Search

Introduction: Additional risk minimisation measures (aRMMs) may be required to minimise important risks of medicines. aRMMs may be required at the time of authorisation, but may also be introduced or discontinued during the product life cycle as new safety information arises. The aim of this study is to describe post-authorisation introductions of new aRMMs and discontinuations of existing aRMMs for medicines authorised in the European Union (EU). Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study that included all new active substances authorised through the EU centralised procedure between January 1st 2006 and December 31st 2017. Data was extracted from European Public Assessment Reports available on the website of the European Medicines Agency (ema.europa.eu). Medicines were followed up from the date of marketing authorisation (MA) until first introduction or discontinuation of aRMMs, excluding Direct Healthcare Professional Communications (DHPCs), withdrawal/suspension/revocation of the MA, or July 1st 2018, when data extraction took place. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse frequency data, and survival analysis was used to calculate 5- and 10-year probability of introduction or discontinuation of aRMMs. Results: A total of 476 medicines were authorised during the study period. The probability of getting aRMMs after authorisation for products authorised without aRMMs was 3.5% [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.2–5.7] within 5 years after authorisation and 6.9% (95% CI 2.6–11) within 10 years after authorisation. For products authorised with aRMMs, the probability of discontinuation of aRMMs was 0.9% (95% CI 0–2.6) within 5 years and 8.3% (95% CI 0–16.1) within 10 years after authorisation. Conclusions: We found low probabilities of introduction and discontinuation of aRMMs (excluding DHPCs) during the product life cycle for medicines authorised between 2006 and 2017. The low rate of discontinuation may potentially be due to a lack of robust data on effectiveness of aRMMs. Further research is needed to get more insight into the dynamics of aRMMs during the medicine life cycle. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Medication errors can have serious consequences for patients. To prevent the occurrence of medication errors in clinical practice, safety concerns may be included in the risk management plan and subsequently be addressed with routine and/or additional risk minimisation measures.Objective: This study aims to describe safety concerns around medication errors and the risk minimisation measures for centrally authorised products in the European Union.Methods: All safety concerns included in the risk management plans of originator centrally authorised products, authorised between 1 January, 2010 and 31 December, 2017, were collected from the European Public Assessment Report registry. Medication error safety concerns were categorised by Anatomical Therapeutic Classification code, year of authorisation, type of medication error and type of risk minimisation measure.Results: During the study period, 311 centrally authorised products were approved, of which 84 had at least one medication error safety concern. The proportion of centrally authorised products with medication error safety concerns showed variation between 2010 and 2017 ranging from 15.2% to 36.4%. In total, 95 medication error safety concerns were identified. The type of medication error was highly variable, drug administration error was listed most frequently (n = 17). For 27 out of 95 medication error safety concerns, corresponding to 23 centrally authorised products, additional risk minimisation measures were required. All additional risk minimisation measures consisted of educational material targeted at healthcare professionals (85.2%) and/or patients (51.9%). For 78.3% of centrally authorised products with additional risk minimisation measures for medication errors, studies to evaluate the effectiveness of the additional risk minimisation measures were agreed upon.Conclusions: Medication error safety concerns were listed for almost a quarter of centrally authorised products approved during the study period. Further research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness and continued need for additional risk minimisation measures for medication errors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In November 2013, a team of European regulators initiated the Strengthening Collaboration for Operating Pharmacovigilance in Europe (SCOPE) Joint Action. Funded by the Health Programme of the European Union, and with contributions from the involved Member States, SCOPE gathered information and expertise on how regulators in Member States run their national pharmacovigilance systems to meet the requirements of the pharmacovigilance legislation that came into effect in June 2012. The SCOPE project evaluated then-current practices and developed tools to further improve the skills and capability in the pharmacovigilance network. The project was divided into eight separate work streams, five of which concentrated on pharmacovigilance topics-collecting information on suspected adverse drug reactions, identifying and managing safety issues (signals), communicating risk and assessing risk minimisation measures, supported by effective quality management systems. The other three work streams focused on the functional aspects-coordination, communication and evaluation of the project. Through the project, SCOPE delivered guidance, training