Search

The experts of the Department for Medicine Safety Evaluation of the Scientific Centre for Expert Evaluation of Medicinal Products analysed administrative decisions of international pharmacovigilance regulatory authorities on the necessary labelling updates. The analysis revealed 16 decisions containing safety updates for the following medicines registered in Russia: avatrombopag, amphotericin B, acetazolamide, belimumab, bendamustine, hydrocortisone, dabrafenib, dexamethasone, denosumab, ibuprofen, cortisone, prednisolone, trametinib, nilotinib, pirfenidone, and cefotaxime.

The Patient-Centered Dosing Initiative, a patient-led effort advocating for a paradigm shift in determining cancer drug dosing strategies, pioneers a departure from traditional oncology drug dosing practices. Historically, oncology drug dosing relies on identifying the maximum tolerated dose through phase 1 dose escalation methodology, favoring higher dosing for greater efficacy, often leading to higher toxicity. However, this approach is not universally applicable, especially for newer treatments like targeted therapies and immunotherapies. Patient-Centered Dosing Initiative challenges this "more is better" ethos, particularly as metastatic breast cancer patients themselves, as they not only seek longevity but also a high quality of life since most metastatic breast cancer patients stay on treatment for the rest of their lives. Surveying 1221 metastatic breast cancer patients and 119 oncologists revealed an evident need for flexible dosing strategies, advocating personalized care discussions based on patient attributes. The survey results also demonstrated an openness toward flexible dosing and a willingness from both patients and clinicians to discuss dosing as part of their care. Patient-centered dosing emphasizes dialogue between clinicians and patients, delving into treatment efficacy-toxicity trade-offs. Similarly, clinical trial advocacy for multiple dosing regimens encourages adaptive strategies, moving away from strict adherence to maximum tolerated dose, supported by recent research in optimizing drug dosages. Recognizing the efficacy-effectiveness gap between clinical trials and real-world practice, Patient-Centered Dosing Initiative underscores the necessity for patient-centered dosing strategies. A focus on individual patient attributes aligns with initiatives like Project Optimus and Project Renewal, aiming to optimize drug dosages for improved treatment outcomes at both the pre- and post-approval phases. Patient-Centered Dosing Initiative's efforts extend to patient education, providing tools to initiate dosage-related conversations with physicians. In addition, it emphasizes physician-patient dialogues and post-marketing studies as essential in determining optimal dosing and refining drug regimens. A dose-finding paradigm prioritizing drug safety, tolerability, and efficacy benefits all stakeholders, reducing emergency care needs and missed treatments for patients, aligning with oncologists' and patients' shared goals. Importantly, it represents a win-win scenario across healthcare sectors. In summary, the Patient-Centered Dosing Initiative drives transformative changes in cancer drug dosing, emphasizing patient well-being and personalized care, aiming to enhance treatment outcomes and optimize oncology drug delivery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The experts of the Scientific Centre for Expert Evaluation of Medicinal Products analysed administrative decisions of foreign regulatory authorities on the recalls of antibacterial and antiprotozoal medicinal products and/or the need for labelling updates due to changes in the safety profile. The analysis revealed 16 decisions containing information on the following medicines registered in Russia: ertapenem, сeftriaxone, cefazolin, аmoxicillin, сefoperazone+sulbactam, piperacillin+tazobactam, сlindamycin, teicoplanin, rifampin, co-trimoxazole, hydroxychloroquine.

A black box warning, signaling potential life-threatening adverse effects of medications or medical devices, is crucial for public and healthcare professional awareness. Comprehending and adhering to these warnings can prevent serious harm. This review aims to elucidate their significance. Data on drugs with black box warnings were collected from the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) official website using the search term 'Boxed warnings' from January 1, 2015, to January 31, 2024. A Microsoft Excel spreadsheet (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA) containing black box warnings for this period was downloaded from the FDA's website. Additional parameters, such as drug class and whether the warnings were new or existing, were added to the downloaded spreadsheet. The collected data were organized by year, categorizing new and existing warnings, along with details on the evidence source, system-wise classification, and black box warnings for commonly used drugs, including their clinical significance. Results show that in the past decade, 40% of black box warnings were issued in 2023, followed by 12% in 2022. Most warnings (67%) comprised existing ones with minor revisions while 29% were new. Nine existing warnings were removed during the period. Post-marketing studies predominantly provided evidence for these warnings. Neuropsychiatric concerns like addiction potential (31%), suicidal tendency (7%), and hypersensitivity reactions (12%) were the frequently encountered black box warnings. Black box warnings play a crucial role in highlighting the serious adverse effects of medications. Neuropsychiatric warnings have been frequent over the past decade. Awareness of these warnings is essential to prevent adverse effects and enhance patient care, especially concerning drugs like guaifenesin/hydrocodone bitartrate, zolpidem, and montelukast commonly encountered in clinical practice., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright © 2024, Rajendran et al.)

