Jim Slattery

Purpose: To evaluate the impact of including a medicine in the list of medicinal products subject to additional monitoring (AM) on the reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in the european economic area (EEA).Methods: Interrupted time series using the monthly number of EEA ADR reports in EudraVigilance during 12 months before and after the addition to AM list. The main outcome was the change (%) in reporting of ADRs with step change as the a priori impact model. Further time series analysis was performed using Joinpoint Regression.Results: The analysis included 11 active substances. No significant immediate (step change) increase of reporting was identified for any product at time of addition to AM list. We identified a significant gradual increase of ADR reporting after addition to AM list (slope change) for two out of five new products—boceprevir (10% per month, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3%–18%) and denosumab‐Xgeva (13% per month, 95% CI 4%–22%). No change was identified for Prolia, another denosumab‐containing product not subject to AM. No significant increase was identified for any product included in the AM list due to the requirement to conduct a PASS. Conversely, a gradual decrease in reporting was identified for natalizumab (−5% per month; 95% CI −10% to −1%), rivaroxaban (−5%; −8 to −3%), and varenicline (−16%; −21 to −10%). The results were corroborated by the Joinpoint analyses, which yielded similar results.Conclusions: We identified limited evidence that reporting of ADRs increased modestly and gradually for some new products and not for products with PASS requirement.

Background: The additional monitoring (AM)/black triangle concept is aimed to enhance ADR reporting for certain types of medicinal products for which the safety profile is less well established.Purpose: The objective of this survey was to assess (a) attitudes towards ADR reporting and reasons for not reporting an ADR and (b) awareness of AM among HCPs, patients or their careers in EU countries.Methods: An online questionnaire which was available in all EU languages was completed by 2918 responders coming from all EEA countries.Results: The main factors motivating to report an ADR were severity or novelty of the reaction or novelty of the medicine. The main factors for not reporting an ADR was the fact that the ADR is already known (35%), the ADR was not serious (18%) or reporter was not sure if the ADR was related to the medicine (15%). Half of the respondents indicated that they have seen AM statement before. Thirty percent of the responders had correct understanding of the AM concept while 20 % misunderstood the concept.Conclusion: Underreporting occurs but it seems this is because of reporter's prioritisation towards certain type of ADRs. AM aims to increase reporting for certain medicines, however, approximately half of responders have seen the AM symbol before and 20% of all responders (independent of their previous awareness) misunderstood the concept.

Before a medicine can be recommended for a marketing authorization research must be provided to regulators that convincingly supports the benefit‐risk of the product in the claimed indication. The established criteria for such research are usually expressed in terms of evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCT). If studies in real‐world data (RWD) are to be accepted as all or part of the package of evidence, it is necessary to understand the relationship between information from studies of RWD and that from RCTs. The aim of this review is to consider how the strength of such evidence can be quantified in a manner that relates to the decision‐making process, what research is currently available to further this understanding and what additional information will be required.

Intrauterine devices are implantable contraceptives of which some brands steadily release levonorgestrel over an extended time period. Exposure to a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device has been associated with depression and, more recently, a connection to anxiety, panic attacks, sleep problems and restlessness has been suggested. This study uses data from the THIN database of UK general practice to investigate these suggestions.

