatment in the experimental arm is superior to that in the control arm. RCTs emerged mid-last century as the gold standard for assessing efficacy, becoming the cornerstone of the value of new therapies, yet their ethical grounds are a matter of debate. We introduce the concept of unnecessary participants in RCTs, the sum of non-informative participants and non-responders. The non-informative participants are considered not informative with respect to the efficacy measured in the trial in contrast to responders who carry all the information required to conclude on the treatment's efficacy. The non-responders present the event whether or not they are treated with the experimental treatment. The unnecessary participants carry the burden of having to participate in a clinical trial without benefiting from it, which might include experiencing side effects. Thus, these unnecessary participants carry the ethical loss that is inherent to the RCT methodology. On the contrary, responders to the experimental treatment bear its entire efficacy in the RCT. Starting from the proportions observed in a real placebo-controlled trial from the literature, we carried out simulations of RCTs progressively increasing the proportion of responders up to 100%. We show that the number of unnecessary participants decreases steadily until the RCT's ethical loss reaches a minimum. In parallel, the trial sample size decreases (presumably its cost as well), although the trial's statistical power increases as shown by the increase of the chi-square comparing the event rates between the two arms. Thus, we expect that increasing the proportion of responders in RCTs would contribute to making them more ethically acceptable, with less false negative outcomes.

Background: The European Patients' Academy on Therapeutic Innovation Switzerland (EUPATI CH) was established as an association in 2016 with the mission to improve patient empowerment in Switzerland, raise public awareness of EUPATI's education material, and foster multi-stakeholder partnerships in order to promote public involvement in all aspects of medicines research and development (R&D). In order to achieve its goal of improving patient involvement (PI) in all processes of medicines R&D in Switzerland and to obtain guidance and recommendations for future activities, EUPATI CH initiated a multi-stakeholder survey on PI experiences, hurdles, and best practices. The survey enabled EUPATI CH to obtain and analyze the views of various stakeholders and shape its workplan. Methods: Data collection occurred between January and July 2019 using a survey and semi-structured interviews with individual stakeholders from different groups. The online survey responses were analyzed using quantitative methods and the interviews were analyzed using qualitative methods. Results: The online survey was completed by 55 respondents (10%), and the semi-structured interviews were conducted with 14 stakeholders. Respondents to the online survey were patient representatives (45%), researchers from academia (25%), individuals from the pharmaceutical industry (9%), healthcare professionals (23%), and representatives from government agencies (6%). Some respondents were also members of EUPATI CH. Thirty-eight percent of respondents consider PI in Switzerland to be limited or absent. They identified the main barriers to PI as, first and foremost, a lack of funds and human resources (65%), followed by a lack of information and a lack of education on how to become a patient advocate (21%), a lack of collaboration with other stakeholders (16%), and a lack of adequate resources. Respondents' expectations of EUPATI CH's role in supporting PI were to provide education for active PI and improve networking and collaboration among stakeholders. Conclusions: EUPATI CH's multi-stakeholder research identified some of the difficulties in promoting PI in medicines R&D in Switzerland, in particular the complex collaboration among stakeholders and a lack of funds, human resources, and knowledge. To respond to these difficulties, EUPATI CH has begun preparing a basic training course for patients that is adapted to Switzerland.

Objectives: To analyze the current situation of cross-border access to clinical trials in the EU with an overview of stakeholders' real-life experience, and to identify the needs, challenges, and potential for facilitation of cross-border access. Methods: We employed a mixed methods design. Semi-structured interviews and an online survey were conducted with a wide range of stakeholders: patient representatives, investigators/physicians, policy and regulatory experts, academic and commercial sponsor representatives, ethics committee members. Interviews underwent a framework analysis. The survey was analyzed descriptively. Results: Three hundred ninety six individuals responded to the survey. The majority were investigators/physicians (46%) and patient representatives (33%). Thirty eight individuals were interviewed. The majority were investigators/physicians (29%) and patient representatives (29%). All European regions were represented in the study. The highest response rate was received from residents of Western European countries (38% of survey respondents, 45% of interviewees), the lowest from Eastern Europe (9% of survey respondents, 5% of interviewees). The study suggested that cross-border participation in clinical trials occurs in practice, however very rarely. Ninety two percentage of survey respondents and the majority of interviewees perceived as needed the possibility to access clinical trials abroad. However, most interviewees also opined that patients ideally should not have to travel in order to access experimental treatment. The lack of access to treatment in the home country of the patient was described as the main motivation to participate in a clinical trial in another country. The logistical and financial burden for patients was perceived as the biggest challenge. Different stakeholders expressed diverging opinions regarding the allocation of financial and organizational responsibility for enabling cross-border access to clinical trials. Participants provided a number of proposals for improving the current system, which were carefully evaluated by the research team and informed future recommendations. Conclusions: Participation in clinical trials abroad is happening rarely but should be facilitated. There was a consensus on the need for reliable and accessible information regarding practical aspects, as well as multi-stakeholder, multi-national recommendations on existing options and best practice on cross-border access to clinical trials. Broader interdisciplinary research is recommended before discussing options in the EU legislative framework to enable clearly defined conditions for cross-border access to clinical trials.

