Pierre Engel1, Mariana Ferreira Almas2, Marieke Louise De Bruin3,4, Kathryn Starzyk5, Stella Blackburn2, Nancy Ann Dreyer5. 1. Real-World Insights, QuintilesIMS, Saint Ouen, France. 2. Real-World Insights, QuintilesIMS, Green Park, Reading, UK. 3. Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences (UIPS), Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands. 4. Copenhagen Centre for Regulatory Science (CORS), University of Copenhagen, Denmark. 5. Real-World Insights, QuintilesIMS, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Abstract
AIMS: To describe and characterize the first cohort of Post-Authorization Safety Study (PASS) protocols reviewed under the recent European pharmacovigilance legislation. METHODS: A systematic approach was used to compile all publicly available information on PASS protocols and assessments submitted from July 2012 to July 2015 from Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) minutes, European Medicines Agency (EMA) and European Network of Pharmacovigilance and Pharmacoepidemiology (ENCePP) webpages. RESULTS: During the study period, 189 different PASS protocols were submitted to the PRAC, half of which were entered in the ENCePP electronic register of post-authorization studies (EU-PAS) by July 2015. Those protocols were assessed during 353 PRAC reviews. The EMA published only 31% of the PRAC feedback, of which the main concerns were study design (37%) and feasibility (30%). Among the 189 PASS, slightly more involved primary data capture (58%). PASS assessing drug utilization mainly leveraged secondary data sources (58%). The majority of the PASS did not include a comparator (65%) and 35% of PASS also evaluated clinical effectiveness endpoints. CONCLUSIONS: To the best of our knowledge this is the first comprehensive review of three years of PASS protocols submitted under the new pharmacovigilance legislation. Our results show that both EMA and PASS sponsors could respectively increase the availability of protocol assessments and documents in the EU-PAS. Protocol content review and the high number of PRAC comments related to methodological issues and feasibility concerns should raise awareness among PASS stakeholders to design more thoughtful studies according to pharmacoepidemiological principles and existing guidelines.
AIMS: To describe and characterize the first cohort of Post-Authorization Safety Study (PASS) protocols reviewed under the recent European pharmacovigilance legislation. METHODS: A systematic approach was used to compile all publicly available information on PASS protocols and assessments submitted from July 2012 to July 2015 from Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) minutes, European Medicines Agency (EMA) and European Network of Pharmacovigilance and Pharmacoepidemiology (ENCePP) webpages. RESULTS: During the study period, 189 different PASS protocols were submitted to the PRAC, half of which were entered in the ENCePP electronic register of post-authorization studies (EU-PAS) by July 2015. Those protocols were assessed during 353 PRAC reviews. The EMA published only 31% of the PRAC feedback, of which the main concerns were study design (37%) and feasibility (30%). Among the 189 PASS, slightly more involved primary data capture (58%). PASS assessing drug utilization mainly leveraged secondary data sources (58%). The majority of the PASS did not include a comparator (65%) and 35% of PASS also evaluated clinical effectiveness endpoints. CONCLUSIONS: To the best of our knowledge this is the first comprehensive review of three years of PASS protocols submitted under the new pharmacovigilance legislation. Our results show that both EMA and PASS sponsors could respectively increase the availability of protocol assessments and documents in the EU-PAS. Protocol content review and the high number of PRAC comments related to methodological issues and feasibility concerns should raise awareness among PASS stakeholders to design more thoughtful studies according to pharmacoepidemiological principles and existing guidelines.
Authors: Kevin V Blake; Stefanie Prilla; Sophie Accadebled; Marie Guimier; Monica Biscaro; Ingemar Persson; Peter Arlett; Stella Blackburn; Henry Fitt Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Kevin V Blake; Corinne S Devries; Peter Arlett; Xavier Kurz; Henry Fitt Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2012-04-23 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Gillian C Hall; Brian Sauer; Alison Bourke; Jeffrey S Brown; Matthew W Reynolds; Robert LoCasale; Robert Lo Casale Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2011-11-08 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Jarno Hoekman; Thea T Klamer; Aukje K Mantel-Teeuwisse; Hubert G M Leufkens; Marie L De Bruin Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2016-04-22 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Olaf H Klungel; Xavier Kurz; Mark C H de Groot; Raymond G Schlienger; Stephanie Tcherny-Lessenot; Lamiae Grimaldi; Luisa Ibáñez; Rolf H H Groenwold; Robert F Reynolds Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Thijs J Giezen; Aukje K Mantel-Teeuwisse; Sabine M J M Straus; Toine C G Egberts; Stella Blackburn; Ingemar Persson; Hubert G M Leufkens Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2009 Impact factor: 5.606
Authors: Rosa Gini; Martijn Schuemie; Jeffrey Brown; Patrick Ryan; Edoardo Vacchi; Massimo Coppola; Walter Cazzola; Preciosa Coloma; Roberto Berni; Gayo Diallo; José Luis Oliveira; Paul Avillach; Gianluca Trifirò; Peter Rijnbeek; Mariadonata Bellentani; Johan van Der Lei; Niek Klazinga; Miriam Sturkenboom Journal: EGEMS (Wash DC) Date: 2016-02-08
Authors: Vera Ehrenstein; Irene Petersen; Liam Smeeth; Susan S Jick; Eric I Benchimol; Jonas F Ludvigsson; Henrik Toft Sørensen Journal: Clin Epidemiol Date: 2016-04-12 Impact factor: 4.790
Authors: Shirley V Wang; Olga V Patterson; Joshua J Gagne; Jeffrey S Brown; Robert Ball; Pall Jonsson; Adam Wright; Li Zhou; Wim Goettsch; Andrew Bate Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2019-11 Impact factor: 5.606
Authors: Rosa Gini; Xavier Fournie; Helen Dolk; Xavier Kurz; Patrice Verpillat; François Simondon; Valerie Strassmann; Kathi Apostolidis; Thomas Goedecke Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2019-03-05 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Josep Pane; Reynold D C Francisca; Katia M C Verhamme; Marcia Orozco; Hilde Viroux; Irene Rebollo; Miriam C J M Sturkenboom Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2019-07-18 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Shirley V Wang; Sebastian Schneeweiss; Marc L Berger; Jeffrey Brown; Frank de Vries; Ian Douglas; Joshua J Gagne; Rosa Gini; Olaf Klungel; C Daniel Mullins; Michael D Nguyen; Jeremy A Rassen; Liam Smeeth; Miriam Sturkenboom Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Alexandra Pacurariu; Kelly Plueschke; Patricia McGettigan; Daniel R Morales; Jim Slattery; Dagmar Vogl; Thomas Goedecke; Xavier Kurz; Alison Cave Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-09-05 Impact factor: 2.692