in key aspects of pharmacovigilance, and tools and templates to support best practice. The deliverables provide practical guidance that those working in the European national competent authorities can take to strengthen their national systems. The SCOPE outputs can be useful for other stakeholders involved in pharmacovigilance activities, including the pharmaceutical industry, healthcare professionals, patient and consumer organisations, and academia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objective: New pharmacovigilance legislation in the European Union has underlined the importance of signal management, giving the European Medicines Agency's newly established Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) the mandate to oversee all aspects of the use of medicinal products including detection, assessment, minimization, and communication relating to the risk of adverse reactions. In this study, we describe the signals as brought to the PRAC during the first 18 months of its operation and the ensuing regulatory actions.Methods: Data were collected from publicly available sources, for the period July 2012-December 2013, classified according to predefined rules, and described using the appropriate descriptive statistics. Suspected adverse drug reactions were categorized into the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Affairs and drug names were mapped to the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical codes.Results: During the study period, 125 signals concerning 96 medicinal products were discussed by the PRAC. The majority of signals were triggered by spontaneous reports (62%) and the median drug age (since marketing authorization) for drugs that prompted a signal was 12 years, significantly less compared with drugs that had no signal within the same period (20 years). The mean time until a decision was reached by the PRAC was 75 days (median 30 days, range 0-273) with 43% of all decisions taken during the first meeting. The decisions to start a referral and to send a direct healthcare professional communication took the least amount of time [54 days (median 27 days, range 0-186) and 51 days (median 0 days, range 0-153)].Conclusions: The importance of spontaneous reporting in signal detection and monitoring of safety issues throughout the entire life cycle of a medicinal product is confirmed in this study. The amount of time a drug has been on the market is correlated with the number of signals detected. The PRAC decision-making process seems efficient particularly with respect to serious concerns; its role in improving signal prioritization and real-time signal management will be further clarified in its subsequent years of operation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: At time of approval, knowledge of the full benefit risk of any drug is limited, in particular with regards to safety. Post-approval surveillance of potential drug safety concerns is recognized as an important task of regulatory agencies. For innovative, often first-in-class drugs, safety knowledge at time of approval is often even less extensive and these may require tighter scrutiny post approval. Objective: We evaluated whether more post-approval serious safety issues were identified for drugs with a higher level of innovation. Methods: A cohort study was performed that included all new active substances approved under the European Centralized Procedure and for which serious safety issues were identified post-approval from 1 January 1999 to 1 January 2012. Serious safety issues were defined as issues requiring a Direct Healthcare Professional Communication to alert individual healthcare professionals of a new serious safety issue, or a safety-related drug withdrawal. Data were retrieved from publicly available websites of the Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board and the European Medicines Agency. The level of innovation was scored using a validated algorithm, grading drugs as important (A), moderate (B) or modest (C) innovations or as pharmacological or technological (pharm/tech) innovations. The data were analyzed using appropriate descriptive statistics and Kaplan-Meier analysis, with a Mantel-Cox log-rank test, and Cox-regression models correcting for follow-up duration, to identify a possible trend in serious safety issues with an increasing level of innovation. Results: In Europe, 279 new drugs were approved between 1999 and 2011. Fifty-nine (21 %) were graded as important, 63 (23 %) moderate, or 34 (12 %) modest innovations and 123 (44 %) as non-innovative (pharm/tech), while 15 (25 %), 13 (21 %), 8 (24 %) and 17 (14 %) had post-approval safety issues, respectively ( p = 0.06, linear-by-linear test). Five drugs were withdrawn from the market. The Kaplan-Meier-derived probability for having a first serious safety issue was statistically significant, log-rank (Mantel-Cox) p = 0.036. In the final adjusted Cox proportional hazard model there was no statistically significant difference in occurrence of a first serious safety issue for important, moderate and modest innovations versus non-innovative drugs; hazard ratios 1.76 (95 % CI 0.82-3.77), 1.61 (95 % CI 0.76-3.41)], and 1.25 (95 % CI 0.51-3.06), respectively. Conclusion: A higher level of innovation was not clearly related to an increased risk of serious safety issues identified after approval. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Insights into the time needed for evaluation of risk minimization measures' (RMMs) effectiveness might identify areas for improvement. We assessed the duration of time intervals between regulatory milestones for RMM effectiveness studies assessed by the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) of the European Medicines Agency (EMA). We included completed RMM effectiveness post-authorization safety studies (PASSs) assessed by PRAC between 2016 and 2022. Regulatory documents submitted by marketing authorization holders and assessment reports were extracted from non-public EMA databases. To calculate the duration of time intervals, we collected the dates of study request, protocol assessment start, protocol approval, study start, final study report assessment start, and final study report PRAC outcome. We identified 98 PASSs. The median duration from study request to final study report PRAC outcome was 52 months (Q1-Q3: 40-70). The median duration from study request to study start was 21 months (Q1-Q3: 15-30; n = 95) and from study start to final study report assessment start was 21 months (Q1-Q3: 13-36; n = 95). The final study report assessment often comprised <6 months (median: 4; Q1-Q3: 1-6). For PASSs with a PRAC-approved protocol (n = 80, 81.6%), the median duration of protocol assessment was 7 months (Q1-Q3: 4-10). Concluding, the median duration from study request to RMM effectiveness PASS completion exceeded 4 years. Next to the study conduct duration, the period from study request until study start was the most time-consuming. The duration of this period might be minimized by improved guidance on RMM effectiveness PASSs and encouraging timely protocol submission., (© 2025 The Author(s). Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

Studies using real-world data (RWD) can complement evidence from clinical trials and fill evidence gaps during different stages of a medicine's lifecycle. This review presents the experience resulting from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) pilot to generate RWE to support evaluations by EU regulators and down-stream decision makers from September 2021 to February 2023. A total of 61 research topics were identified for RWE generation during this period, covering a wide range of research questions, primarily generating evidence on medicines safety (22, 36%), followed by questions on the design and feasibility of clinical trials (11, 18%), drug utilization (10, 16%), clinical management (10, 16%), and disease epidemiology. A significant number of questions were related to the pediatric population and/or rare diseases. A total of 27 regulatory-led RWD studies have been conducted. Most studies were descriptive and aimed at estimating incidence and prevalence rates of clinical outcomes including adverse events or to evaluate medicines utilization. The review highlights key learnings to guide further efforts to enable the use and establish the value of real-world evidence (RWE) for regulatory decisions. For instance, there is a need to access additional fit-for-purpose and representative data, and to explore further means to provide timely evidence that meets regulatory timelines. The need for early interactions and close collaboration with study requesters, e.g., from the Agency's scientific Committees, to better understand the research question is equally important. Finally, the review provides our perspective on the way forward to maximize the potential of regulatory-led RWE generation., (© 2024 The Author(s). Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

Purpose: The European Medicines Agency's (EMA) Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) launched a strategy to examine the public health impact of major regulatory interventions aimed at minimising risks of medicinal products. We conducted a lessons learnt analysis of impact studies completed between 2015 and 2023., Methods: We surveyed PRAC Sponsors and (Co-)Rapporteurs involved in the evaluation of 12 impact studies (10 commissioned by EMA and 2 conducted collaboratively by Member States) to explore how these support regulatory decision-making. Questions covered achievement of study objectives, risk minimisation effectiveness, added value for regulatory decision-making, and recommendations for future impact studies. Themes were generated using thematic content analysis., Results: Survey responses from 15 PRAC Sponsors and (Co-)Rapporteurs from 10 European Union Member States were included in the analysis. Among four cross-sectional surveys and eight drug utilisation studies, 50% achieved all objectives, the other studies partially due to limitations. Two studies concluded that risk minimisation measures were overall effective, two were effective with variation across countries, two were partially effective and four studies showed limited effectiveness. Two studies were deemed inconclusive due to limitations. The reasons for the limited effectiveness of risk minimisation may be explored using mixed-method approaches. Assessment of study feasibility and a priori discussion of effectiveness measurements is important., Conclusion: Despite limitations, impact research adds value to regulatory decision-making by addressing knowledge gaps and providing additional information on unintended consequences of regulatory interventions. Our recommendations will help to improve planning, conducting and interpretating future impact studies., (© 2024 The Author(s). Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Introduction: In studies evaluating the effectiveness of additional risk minimisation measures (aRMMs), the need for speed must be properly balanced with the quality of the study. We assessed the duration of aRMM effectiveness evaluations, using additional pharmacovigilance activities, for centrally authorised medicinal products in the European Union., Methods: We established a cohort of medicinal products with aRMMs at marketing authorisation (MA) that were centrally authorised from July 2012-December 2021 using the European Public Assessment Reports. Evaluation studies were identified from the Risk Management Plans at the time of MA. Subsequently, we retrieved protocols, final study reports, Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) assessment reports, and PRAC minutes. We calculated the probability of completing an effectiveness evaluation within 60 months after MA using time-to-event analyses. Besides, we compared the planned final report with the actual final report date., Results: We identified 134 medicinal products authorised with aRMMs, of which almost half (n = 63, 47.0%) had an effectiveness evaluation study. The probability of an evaluation for a medicinal product being completed within 60 months after MA was 20.7% (95% CI 6.8-32.6). Regarding study design, the probability of completing a study was higher for cross-sectional studies when compared to cohort studies (p = 0.002). Moreover, 81.0% of studies were delayed when compared to their planned final report date., Conclusion: The probability of completing an aRMM effectiveness evaluation at time for renewal of the MA was only one in five. Furthermore, estimates of the duration of studies around MA are too optimistic, with the majority being delayed., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Objective: Patients' opinions are essential in optimizing risk minimization measures (RMMs) because they bring their real-life experience of disease management and medicines' use into the regulatory assessments. The aim of the survey launched in 2018 by the European Medicines Agency, in collaboration with the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee, was to consult targeted patient groups treated with rituximab for nononcology indications to evaluate their preferences on how to receive information on progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy and (serious) infections. Additional RMMs such as educational materials for physicians and patients including a patient alert card (PAC) and a patient brochure (PB) are in place to minimize these risks., Methods: A question-based online survey in English created on the EU-Survey platform and disseminated primarily via relevant European patient organizations., Results: Most patients (47 of 61) had knowledge of these potential adverse effects. Mostly, they were informed by a healthcare professional. Both a PAC and a PB were supported as useful tools to raise awareness of these adverse effects and thus minimize the potential risks among patients. Where the participants had to choose only 1 of these educational materials, 43 of them preferred a PAC, a shorted description that is always held by the patient and reaches the relevant healthcare professional when needed., Conclusions: Collecting patients' preferences supports periodic assessment of additional RMMs and increase transparency of regulatory processes. Considering the limitations of this initial survey, further investigation is needed to generalize the results into patients' safety outcomes., Competing Interests: The views expressed in this article are the personal views of the authors and may not be understood or quoted as being made on behalf of or reflecting the position of the regulatory agencies or of the European Medicines Agency or one of its committees or working parties with which the authors are affiliated. As of October 2019, K.S. is a full-time employee of State Institute for Drug Control, Czech Republic; and as of March 2019, D.I.S. is an independent pharmacovigilance advisor at Unique Advice. However, all of their contributions to this work were made before their respective time of departure, as part of their employment at the European Medicines Agency and Danish Medicines Board, respectively. The other authors disclose no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Introduction : Risk Management Plans (RMPs) aim to optimize a medicinal product's benefit/risk balance for the individual patient and the target population. Despite differences in regulatory RMP requirements between jurisdictions worldwide, their ultimate aim is to protect public health. Areas covered : The review presents findings of different RMP requirements by different regulatory authorities and additional risk minimization measures (issued between January 2010 and December 2018) indicate how RMPs and additional risk minimization measures translate into actions to protect public health within the European Union (EU) member states and worldwide. Areas covered also include the different International Council for Harmonization (ICH) regional requirements of RMPs by the different regulatory authorities as well as data regarding the number of RMP assessments carried out by the EMA, FDA and Japan, and number of safety communications issued in Malta (taken as an example of a typical small EU member state) and in the United States of America (USA). Expert opinion : The EU legislation adopted in 2010 required RMPs to be included in all new applications for medicinal products in the EU, both for EU centrally authorized and nationally authorized medicinal products. Lessons learnt by EU regulators during this process are discussed in this review.

Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis (SJS/TEN) are potentially life-threatening, immune-mediated adverse reactions characterized by widespread erythema, epidermal necrosis, and detachment of skin and mucosa. Efforts to grow and develop functional international collaborations and a multidisciplinary interactive network focusing on SJS/TEN as an uncommon but high burden disease will be necessary to improve efforts in prevention, early diagnosis and improved acute and long-term management. SJS/TEN 2019: From Science to Translation was a 1.5-day scientific program held April 26-27, 2019, in Vancouver, Canada. The meeting successfully engaged clinicians, researchers, and patients and conducted many productive discussions on research and patient care needs., (Crown Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Studies measuring the effectiveness of risk minimization measures (RMMs) submitted by pharmaceutical companies to the European Medicines Agency are part of the post-authorization regulatory requirements and represent an important source of data covering a range of medicinal products and safety-related issues. Their objectives, design, and the associated regulatory outcomes were reviewed, and conclusions were drawn that may support future progress in risk minimization evaluation., Methods: Information was obtained from risk management plans, study protocols, clinical study reports, and assessment reports of 157 medicinal products authorized for cardiovascular, endocrinology, and metabolic indications. We selected observational studies measuring, as outcomes of interest, the relationship between the RMMs in place and (1) implementation measures, such as clinical knowledge or physicians` compliance to recommendations contained in the RMMs; and (2) occurrence or reduced severity of the adverse drug reactions for which the RMMs were required., Results: Of 59 eligible studies (24 completed, 35 ongoing), 44 assessed implementation measures, whereas only 15 assessed safety outcomes (1 study as a single endpoint and 14 studies with other endpoints). Fifty-one studies used non-experimental designs and 25 studies employed electronic healthcare databases for analysis. Of the 24 completed studies, 17 were considered satisfactory and supported immediate regulatory decision making, 6 were considered inconclusive and required new evaluations, and 1 was terminated early because new safety restrictions were required, thereby necessitating a new evaluation. Compliance with agreed deadlines was considered acceptable in 21 of 24 completed studies; the average time for a submission was 37 months (standard deviation ± 17), with differences observed by type of data source employed., Conclusions: Three important gaps in the evaluation plans of RMMs were identified: lack of early feedback on implementation, limited evaluation of safety outcomes, and inability to provide information on the effectiveness from an integrated measurement of different elements of a set of risk minimization tools. More robust evidence is needed to advance regulatory science and support more rapid adjustment of risk minimization strategies as needed.

Background: The amount of drug exposure, pre and post approval, is considered to be a direct determinant of knowledge about the safety of a drug. A larger pre-approval exposed population is supposed to reduce the risk of unanticipated safety issues post-approval. The amount of use in the postapproval population is also expected to influence the occurrence and timing of safety issues. We investigated how the amount of pre and post approval exposure influences the detection of post-approval safety issues., Methods: A cohort of innovative drugs approved in Europe was followed for the period of 2012-2016. The main outcome of interest was a new safety issue in the period. Post-approval exposure was collected at 6 month intervals, and pre-approval exposure was collected at the moment of authorisation. Other characteristics collected for the included drugs were anatomical therapeutical chemical (ATC) class, biological status, orphan status and type of approval. We used Cox proportional hazards regression to investigate the association between exposure and the hazard of having a first safety issue., Results: The pre-approval exposure was not associated with the risk of safety issues after adjusting for ATC class, biological status, and treatment duration. Higher post-approval exposure was associated with more new safety issues identified (HR = 2.44 (95% CI = 1.12-5.31)) for drugs with more than 1,000 patient-years of cumulative exposure compared to drugs with less than 1,000 patient years of exposure., Conclusion: Our results suggest that postapproval exposure influences the detection of safety issues., (Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Purpose: In drug safety, there is a lack of guidance on how prioritization of safety issues should be performed. The aim of this literature review is to provide an overview of criteria used for signal prioritization and of the associated decision support frameworks., Methods: A search strategy was constructed to identify relevant articles in Medline/Embase databases from the period from 1 January 1995 to 31 August 2015. The prioritization criteria were extracted and classified in relevant categories., Results: From an initial set of 63 articles, 11 were retained for full review. The articles mentioned 48 criteria used in the prioritization process, with a median of six criteria per study [range: 1-16]. More than half of the criteria (63%), referred to strength of evidence while 19% related to public health impact, 14% to general public and media attention and 4% to novelty of the drug event association. Fifteen criteria were tested for predictive value with 11 showing positive results, most of them from the strength of evidence category. Six decision-making frameworks are presented, which incorporate criteria from various categories. Five of these frameworks were tested against expert decisions or by other means, but only in one database each and for a limited set of products., Conclusions: There is a wide range of prioritization criteria described in the literature; however, few of them demonstrated predictive value. Many criteria with predictive value were related to strength of evidence category and to novelty. There were few attempts at integrating different criteria in decision support frameworks. Five of the frameworks were tested for validity and showed usefulness, while at least three are already in use for prioritization. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., (Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Objective: This study aims to describe the frequency and quality of spontaneous narcolepsy case reports following administration of pandemic influenza vaccine as captured in the Eudravigilance database., Methods: We conducted a retrospective descriptive study of spontaneous Individual Case Safety Reports (ICSRs), reporting narcolepsy following administration of pandemic influenza vaccine as received by Eudravigilance until July 2014. De-duplication was carried out by Eudravigilance. Frequency of reporting is described as number of ICSRs received per month over time. The quality of the ICSRs was evaluated by completeness of information and diagnostic certainty using the Automated Brighton Collaboration case definition tool (ABC-tool) for narcolepsy., Results: After de-duplication, a total of 1333 ICSRs of narcolepsy and/or cataplexy following pandemic influenza vaccine were identified, originating from 18 countries worldwide. Most of the ICSRs (61.9%) originated from the signaling countries, Sweden and Finland. Although de-duplication of case reports was carried out, it is suspected that many duplicates exist, in particular from Sweden. The majority of the ICSRs (95.3%), reported exposure to Pandemrix®. Only few reports were received for Arepanrix® (1.6%) or Focetria® (0.5%), and Celvapan® (0.1%). Of those ICSRs reporting age, 73.1% concerned persons below age of 20years. When using the ABC-tool, all ICSRs were classified as having insufficient information to meet the Brighton Collaboration case definition of narcolepsy., Conclusion: An increase in reporting of narcolepsy appeared in Eudravigilance only after awareness was raised by the national authorities. Most narcolepsy reports were received from countries where the signal initially occurred, and were related to Pandemrix® in children/adolescents. Basic information about the patient and the exposure was present in most of the ICSRs. The ICSRs captured by Eudravigilance however, do not collect enough information to assess the diagnostic certainty according to the Brighton Collaboration case definition., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background and Objective: The availability of accurate product-specific exposure information is essential in the pharmacovigilance of biologicals, because differences in the safety profile may emerge between products containing the same active substance. In spontaneous adverse drug reaction (ADR) reports, drug exposure may, however, be misclassified, that is, attributed to the incorrect product. The aim of this study was to explore the effect of exposure misclassification on the time to detection of product-specific risks in spontaneous reporting systems., Methods: We used data simulations to explore the effect of exposure misclassification. We simulated an active substance-specific subset of a spontaneous reporting system and used the proportional reporting ratio for signal detection. The effect of exposure misclassification was evaluated in three test cases representing product-specific ADRs that may occur for biologicals and studied in relative terms by varying the model parameters (market share and relative risk)., Results: We found that exposure misclassification results in the largest delay in identification of risks that have a weak association (relative risk < 2 or 3) with the product of interest and in situations where the product associated with the unique risk has a large (>50%) market share. The absolute public health impact of exposure misclassification, in terms of cases/time to detection, varied considerably across the test cases., Conclusion: Exposure misclassification in ADR reports may result in a delayed detection of product-specific risks, particularly in the detection of weak drug-event associations. Our findings can help inform the future implementation and refinement of product-specific and batch-specific signal detection procedures., (Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background and Objective: Spontaneous reporting systems (SRSs) remain the cornerstone of post-marketing drug safety surveillance despite their well-known limitations. Judicious use of other available data sources is essential to enable better detection, strengthening and validation of signals. In this study, we investigated the potential of electronic healthcare records (EHRs) to be used alongside an SRS as an independent system, with the aim of improving signal detection., Methods: A signal detection strategy, focused on a limited set of adverse events deemed important in pharmacovigilance, was performed retrospectively in two data sources-(1) the Exploring and Understanding Adverse Drug Reactions (EU-ADR) database network and (2) the EudraVigilance database-using data between 2000 and 2010. Five events were considered for analysis: (1) acute myocardial infarction (AMI); (2) bullous eruption; (3) hip fracture; (4) acute pancreatitis; and (5) upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). Potential signals identified in each system were verified using the current published literature. The complementarity of the two systems to detect signals was expressed as the percentage of the unilaterally identified signals out of the total number of confirmed signals. As a proxy for the associated costs, the number of signals that needed to be reviewed to detect one true signal (number needed to detect [NND]) was calculated. The relationship between the background frequency of the events and the capability of each system to detect signals was also investigated., Results: The contribution of each system to signal detection appeared to be correlated with the background incidence of the events, being directly proportional to the incidence in EU-ADR and inversely proportional in EudraVigilance. EudraVigilance was particularly valuable in identifying bullous eruption and acute pancreatitis (71 and 42 % of signals were correctly identified from the total pool of known associations, respectively), while EU-ADR was most useful in identifying hip fractures (60 %). Both systems contributed reasonably well to identification of signals related to UGIB (45 % in EudraVigilance, 40 % in EU-ADR) but only fairly for signals related to AMI (25 % in EU-ADR, 20 % in EudraVigilance). The costs associated with detection of signals were variable across events; however, it was often more costly to detect safety signals in EU-ADR than in EudraVigilance (median NNDs: 7 versus 5)., Conclusion: An EHR-based system may have additional value for signal detection, alongside already established systems, especially in the presence of adverse events with a high background incidence. While the SRS appeared to be more cost effective overall, for some events the costs associated with signal detection in the EHR might be justifiable.

