Search

Aims: Cancer drugs are increasingly approved through expedited regulatory pathways including the European conditional marketing authorization (CMA). Whether, when taking CMA post-approval confirmatory trials into account, the level of evidence and clinical benefit between CMA and standard approved (SMA) drugs differs remains unknown., Methods: We identified all CMA cancer indications converted to SMA in 2006-2020 and compared these to similar SMA indications with regard to pivotal trial and CMA post-approval confirmatory trial design, outcomes and demonstrated clinical benefit (per the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale). We tested for differences in clinical benefit and whether substantial clinical benefit was demonstrated. To account for the clinical benefit of unconverted CMA indications, we performed sensitivity analyses., Results: We included 15 SMA and 15 converted CMA cancer indications (17 remained unconverted). Approval of 11 SMA (73%) and four CMA indications (27%) was supported by a controlled trial. Improved overall survival (OS) was demonstrated for four SMA indications (27%). Improved quality of life (QoL) was demonstrated for three SMA (20%) and one CMA indication(s) (7%). Of subsequent CMA post-approval confirmatory trials, 11 were controlled (79%), one demonstrated improved OS (7%) and five improved QoL (36%). After conversion, CMA indications were associated with similar clinical benefit (P = .31) and substantial clinical benefit as SMA indications (risk ratio 1.4, 95% confidence interval 0.57-3.4)., Conclusion: While CMA cancer indications are initially associated with less comprehensive evidence than SMA indications, levels of evidence and clinical benefit are similar after conversion from CMA to SMA., (© 2021 The Authors. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Pharmacological Society.)

Background: The European Medicines Agency (EMA) aims to resolve uncertainties associated with conditionally approved drugs by imposing post-approval studies. Results from these studies may be relevant for health technology assessment (HTA) organizations. This study investigated the role of regulator-imposed post-approval studies within HTA., Methods: For all conditionally approved drugs up to December 2018, regulator-imposed post-approval studies were identified from EMA's public assessment reports. The availability for and inclusion of study results in relative effectiveness (re)assessments were analyzed for 4 European HTA organizations: NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, England/Wales), HAS (Haute Autorité de Santé, France), ZIN (Zorginstituut Nederland, the Netherlands) and the European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA, Europe). When study results became available between an HTA organization's initial assessment and reassessment, it was evaluated whether and how they affected the assessment and its outcome., Results: For 36 conditionally approved drugs, 98 post-approval studies were imposed. In total, 81 initial relative effectiveness assessments (REAs) and 13 reassessments were available, with numbers of drugs (re)assessed varying greatly between jurisdictions. Study results were available for 16 initial REAs (20%) and included in 14 (88%), and available for 10 reassessments (77%) and included in all (100%). Five reassessments had an outcome different from the initial REA, with 4 (2 positive and 2 negative changes) relating directly to the new study results. Reassessments often cited the inability of post-approval studies to resolve the concerns reported in the initial REA., Conclusion: Results from regulator-imposed post-approval studies for conditionally approved drugs were not often used in REAs by HTA organizations, because they were often not yet available at the time of initial assessment and because reassessments were scarce. When available, results from post-approval studies were almost always used within HTA, and they have led to changes in conclusions about drugs' relative effectiveness. Post-approval studies can be relevant within HTA but the current lack of alignment between regulators and HTA organizations limits their potential., (© 2022 The Author(s); Published by Kerman University of Medical Sciences This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.)

Background: Prior studies investigated regulatory actions that reflected a negative impact on drug risks. We aimed to evaluate occurrence of regulatory actions that reflected a negative or positive impact on benefits or risks, as well as relations between them. Research design and methods: We followed EMA-approved innovative drugs from approval (2009-2010) until July 2020 or withdrawal to identify regulatory actions. We assessed these for impact on benefits or risks and relations between actions. Additionally, we scrutinized drug lifecycles for time-variant characteristics that may contribute to specific patterns of regulatory actions. Results: We identified 14 letters and 361 label updates for 40 drugs. Of the label updates, 85 (24%) reflected a positive impact, mostly concerning indications, and 276 (76%) a negative impact, mostly adverse drug reactions. Many updates (54%) occurred simultaneously with other updates, also if these reflected a different impact. Furthermore, levels of patient exposure, innovativeness, needs for regulatory learning and unexpected risks may contribute to patterns of regulatory actions. Conclusions: Almost a quarter of regulatory actions reflected a positive impact on benefits and risks. Also, simultaneous learning about benefits and risks suggests an important role for drug development in risk characterization. These findings may impact regulatory analyses and decision-making.