Abstract STUDY QUESTION Are progesterone vaginal pessaries 400 mg twice a day (bid) non-inferior to progesterone vaginal gel (90 mg) once a day (od) in the primary endpoint of clinical pregnancy rate after 38 days of luteal phase support in women undergoing in vitro fertilisation (IVF)? SUMMARY ANSWER Non-inferiority of progesterone vaginal pessaries 400 mg bid to progesterone 8% vaginal gel (90 mg od) was shown for clinical pregnancy rate after 38 days of luteal phase support. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY To maximise successful embryo transfer after IVF, additionally administered progesterone is used for proper endometrium transformation in the luteal phase. Vaginally administered progesterone results in adequate secretory transformation of the endometrium. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION This multicentre, multinational, open, randomised, two-parallel group, non-inferiority Phase 3 clinical trial was carried out at 17 study sites in five European countries (Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary and Serbia) between October 2013 and August 2014. An interactive web response system (IWRS) was implemented for treatment allocation at the sites. Power analysis, based on the assumptions of a non-inferiority margin of −9%, a significance level of α 2.5% (one-sided), power 90%, at a reference pregnancy rate for the progesterone vaginal gel group of 30%, as well as applying a dropout rate of 10%, yielded a total number of 766 patients to be randomised. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Women aged between 18 and 40 years with a clinical indication for IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) and embryo transfer were eligible to participate. The clinical pregnancy rate was assessed by fetal heart movement measured by transvaginal ultrasound at day 38 (D38) (primary endpoint) and D70. Also assessed were biochemical pregnancy rate (assessed by serum β-hCG ≥25 IU/L), clinical implantation rates at D38, patient evaluation of vaginal bleeding and discharge (assessed by diary) and adverse event (AE) incidence, severity and relationship to study medication. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE A total of 769 female patients were randomised to progesterone 400 mg vaginal pessaries bid (n = 385, 50.1%) or progesterone 90 mg vaginal gel od (n = 384, 49.9%). Patients receiving progesterone vaginal pessaries and progesterone vaginal gel were comparable in demographics, baseline characteristics and number of retrieved oocytes. In the full analysis set (FAS; n = 369 progesterone vaginal pessaries and n = 368 progesterone vaginal gel), clinical pregnancy rates on D38 were 38.3% for progesterone vaginal pessaries and 39.9% for progesterone vaginal gel. In the per protocol analysis set (PP; n = 357 progesterone vaginal pessaries and n = 356 progesterone vaginal gel), clinical pregnancy rates on D38 were 38.1% for progesterone vaginal pessaries and 40.4% for progesterone vaginal gel. For the differences in pregnancy rates between the progesterone vaginal pessaries group and the progesterone vaginal gel, the lower limit of the 97.5% CI was −8.6 and −9.5% for the FAS and PP datasets, respectively. The original prespecified non-inferiority margin of −9% was thus met in the FAS dataset but was marginally below this in the PP dataset. However, the pregnancy rate of the comparator was higher than the anticipated rate of 30%, and a predetermined logistic regression model including treatment group, country and age group effects without interaction terms showed non-inferiority of progesterone vaginal pessaries to progesterone vaginal gel for both the FAS and PP populations, in that the lower limits of the 95% CIs were above 0.7 for both analyses. As a result of this, the relevant authorities accepted to widen the acceptable non-inferiority margin to −10%, and as such both the FAS and PP populations succeeded in showing non-inferiority. Biochemical pregnancy and clinical implantation rates were comparable for both treatments. Both treatment groups showed similar high compliance throughout the study, and the safety profiles were also comparable between the groups. Drug-related AEs occurred with frequencies of 15.1% with progesterone vaginal pessaries and 14.4% with progesterone vaginal gel. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION Clinical pregnancy rate is a surrogate for the outcome of live birth rate. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS Progesterone 400 mg pessaries bid for luteal phase support is an effective, safe and tolerable treatment option for women undergoing IVF during ART. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) This work was funded by Actavis Group PTC ehf., Iceland, part of Teva Pharmaceuticals, and by L.D. Collins & Co. Ltd. Gedeon Richter plc has recently entered into a license and distribution agreement to commercialise the vaginal pessaries in the European Union (except Ireland/UK). The progesterone vaginal pessaries studied are now marketed as Cyclogest®, Amelgen®, Cyclovita®, Luteum and Cygest® throughout the EU, Asia and Middle East & North Africa. The competing interests are as follows. H.S.: employee of Gedeon Richter plc/PregLem S.A. C.K.: consultant to L.D. Collins & Co. Ltd and received consulting fees for work performed. T.D.H.: at the initiation and completion of this study, full professor at KU Leuven and Head of Leuven University Fertility Center at the University Hospital Gasthuisberg, Leuven, Belgium. In October 2015, T.D.H. became vice president of Global Medical Affairs Fertility at the pharmaceutical company Merck—marketing authorisation holder of the Progesterone vaginal gel (Crinone®)—and has remained a part-time professor at KU Leuven (Belgium) and adjunct professor at Yale University (New Haven, CT, USA). T.B.M.: at the initiation and completion of this study, employee of Actavis Group PTC ehf. I.K.: consultant to Actavis, later TEVA and received consulting fees for work performed. S.H.: at the initiation and completion of this study, employee of Actavis Group PTC ehf. Trial registration number EudraCT number 2013-001105-81 Trial registration date 2 July 2013 Date of first patient’s enrolment 9 October 2013