Background: Electronic reporting and processing of suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) is increasing and has facilitated automated screening procedures. It is crucial for healthcare professionals to understand the nature and proper use of data available in pharmacovigilance practice., Objectives: To (a) compare performance of EU-ADR [electronic healthcare record (EHR) exemplar] and FAERS [spontaneous reporting system (SRS) exemplar] databases in detecting signals using "positive" and "negative" drug-event reference sets; and (b) evaluate the impact of timing bias on sensitivity thresholds by comparing all data to data restricted to the time before a warning/regulatory action., Methods: Ten events with known positive and negative reference sets were selected. Signals were identified when respective statistics exceeded defined thresholds. Main outcome measure Performance metrics, including sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and accuracy were calculated. In addition, the effect of regulatory action on the performance of signal detection in each data source was evaluated., Results: The sensitivity for detecting signals in EHR data varied depending on the nature of the adverse events and increased substantially if the analyses were restricted to the period preceding the first regulatory action. Across all events, using data from all years, a sensitivity of 45-73 % was observed for EU-ADR and 77 % for FAERS. The specificity was high and similar for EU-ADR (82-96 %) and FAERS (98 %). EU-ADR data showed range of PPV (78-91 %) and accuracy (78-72 %) and FAERS data yielded a PPV of 97 % with 88 % accuracy., Conclusion: Using all cumulative data, signal detection in SRS data achieved higher specificity and sensitivity than EHR data. However, when data were restricted to time prior to a regulatory action, performance characteristics changed in a manner consistent with both the type of data and nature of the ADR. Further research focusing on prospective validation of is necessary to learn more about the performance and utility of these databases in modern pharmacovigilance practice.

Introduction: Traceability is important in the postmarketing surveillance of biologicals, since changes in the manufacturing process may give rise to product- or batch-specific risks. With the expected expansion of the biosimilar market, there have been concerns about the ability to trace individual products within pharmacovigilance databases., Areas Covered: The authors discuss the present challenges in the traceability of biologicals in relation to pharmacovigilance, by exploring the processes involved in ensuring traceability. They explore both the existing systems that are in place for the recording of exposure information in clinical practice, as well as the critical steps involved in the transfer of exposure data to various pharmacovigilance databases., Expert Opinion: The existing systems ensure the traceability of biologicals down to the manufacturer within pharmacy records, but do not support the routine recording of batch information. Expected changes in supply chain standards provide opportunities to systematically record detailed exposure information. Spontaneous reporting systems are the most vulnerable link in ensuring traceability, due to the manual nature of data transfer. Efforts to improve the traceability should, in the short term, be focused toward encouraging health professionals and patients to systematically record and report detailed exposure information. Long-term solutions lie in expanding the accessibility to, and increasing the electronic exchange of exposure data.

Background: The 5α-reductase inhibitors (5-ARI) finasteride and dutasteride are indicated for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms caused by benign prostatic hyperplasia. Case reports have suggested that 5-ARIs increase the risk for male breast cancer, with no conclusive evidence. The objective of this study was to quantify the association between use of 5-ARIs and the risk for male breast cancer., Methods: A case-control study was conducted with data from the United Kingdom Clinical Practice Research Datalink database among all men aged 45 years and older in the period 1 January 1992 to 31 December 2011. Cases of men diagnosed with breast cancer were matched to up 10 controls on age and general practice. Crude and adjusted odds ratios were estimated for the risk of breast cancer associated with the use of 5-ARIs., Results: Three hundred and ninety-eight cases were identified and matched to 3,930 controls. Ever use of 5-ARIs was associated with an adjusted odds ratio for breast cancer of 1.08 (95 % CI 0.62-1.87) compared to non-users. Increasing cumulative duration of treatment showed no increasing risks: adjusted odds ratios for use for less than 280, for 280 to 1,036 and for more than 1,036 days were 1.21 (95 % CI 0.47-3.10), 0.94 (95 % CI 0.36-2.41) and 1.29 (95 % CI 0.54-3.08), respectively., Conclusions: In this study, there was no evidence of an association between short- or long-term treatment with 5-ARIs and the risk for breast cancer in older men.