We aimed to determine whether uncertainties identified by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) were associated with negative relative effectiveness assessments (REAs) and negative overall reimbursement recommendations by national health technology assessment (HTA) agencies. Therefore, we identified all HTA reports from Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS; France), National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE; England/Wales), Scottish Medicine Consortium (SMC; Scotland), and Zorginstituut Nederland (ZIN; The Netherlands) for a cohort of innovative medicines that the EMA had approved in 2009 to 2010 (excluding vaccines). Uncertainty regarding pivotal trial methodology, clinical outcomes, and their clinical relevance were combined to reflect a low, medium, or high level of uncertainty. We assessed associations by calculating risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and agreement between REA and overall reimbursement recommendation outcomes. We identified 36 medicines for which 121 reimbursement recommendations had been issued by the HTA agencies between September 2009 and July 2018. High versus low uncertainty was associated with an increased risk for negative REAs and negative overall reimbursement recommendations: RRs 1.9 (95% CI 0.9-3.9) and 1.6 (95% CI 0.7-3.5), respectively, which was supported by further sensitivity analyses. We identified a lack of agreement between 33 (27%) REA and overall reimbursement recommendation outcomes, which were mostly restricted recommendations that followed on negative REAs in case of low or medium uncertainty. In conclusion, high uncertainty identified by the EMA was associated with negative REAs and negative overall reimbursement recommendations. To reduce uncertainty and ultimately facilitate efficient patient access, regulators, HTA agencies, and other stakeholders should discuss how uncertainties should be weighed and addressed early in the drug life cycle of innovative treatments., (© 2021 The Authors. Clinical and Translational Science published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of the American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

Background: After market approval, new serious safety issues are regularly identified for drugs that lead to regulatory action to inform healthcare professionals. However, the effectiveness of these safety-related regulatory actions is under question. We currently lack a comprehensive overview of the effects of these drug safety warnings on clinical practice to resolve the debate about their effectiveness., Objective: The aim of this systematic review is to provide an overview of studies that assessed the impact of safety warnings., Study Selection: A systematic search was performed for articles assessing the impact of Direct Healthcare Professional Communications or 'Dear Doctor' letters, Black Box Warnings and Public Health Advisories on clinical behaviour published between January 1996 and January 2010. The following variables were extracted: publication year, country, name of the drug, safety issue, specific safety warning (Direct Healthcare Professional Communication/Black Box Warning/Public Health Advisory), effect (intended/unintended) of the safety warning, outcome measure and study design. Papers were checked for several quality aspects. Study data were summarized using descriptive analyses., Results: A total of 50 articles were identified. Two articles assessed two different drugs and were therefore counted twice (n = 52). Thirty-three articles described the impact of safety warnings issued for three drugs and drug groups, i.e. third-generation oral contraceptives, cisapride and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. The remaining 19 articles described a broad variety of 14 drugs and drug groups. Twenty-five studies applied an interrupted time series design, 23 a controlled or uncontrolled before/after design, and four articles applied both. None of the articles could rule out the influence of confounding factors. The intended effects were reported in 18 (72%) of the 25 before/after analyses, whereas only 11 (41%) of the 27 interrupted time series analyses reported an impact. Only two (8%) of the before/after analyses against 11 (41%) of the interrupted time series analyses reported mixed impacts. When unintended effects were assessed in case of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and third-generation oral contraceptives, these were almost always present: in 19 of 22 and 4 of 5 articles, respectively. Our review shows that safety-related regulatory action can have some impact on clinical practice but firm conclusions are difficult to draw. Evidence is primarily based on three drugs and drug groups. Almost half of the studies had inadequate before/after designs and the heterogeneity in analyses and outcome measures hampered the reporting of overall effect sizes. Studies with adequate interrupted time series design reported a more mixed impact of safety warnings than before/after studies. Furthermore, this review shows the relevance of considering not only the intended but also the unintended effects of safety warnings., Conclusions: There is a clear need for further research with appropriate study designs and statistical analyses, with more attention to confounding factors such as media coverage, to understand the impact of safety-related regulatory action.

