↓ Skip to main content

Who is a ‘healthy subject’?—consensus results on pivotal eligibility criteria for clinical trials

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
patent
4 patents
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Who is a ‘healthy subject’?—consensus results on pivotal eligibility criteria for clinical trials
Published in
European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, January 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00228-016-2189-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kerstin Breithaupt-Groegler, Christoph Coch, Martin Coenen, Frank Donath, Katharina Erb-Zohar, Klaus Francke, Karin Goehler, Mario Iovino, Klaus Peter Kammerer, Gerd Mikus, Jens Rengelshausen, Hildegard Sourgens, Reinhard Schinzel, Thomas Sudhop, Georg Wensing

Abstract

A discussion forum was hosted by the German not-for-profit Association for Applied Human Pharmacology (AGAH e.V.) to critically review key eligibility criteria and stopping rules for clinical trials with healthy subjects, enrolling stakeholders from the pharmaceutical industry, contract research organisations, academia, ethics committees and competent authority. Pivotal eligibility criteria were defined for trials with new investigational medicinal products (IMPs) or with clinically established IMPs. In general, a pulse rate ranging between 50 and 90 beats/min is recommended for first-in-human (FIH) trials, while wider ranges seem acceptable for trials with clinically established IMPs, provided there are no indications of thyroid dysfunction. Hepatic laboratory parameters not to exceed the upper limit of normal (ULN) comprise ALT (alanine aminotransferase) and AST (aspartate aminotransferase) in FIH trials, whereas slight elevations (10% above ULN) seem acceptable in trials with clinically established IMPs without known hepatotoxicity. A normal renal function is required for any clinical trial in healthy subjects. A risk-adapted approach for stopping rules was adopted. Stopping rules for an individual subject are one adverse event of severe intensity or one serious adverse event. In case of a severe adverse event, some stakeholders demand a causal relationship with the IMP (i.e. an adverse reaction). Stopping rules for a cohort are one serious adverse reaction or ≥50% of subjects experiencing any adverse reaction of moderate or severe intensity. The application of this consensus resulted in a reduction in protocol deficiencies issued by the competent authority.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Unknown 66 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 21%
Researcher 9 13%
Other 7 10%
Student > Master 7 10%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Other 12 18%
Unknown 13 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 14 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 4%
Other 13 19%
Unknown 14 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 16 January 2024.
All research outputs
#7,039,059
of 23,510,717 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
#765
of 2,594 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#128,659
of 423,764 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
#12
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,510,717 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,594 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its peers.
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 423,764 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.