Background : Pediatric trials to add missing data for evidence-based pharmacotherapy are still scarce. A tailored training concept appears to be a promising tool to cope with critical and complex situations before enrolling the very first patient and subsequently to ensure high-quality study conduct. The aim was to facilitate study success by optimizing the preparedness of the study staff shift. Method: An interdisciplinary faculty developed a simulation training focusing on the communication within the informed consent procedure and the conduct of the complex pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) sampling within a simulation facility. Scenarios were video-debriefed by an audio-video system and manikins with artificial blood simulating patients were used. The training was evaluated by participants' self-assessment before and during trial recruitment. Results: The simulation training identified different optimization potentials for improved informed consent process and study conduct. It facilitated the reduction of avoidable errors, especially in the early phase of a clinical study. The knowledge gained through the intervention was used to train the study teams, improve the team composition and optimize the on-ward setting for the FP-7 funded “LENA” project (grant agreement no. 602295). Self-perceived ability to communicate core elements of the trial as well as its correct performance of sample preparation increased significantly (mean, 95% CI, p ≤ 0.0001) from 3 (2.5–3.5) to four points (4.0–4.5), and from 2 (1.5–2.5) to five points (4.0–5.0). Conclusion: An innovative training concept to optimize the informed consent process and study conduct was successfully developed and enabled high-quality conduct of the pediatric trials as of the very first patient visit.

The growing complexity of the drug development process requires globally recognized professionals who have not only completed the cognitive path of competence, i.e. the specialized post graduate course in Pharmaceutical Medicine, but suggests that these individuals should join a vocational training program in order to consolidate the seven competencies which characterize a competent Pharmaceutical Professional. The Specialist in Medicines Development (SMD) program developed by the IMI project PharmaTrain and further supported by the IMI project IMI-TRAIN can be considered a prototype vocational program. In order to test the SMD value, it was implemented in two countries, Japan and Italy. The preliminary results, after three years of its implementation, are here summarized, and some initial recommendations are offered to all other countries which may consider to establish this program.

Introduction Comparative pharmacokinetic (PK) data analysis of drugs administered using developed child-appropriate and market authorized dosage formulation is sparse and is important in pediatric drug development. Objectives To compare and evaluate any differences in PK of enalapril administered using two treatments of child-appropriate orodispersible minitablets (ODMTs) and market authorized reference tablet formulation (Renitec®) using PK compartment model and validated least square minimization method (LSMM) of parameter estimation. Methods Full profile data sets were obtained from a phase I clinical trial, whereby three treatments of enalapril, ie, reference tablets with 240 mL water (treatment A), child-appropriate ODMTs with 240 mL (treatment B), and ODMTs dispersed in the mouth with 20 mL water (treatment C), were administered to 24 healthy adult volunteers. Virtual validation analysis was conducted using R program to select accurate and precise LSMM of parameter estimation. For the selection of PK model and estimation of parameters, enalapril data were fitted with one-and two-compartment models with first order of absorption and elimination, with and without incorporated lag time parameter (tlag). The log-transformed PK parameters were statistically compared by the two-sided paired t-test with the level of significance of P<0.05. Results One-compartment model with first-order absorption and elimination and incorporated lag time adequately predicted concentrations of enalapril. Reciprocal of predicted concentration using iteratively reweighted LSMM was selected as the most appropriate method of parameter estimation. Comparison of PK parameters including rate constant of absorption and elimination, volume of distribution, and tlag between the three treatments showed significant difference (P=0.018) in tlag between treatments B and A only. Conclusion Compared with reference formulation, enalapril administered from child-appropriate ODMTs administered with 240 mL water appeared 4 minutes earlier in serum. No other differences were observed in absorption, elimination, and relative bioavailability of drug between the three treatment arms.