Switching patients from a reference to a biosimilar product has become a primary topic of interest, with different approaches being undertaken by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA). In European countries, substitution of a reference medicine with a biosimilar product is encouraged for treatment-naïve patients. However, a more cautious approach has been taken with regard to switching patients on the reference product to a biosimilar product, with differences across countries. In general, there is a tendency to encourage the switch to biosimilars if conducted under the supervision of a clinician, with a few exceptions for substitution at the pharmacy level being permitted. There is also a general agreement that no further clinical trials are needed to allow any kind of switching, including automatic substitution, which differs from what is required by the FDA. With massive numbers of non-medical switches taking place in some European countries, as well as an increasing number of post-marketing studies being conducted, a growing amount of data on switching from originator to biosimilar products are becoming available. The data recorded so far suggest that switching is not detrimental for patients both in terms of safety and efficacy, although there have been some reports of increased treatment discontinuation rates after switching. Therefore, large-scale and long-term data are warranted to provide a more robust assessment of the effects of single or multiple switching. In addition, in Europe, the use of biologics has increased since their emergence, in particular in countries with historically poor access to biological medicines, and the tendency to promote the use of cheaper biological drugs is expected to increase further in the future. A communication strategy involving the patient and all other stakeholders that focusses on the patient’s specific circumstances and information needs will play a crucial role in the conduction of a successful switch. An overview of switching policies across Europe together with outcomes from clinical trials and real-world evidence data is presented in this review.

The monitoring of information on the safety of various drugs is becoming more relevant day by day, as the number of drugs on the pharmaceutical market increases, generic drugs, bio-analogous drugs appear. Long-term post-marketing use of a medicinal product allows to accumulate a sufficient evidence base and experience of application in various population groups, to study the features of the use of this drug. Information on the safe use of new drugs can be obtained in selected scientific publications. In addition to publications in the specialized scientific literature, regulators of different countries on the basis of new information give opinions on the need to make changes in instructions for medical use. When analyzing the recommendations of Russian and foreign regulatory authorities on restricting the circulation of medicines and / or the need to amend the instructions for their medical use in connection with the change in the assessment of the safety profile, we identified 16 administrative decisions of foreign regulatory bodies containing information about the following drugs registered in Russia. We consider all recommendations to be important information on the safety of medicines, which is addressed to specialists in the field of medicine, in particular to persons authorized by pharmacovigilance in pharmaceutical companies. In addition, this information may be of interest to physicians of various specialties who in their practice use buprenorphine, venlafaxine, gadolinium contrast drugs hydroxyethyl starch, daclizumab, duloxetine, denosumab, cladribine, clomifene citrate, milnacipran, methotrexate, pemetrexet, radium dichloride, rifampicin, phoebusostat, flupirtine.

This article describes non-interventional clinical studies in which the researcher collects data by simply observing events in their natural course without actively interfering with them.

This article describes the methodology of pharmacoepidemiological studies that help to research the efficacy and safety of drugs in real clinical practice at the level of a population or large groups of patients, promoting the rational and economically acceptable use of the most effective and safe drugs.