Purpose: Regulatory agencies and other stakeholders increasingly rely on data collected through registries to support their decision‐making. Data from registries are a cornerstone of post‐marketing surveillance for monitoring the use of medicines in clinical practice. This study was aimed at gaining further insight into the European Medicines Agency's (EMA) requests for new registries and registry studies using existing registries and to review the experience gained in their conduct.Methods: European Public Assessment Reports were consulted to identify products for which a request for a registry was made as a condition of the marketing authorisation. All centrally authorised products that received a positive opinion of the EMA Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use between 1 January 2005 and 31 December 2013 were included. Data regarding registry design and experiences were collected from EMA electronic record keeping systems.Results: Of 392 products that received a positive Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use opinion during 2005–2013, 31 registries were requested for 30 products in total. Sixty‐five percent were product registries whereas 35% were disease registries and 71% of the registries had a primary safety objective. Most commonly reported issues with registries were delayed time to start and low patient accrual rates.Conclusions: The delays found in getting new registries up and running support the need to improve the timeliness of data collection in the post‐marketing setting. Methodological challenges met in conducting this study highlighted the need for a clarification of definitions and epidemiological concepts around patient registries. The results will inform the EMA Patient Registry initiative to support use of existing patient registries for the post‐authorisation benefit–risk monitoring of medicinal products. © 2017 Commonwealth of Australia. Pharmacoepidemiology & Drug Safety © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Most pharmacovigilance departments maintain a system to identify adverse drug reactions (ADRs) through analysis of spontaneous reports. The signal detection algorithms (SDAs) and the nature of the reporting databases vary between operators and it is unclear whether any algorithm can be expected to provide good performance in a wide range of environments. The objective of this study was to compare the performance of commonly used algorithms across spontaneous reporting databases operated by pharmaceutical companies and national and international pharmacovigilance organisations. 220 products were chosen and a reference set of ADRs was compiled. Within four company, one national and two international databases, 15 SDAs based on five disproportionality methods were tested. Signals of disproportionate reporting (SDRs) were calculated at monthly intervals and classified by comparison with the reference set. These results were summarised as sensitivity and precision for each algorithm in each database. Different algorithms performed differently between databases but no method dominated all others. Performance was strongly dependent on the thresholds used to define a statistical signal. However, the different disproportionality statistics did not influence the achievable performance. The relative performance of two algorithms was similar in different databases. Over the lifetime of a product there is a reduction in precision for any method. In designing signal detection systems, careful consideration should be given to the criteria that are used to define an SDR. The choice of disproportionality statistic does not appreciably affect the achievable range of signal detection performance and so this can primarily be based on ease of implementation, interpretation and minimisation of computing resources. The changes in sensitivity and precision obtainable by replacing one algorithm with another are predictable. However, the absolute performance of a method is specific to the database and is best assessed directly on that database. New methods may be required to gain appreciable improvements.

Inhaled, long-acting beta-2-adrenoceptor agonists (LABA) have well-established roles in asthma and/or COPD treatment. Drug utilisation patterns for LABA have been described, but few studies have directly compared LABA use in different countries. We aimed to compare the prevalence of LABA-containing prescriptions in five European countries using a standardised methodology. A common study protocol was applied to seven European healthcare record databases (Denmark, Germany, Spain, the Netherlands (2), and the UK (2)) to calculate crude and age- and sex-standardised annual period prevalence rates (PPRs) of LABA-containing prescriptions from 2002–2009. Annual PPRs were stratified by sex, age, and indication (asthma, COPD, asthma and COPD). From 2002–2009, age- and sex-standardised PPRs of patients with LABA-containing medications increased in all databases (58.2%–185.1%). Highest PPRs were found in men ≥ 80 years old and women 70–79 years old. Regarding the three indications, the highest age- and sex-standardised PPRs in all databases were found in patients with “asthma and COPD” but with large inter-country variation. In those with asthma or COPD, lower PPRs and smaller inter-country variations were found. For all three indications, PPRs for LABA-containing prescriptions increased with age. Using a standardised protocol that allowed direct inter-country comparisons, we found highest rates of LABA-containing prescriptions in elderly patients and distinct differences in the increased utilisation of LABA-containing prescriptions within the study period throughout the five European countries.

Background Identification of potential drug safety problems using statistical screening algorithms in routinely collected databases of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) requires decision rules based on thresholds of the chosen parameters. Choosing higher or lower thresholds changes both the sensitivity of the screening and the number of false alarms produced, and thus has an impact on the effectiveness of the detection process. Objective The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact on the effectiveness of signal detection activities of choosing different warning thresholds for the proportional reporting ratio (PRR) and for the count of reports of any drug-event combination. Methods Signal detection methods were tested within the EudraVigilance database of suspected ADRs. Using an established set of known ADRs, the number that could be detected and the changes in time gained for earlier investigation of the signal were calculated over a range of signal detection thresholds. These figures were set against the number of false positive signals produced by the statistical signal detection algorithms. Results Higher thresholds for the lower confidence bound of the PRR produced fewer false positives but this benefit was offset by important losses of sensitivity in the detection of ADRs. By contrast, increases in the threshold for the count of a specific drug-event combination produced fewer false positives with little loss of either sensitivity or time gained for investigation of adverse events. A threshold of five compared with the current European Medicines Agency threshold of three gave a reduction of 25 % in false positive signals in return for a loss of 12 % in true signals detected early. Conclusion Changes in the standard threshold for the count of drug-event combinations can result in a substantial improvement in efficiency of the signal detection process. Initially this change might be applied only to products with a well-established safety profile.