Purpose: Subjects using functional foods with approved health claims may be more likely to be non-adherent with prescribed drug therapy. This study aimed to assess the influence of the use of phytosterol/-stanol-enriched functional foods on adherence to statin therapy among patients initiating treatment., Methods: We used data from the statin intervention research project, a randomized controlled trial aimed at improving adherence to statins. In the trial, new statin users were randomized to receive either usual care or extensive pharmaceutical care consisting of five individual counseling sessions. Customary use of phytosterol/-stanol-enriched products was identified by questionnaires filled out by all participants. Automated pharmacy-dispensing records were used to assess adherence in terms of discontinuation of therapy and the medication possession ratio. Analyses were performed for the overall population, as well as stratified for receiving pharmaceutical or usual care., Results: The use of functional foods enriched with phytosterols/-stanols was not related to discontinuation of statin therapy, neither in the overall population (overall population adjusted hazard rate ratio (HR(adj)): 0.80 [95%CI: 0.59-1.08]), nor when stratified by randomization arm (pharmaceutical care HR(adj): 0.77 [95%CI: 0.49-1.23]); usual care HR(adj): 0.81 [95%CI: 0.54-1.21]). The median medication possession ratio was significantly lower in users of phytosterols/-stanols in the usual care group, but the difference was not clinically relevant., Conclusions: Customary use of phytosterol/-stanol-enriched functional foods did not affect adherence to statins in new users that are well informed on the beneficial effects of statin therapy. In daily medical practice, general practitioners and pharmacists should urge subjects not to take phytosterol/-stanol-enriched functional foods as replacement for their prescribed medication., (Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: Despite the well-known beneficial effects of statins, many patients do not adhere to chronic medication regimens., Objective: To implement and assess the effectiveness of a community pharmacy-based pharmaceutical care program developed to improve patients' adherence to statin therapy., Methods: An open-label, prospective, randomized controlled trial was conducted at 26 community pharmacies in the Netherlands. New users of statins who were aged 18 years or older were randomly assigned to receive either usual care or a pharmacist intervention. The intervention consisted of 5 individual counseling sessions by a pharmacist during a 1-year period. During these sessions, patients received structured education about the importance of medication adherence, lipid levels were measured, and the association between adherence and lipid levels was discussed. Adherence to statin therapy was assessed as discontinuation rates 6 and 12 months after statin initiation, and as the medication possession ratio (MPR), and compared between the pharmaceutical care and usual care groups., Results: A total of 899 subjects (439 in the pharmaceutical care group and 460 in the usual care group) were evaluable for effectiveness analysis. The pharmaceutical care program resulted in a significantly lower rate of discontinuation within 6 months after initiating therapy versus usual care (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.96). No significant difference between groups was found in discontinuation at 12 months (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.10). Median MPR was very high (>99%) in both groups and did not differ between groups., Conclusions: These results demonstrate the feasibility and effectiveness of a community pharmacy-based pharmaceutical care program to improve medication adherence in new users of statins. Frequent counseling sessions (every 3 months) are necessary to maintain the positive effects on discontinuation. Although improvements are modest, the program can be applied easily to a larger population and have a large impact, as the interventions are relatively inexpensive and easy to implement in clinical practice.

Objective: To determine the effect of the number of different drugs with adherence to medication of at least 70% on recurrent admission for myocardial infarction (MI) in patients with a history of MI., Design: Nested case-control study in a dynamic cohort., Setting: PHARMO database that contains pharmacy dispensing records and hospital discharge records of 350,000 Dutch citizens., Subjects: All patients admitted to hospital for first MI (ICD-9 410) from 1991 to 2000 with at least a 30-day survival after admission. Cases were admitted for recurrent MI and were matched for age, sex, and year of admission with controls who did not have a recurrent MI., Main Outcome Measure(s): Odds ratio with 95% CI for admission for recurrent MI. Exposure was the number of preventive drugs (antiplatelet agents, statins and beta blockers or ACE inhibitors) used for at least 70% of the time., Results: 389 cases were matched with 2344 controls. The use of one drug was associated with a 6% odds reduction (95% CI 30% reduction to 28% increase) for admission for recurrent MI. The use of two or three drugs was associated with reductions of 26% and 41% (47% reduction to 3% increase and 6% to 63% reduction, respectively). Addition of one drug caused a 16% reduction (4% to 26%)., Conclusions: Multiple drug treatment decreases admissions for recurrent MI in patients with a history of MI. Every addition of a drug, regardless of drug class, reduces the risk even further. These results support the treatment strategies as applied in daily practice.

Study Objective: To develop and evaluate a peer review group (PRG) meeting using feedback data on a patient level to improve the quality of drug therapy for prevention of recurrent myocardial infarction., Design: Prospective follow-up study., Data Source: General practitioners' computerized patients records (intervention patients) and the PHARMO record linkage system (controls)., Patients: Forty patients in the intervention group and 1030 control patients; both groups had documented myocardial infarction., Intervention: The intervention, which was based on the principles of group academic detailing, consisted of scoring current cardiovascular treatment on separate forms for each patient, presenting an overview of, and discussing, evidence-based treatment after myocardial infarction, defining the target population, formulating a binding consensus, and identifying patients who were eligible for improvement of pharmacotherapy., Measurements and Main Results: Drug therapy and adherence to the newly formulated PRG consensus were assessed at baseline and 1 year after the intervention. Of the patients who received the intervention and were not treated according to the PRG consensus at baseline, 40% received treatment according to the consensus 12 months after the PRG meeting. In the control group, the proportion of patients was 9.5% (prevalence ratio 4.2, 95% confidence interval 1.8-9.7)., Conclusion: Peer review group meetings can be a valuable tool for improving pharmacotherapy after myocardial infarction.