The 2009 influenza pandemic highlighted challenges for vaccine post-marketing monitoring in Europe, particularly the need to have appropriate infrastructures to strengthen public-private collaborations (PPCs) with suitable processes to improve stakeholder interactions and collection and analysis of safety and effectiveness data. The ADVANCE consortium comprises public and private stakeholders who have worked together to build and test new system components for vaccine post-marketing projects, one component being a governance framework for efficient, transparent and trustworthy PPCs. Based on the results of a landscape analysis and screening of formalised existing governance structures, we identified the elements of a governance framework and developed recommendations to support stakeholders willing and able to implement collaborative projects. These proposals and their implementation were discussed by 70 experts during a workshop to gain from their experience. We identified core governance principles and defined five fundamental functions (decision-making, scientific advice, quality control and audit, implementation and management, and financial administration) that can be attributed to individual partner organisations or to a committee with representatives from more than one partner organisation. We propose a generic governance model with options for its adaptation to specific contexts and projects. The advantages and disadvantages of PPCs were also examined. Stakeholders' concerns (e.g. scientific integrity and public trust) were addressed through recommendations about transparent decision-making rules and conflict of interest management. No one-size-fits-all solution for PPC governance exists but our recommendations could be used to set-up a tailored-made and fully transparent governance structure supporting collaborative projects in the European vaccine post-marketing environment. To allow the rapid establishment of robust projects, the next steps will involve this guidance being used by real-world collaborations to assess what works and what does not work and what added-value can be obtained from these collaborations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Occasional bursts of discovery and innovation have appeared during the otherwise stagnant past several decades of drug development in nephrology. Among other recent drug discoveries, the unexpected kidney benefits observed with sodium/glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors may herald a renaissance of drug development in kidney disease. This recent progress highlights the need to further promote and stimulate research and development of promising therapies that may ameliorate the morbidity and mortality associated with kidney disease. To help identify and address barriers to drug development in nephrology, the Duke Clinical Research Institute convened a conference in April 2019 that included stakeholders from academia, industry, government agencies, and patient advocacy. From these discussions, several opportunities were identified to improve every stage of drug development for kidney disease from early discovery to implementation into practice. Key topics reviewed in this article are the utility of interconnected data and site research networks, surrogate end points, pragmatic and adaptive trial designs, the promising uses of real-world data, and methods to improve the generalizability of trial results and uptake of approved drugs for kidney-related diseases., (Copyright © 2020 National Kidney Foundation, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The aim of this study is to determine the characteristics, magnitude, and the quality of reporting of mandated events involving intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCA) devices in the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database; a postmarket surveillance system., Methods: We utilized a mixed-methods approach to systematically characterize structured data and text narratives associated with IV-PCA events submitted to MAUDE between 1 January 2011 and 12 September 2016., Results: Of 1,430 IV-PCA events reported during the study period, 6.4% were adverse events (AEs) as identified via structured data fields in the MEDWATCH forms. Upon qualitative review of the narrative texts, 11.0% of events were associated with an unfavorable clinical outcome, which was 71% higher than the incidence of the adverse outcomes reported using the structured data fields. Device-related issues, which were mostly preventable, accounted for 86.9% of events. Of 65 reportable events submitted by manufacturers, 18.5% did not comply with reporting requirements as mandated by law., Conclusion: Patients on IV-PCA continue to experience serious complications as a result of preventable errors. Multi-modal interventions including educational training and the development and adoption of PCA devices with improved safety features are needed to improve safety.

Interferon (INF) beta 1a 22 or 44 mug (Rebif((R))) administered s.c. 3 times a week (t.i.w) is a well established immunomodulating treatment for relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). This review focuses on its mechanisms of action, evidence of efficacy, safety, and tolerability. Several pharmacodynamic properties explain the immunomodulatory actions of INF beta 1a 22 or 44 mug s.c. t.i.w. Pivotal trials and post-marketing studies proved that the drug is effective in reducing disease activity and likely in slowing disease progression. Head-to-head comparative studies with other marketed INFs beta in RRMS suggested a better therapeutic response associated with higher doses and frequency of administration of Rebif((R)). Additional evidence indicated a beneficial effect of INF beta 1a in patients with clinically isolated syndromes (CIS) suggestive of MS, as treatment reduced time to conversion to clinically definite (CD) disease. Further, although the drug did not prove to slow time to progression there were benefits on relapse- and MRI-related secondary outcome measures in secondary progressive (SP) MS. Pivotal trials, their cross-over extensions, and post-marketing studies consistently showed that INF beta 1a 22 or 44 mug s.c. t.i.w. is safe and well tolerated, as adverse drug reactions are usually mild and manageable.