Jacoline C Bouvy1,2, Kevin Blake1, Jim Slattery1, Marie L De Bruin2,3, Peter Arlett1, Xavier Kurz1. 1. Department of Pharmacovigilance and Epidemiology, European Medicines Agency, London, UK. 2. Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 3. Copenhagen Centre for Regulatory Science, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: Patricia McGettigan; Carla Alonso Olmo; Kelly Plueschke; Mireia Castillon; Daniel Zondag; Priya Bahri; Xavier Kurz; Peter G M Mol Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 5.606
Authors: Jane Moseley; Spiros Vamvakas; Michael Berntgen; Alison Cave; Xavier Kurz; Peter Arlett; Virginia Acha; Simon Bennett; Catherine Cohet; Solange Corriol-Rohou; Emma Du Four; Christelle Lamoril; Anja Langeneckert; Maren Koban; Muriel Pasté; Susan Sandler; Karin Van Baelen; Agnese Cangini; Sonia García; Mercè Obach; Emmanuel Gimenez Garcia; Leonor Varela Lema; Hanna-Mari Jauhonen; Piia Rannanheimo; Deborah Morrison; Marc Van De Casteele; Anna Strömgren; Anders Viberg; Amr Makady; Chantal Guilhaume Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2020-04-24 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Carla J Jonker; Sieta T de Vries; H Marijke van den Berg; Patricia McGettigan; Arno W Hoes; Peter G M Mol Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2021-06-06 Impact factor: 5.606
Authors: Carla J Jonker; H Marijke van den Berg; Marcel S G Kwa; Arno W Hoes; Peter G M Mol Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2017-10-06 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Marijke C Jansen-van der Weide; Charlotte M W Gaasterland; Kit C B Roes; Caridad Pontes; Roser Vives; Arantxa Sancho; Stavros Nikolakopoulos; Eric Vermeulen; Johanna H van der Lee Journal: Orphanet J Rare Dis Date: 2018-09-05 Impact factor: 4.123