Background: Chlorthalidone and hydrochlorothiazide are often considered as interchangeable. However, greater (nighttime) blood pressure reduction, and alleged pleiotropic effects have renewed the interest in chlorthalidone. A recent study showed an increased risk of adverse events with chlorthalidone, including hyponatremia., Methods: To investigate differences in risk of hyponatremia between chlorthalidone and hydrochlorothiazide, adjusted for daily dose, we conducted a population-based case-control study within the Dutch IPCI (Integrated Primary Care Information) database. The study population included all subjects ≥18 years without diabetes mellitus, heart failure, liver failure, and malignancy, who were registered in the IPCI database from 1996 to 2011. Cases were subjects with a serum sodium <130 millimoles per liter or hospitalization due to hyponatremia. Controls were matched on practice, age within 5 years, sex, and date of onset., Results: A total of 1033 cases of hyponatremia were identified. Hyponatremia was more common with chlorthalidone than with hydrochlorothiazide at equal dose per day: adjusted odds ratio was 2.09 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13-3.88) for 12.5 milligrams per day and 1.72 (95% CI, 1.15-2.57) for 25 milligrams per day. Risks were not significantly increased with chlorthalidone compared with twice the dose per day of hydrochlorothiazide., Conclusions: This is the first study that shows an increased risk of hyponatremia with chlorthalidone relative to hydrochlorothiazide at equal milligram-to-milligram dose per day. The need for a lower dose of chlorthalidone than hydrochlorothiazide to achieve similar blood pressure reduction likely compensates for the increased risk of hyponatremia at equal dose., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Acute kidney injury (AKI) might complicate antihypertensive therapy. In The Netherlands, general practitioner clinical practice guidelines provide clear recommendations on monitoring of renal function to minimize this risk. Our objective was to investigate how day-to-day clinical practice corresponds to the guidelines., Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study in a dynamic population, using data on >9,000 adults that was retrieved from the Integrated Primary Care Information database. We investigated whether serum creatinine (SCR) was measured within 30 and 365 days after the start of (combined) use of a diuretic, an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, and/or angiotensin receptor blocker. We also investigated the association between calendar year, sex, type of therapy, risk factors for AKI and practice and SCR measurement., Results: Of 6,593 subjects who met the study criteria for single drug therapy, SCR was measured in 1,233 subjects within 30 days and in 3,896 subjects within 365 days. For combined drug therapy recipients (n = 2,497), these were 545 and 1,687, respectively. Associated cumulative probabilities were 19 % and 66 % with single drug therapy, and 22 % and 74 % with combined drug therapy. Significant differences were observed between practices. SCR measurement was associated with other characteristics, except for sex. Within 365 days, SCR increased >30 % of baseline in 103 subjects (1.6 %) after the start of single drug therapy, and in 85 (3.4 %) subjects who initiated combined drug therapy. In the majority (>70 %) of these subjects, this did not result in subsequent monitoring or adjustment of antihypertensive treatment., Conclusions: Results from this study suggest that, on average, renal function is not monitored as strictly as recommended by relevant clinical practice guidelines.

Purpose: Because most population-based studies on the epidemiology of chronic kidney disease (CKD) are cross-sectional, there is, except for end-stage renal disease, hardly any information on incidence rates., Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study in a dynamic population, using data of 784,563 adult participants retrieved from the Integrated Primary Care Information database, a primary care database containing the complete electronic longitudinal medical records. CKD (both incidence and prevalence) was based on (1) an increased urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio, (2) a decreased estimated glomerular filtration rate, or (3) explicit statement in the medical record. Results were stratified by age according to the WHO standard population, sex, and diabetes mellitus., Results: Based on a single measurement only, the incidence rate of CKD in adults was 1,213 per 100,000 person-years, and 6.7 percent of the adult population had a prevalent diagnosis of CKD. The incidence rate increased by age and was the highest in participants with diabetes with an incidence of 25,000 per 100,000 person-years, affecting over 75 percent of participants with diabetes., Conclusions: This is the first study to report the incidence rates of all stages of CKD for the entire adult population, stratified by sex, 5-year age groups, and diabetes. Our data demonstrate that the incidence of CKD increases with age and is the highest in participants with diabetes mellitus.