Search

Patients and prescribers need to be aware of adverse drug events to minimize the risk of their occurrence and the severity with which they appear. However, numerous studies show that being informed about adverse events can increase the possibility of suffering from them. Patients tend to overestimate the likelihood of experiencing the adverse events included in the label, and this can contribute to worsening the negative expectations which are at the root of the nocebo effect. In fact, patients can become anxious after reading the undesirable effects section of the leaflet and, in addition to suffering from the nocebo effect, might not take a drug they could benefit from due to the fear of experiencing adverse events. In addition, patients' attention can focus towards non-specific symptoms of daily living that can be misattributed to the drug and included in the labelling. This article proposes a number of suggestions to reduce the abovementioned unintended effects associated with labelling, namely, an increased focus on the excess risk of experiencing adverse events rather than crude incidence, using attribute framing to help patients to better understand the risk of experiencing adverse events, dividing the undesirable effect section of the leaflet into subsections according to the level of evidence supporting causal relationships and, finally, restricting the addition of non-specific adverse events that are also symptoms of daily living to only those where there is enough evidence to show they have been caused by the drug. More studies on how to minimize the nocebo effect induced by adverse event information should be performed, and these should be done in collaboration with health authorities, to reach a shared consensus on how to better present adverse event information in the label.

Elderly patients are the main users of drugs and they differ from younger patients. They are a heterogeneous population that cannot be defined only by age but should rather be stratified based on their frailty. The elderly have distinctive pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics, are frequently polymorbid, and are therefore treated with multiple drugs. They may experience adverse reactions that are difficult to recognize, since some of them present non-specific symptoms easily mistaken for geriatric conditions. Paradoxically, the elderly are underrepresented in clinical trials, especially the frail individuals whose pharmacological response and expected treatment outcome can be different from those of non-frail patients. This means that the benefit-risk balance of drugs used in frail elderly patients is frequently unknown. We present some proposals to overcome the barriers preventing the enrollment of frail elderly patients in clinical trials, and strategies for monitoring their therapy to minimize the risk of adverse reactions. Automated alerts for drug and drug-disease interactions could help appropriate prescribing but should flag only clinically relevant interactions. Pharmaceutical forms should be designed to allow easy dose adjustment and, together with packaging and labeling, should account for the physical and cognitive limitations of frail elderly patients. Aggregate pharmacovigilance reports should summarize the safety profile in the elderly, but rather than presenting the results by age they should focus on patients' frailty, perhaps using the number of comorbidities as a proxy when information on frailty is not available.

Current regulations require a description of the overall safety profile or the specific risks of a drug in multiple documents such as the Periodic and Development Safety Update Reports, Risk Management Plans (RMPs) and Signal Detection Reports. In a resource-constrained world, the need for preparing multiple documents reporting the same information results in shifting the focus from a thorough scientific and medical evaluation of the available data to maintaining compliance with regulatory timelines. Since the aim of drug safety is to understand and characterize product issues to take adequate risk minimization measures rather than to comply with bureaucratic requirements, there is the need to avoid redundancy. In order to identify core drug safety activities that need to be undertaken to protect patient safety and reduce the number of documents reporting the results of these activities, the author has reviewed the main topics included in the drug safety guidelines and templates. The topics and sources that need to be taken into account in the main regulatory documents have been found to greatly overlap and, in the future, as a result of the new Periodic Safety Update Report structure and requirements, in the author's opinion this overlap is likely to further increase. Many of the identified inter-document differences seemed to be substantially formal. The Development Safety Update Report, for example, requires separate presentation of the safety issues emerging from different sources followed by an overall evaluation of each safety issue. The RMP, instead, requires a detailed description of the safety issues without separate presentation of the evidence derived from each source. To some extent, however, the individual documents require an in-depth analysis of different aspects; the RMP, for example, requires an epidemiological description of the indication for which the drug is used and its risks. At the time of writing this article, this is not specifically required by other documents. The author has identified signal detection (intended not only as adverse event disproportionate reporting, but including non-clinical, laboratory, clinical analysis data and literature screening) and characterization as the basis for the preparation of all drug safety documents, which can be viewed as different ways of presenting the results of this activity. Therefore, the author proposes to merge all the aggregate reports required by current regulations into a single document - the Drug Safety Master File. This report should contain all the available information, from any source, regarding the potential and identified risks of a drug. It should be a living document updated and submitted to regulatory authorities on an ongoing basis.

Society has been increasingly intolerant of excuses for systems breakdown in many areas of public life. This is hardly surprising given that there is overwhelming evidence behind why processes fail and mistakes are made, and so, based on this evidence, processes should be designed to mitigate risk. The main root cause of many process failures can be attributed to the human factor, which encompasses all those factors that can influence people and their behaviour. Based on experience from other safety-conscious industries, there is a major move to manage the human factor as part of delivery of safety culture in healthcare systems. Since pharmaceutical companies are healthcare companies, it makes sense that the principles underlying a pharmaceutical safety culture are aligned with those of the healthcare sector. A good place to start applying human factor management to a pharmaceutical safety process would be the complex process required to produce a good quality Periodic Safety Update Report (PSUR) on time and to an acceptable format. This can be achieved by a process aimed at building on an ongoing learning cycle through planning, observing if execution matches expectations and learning from mistakes and through the interdependent teamwork of PSUR contributors providing mutual support. Such a framework of teamwork and communication principles can be applied to the entire process for the preparation and submission of PSURs.