Background: Myocardial infarction (MI) is a common cause of death in developed countries. Long-term preventive pharmacotherapy has been shown to decrease mortality and morbidity after MI. Based on a literature search, studies of these therapies to date have estimated the use of monotherapy, whereas many patients are prescribed combination therapy. Thus, assessment of long-term combination drug use after MI is timely., Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the use of oral antithrombotics, beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, hydroxymethyl-glutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors ("statins"), and their combinations after MI at discharge and during 12-year follow-up., Methods: This community-based, retrospective data analysis was conducted at Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands. Data from patients aged > or =18 years at hospital admission who experienced nonfatal acute MI between 1991 and 2000 and had a duration of follow-up > or =30 days were included in the analysis. Data were retrieved from the Pharmo Record Linkage System database, which links pharmacies' dispensation records to hospitals' discharge records on an individual patient level, allowing the investigator to observe individual patients' medication use over time. Primary outcome measures were the use of preventive medicines (oral antithrombotics, beta-blockers, ACE inhibitors, and statins) at discharge, overall use, and persistence during 12-year follow-up., Results: Of 330,000 patients in the database, 4007 were included in the analysis (2828 men, 1179 women; mean [SD] age, 63.5 [12.5] years). Use at discharge and overall use of oral antithrombotics and statins increased significantly between 1991 and 2000, whereas use of beta-blockers and ACE inhibitors increased mainly in patients discharged in the latter years of the follow-up period. Therapy with any combination of drugs increased strikingly from 1991 to 2000, from 47% to 90%. At 1 year after discharge, 32% of patients had discontinued their first-prescribed combination treatments. At 5 years after discharge, this rate increased to 57%, suggesting a low rate of persistence, Conclusions: Based on the results of this retrospective data analysis, the use of MI-preventive drug treatment at and after discharge increased significantly in this population in The Netherlands during the 1990s. Combination therapy increased strikingly. However, persistence with combination therapy was low.

Objective: To provide an evidence-based overview of drug treatment for long-term secondary prevention of myocardial infarction (MI)., Data Sources: We conducted searches of MEDLINE (1966-August 2002), the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register, and the reference list of each identified study., Study Selection/data Extraction: Trials and meta-analyses were included using the following criteria: (1) randomized trials, (2) description of identification procedure, inclusion criteria, outcome measures, and statistical methods, (3) confirmed MIs, (4) treatment continued for at least 1 month, and (5) all-cause mortality as primary outcome; other events as secondary outcomes. All authors interpreted the results from trials that met the inclusion criteria., Data Synthesis: In randomized clinical trials, low-dose aspirin, high-intensity oral anticoagulants, beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, and statins decreased the risk of mortality and reinfarction after MI. Randomized clinical trials using calcium-channel blockers, antiarrhythmics, and hormone replacement therapy did not show benefits in patients with prior MI. Effects of the combined use of aspirin or oral anticoagulants with beta-blockers or ACE inhibitors plus statins must be derived from subgroup analysis of trials, but seem to be beneficial., Conclusions: The use of at least aspirin or an oral anticoagulant, a beta-blocker or an ACE inhibitor, plus a statin should be incorporated in the treatment routine. Clopidogrel treatment might be an alternative to aspirin. Standard addition of a beta-blocker to ACE inhibitor-treated patients without reduced left-ventricular ejection fraction seems to be untimely.

Objective: To examine the use of oral antithrombotics (i.e., antiplatelet agents, oral anticoagulants) after myocardial infarction (MI) in the Netherlands from 1988 to 1998., Methods: Retrospective follow-up of 3800 patients with MI, using data from the PHARMO Record Linkage System., Results: From 1988 to 1998, oral antithrombotic treatment increased significantly from 54.0% to 88.9%. In 1998, only 75.8% of patients who experienced a MI in the late 1980s received oral antithrombotic treatment compared with 94.4% of those who experienced a recent MI., Conclusions: Oral antithrombotics were considerably underused in patients with a past history of MI. Therefore, these patients should be reviewed for antithrombotic therapy to assess whether their failure to use oral antithrombotics was right or wrong, and whether treatment should be initiated if possible.