Dataset Information

Description of the Risk Management of Medication Errors for Centrally Authorised Products in the European Union.

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Hoeve CE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6965336 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn situations of unmet medical need or in the interests of public health, expedited approval pathways, including conditional marketing authorisation (CMA) and accelerated assessment (AA), speed up European Medicines Agency (EMA) marketing authorisation recommendations for medicinal products. CMAs are based on incomplete benefit-risk assessment data and authorisation remains conditional until regulator-imposed confirmatory postmarketing measures are fulfilled. For products undergoing AA, complete safety and efficacy data should be available, and postauthorisation measures may include only standard requirements of risk management and pharmacovigilance plans. In the pivotal trials supporting products assessed by expedited pathways, surrogate endpoints reduce drug development time compared with waiting for the intended clinical outcomes. Whether surrogate endpoints supporting products authorised through CMA and AA pathways reliably predict clinical benefits of therapy has not been studied systematically. Our objectives were to determine the extent to which surrogate endpoints are used and to assess whether their validity had been confirmed according to published hierarchies.Methods and findingsWe used European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs) to identify the primary endpoints in the pivotal trials supporting products authorised through CMA or AA pathways during January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2018. We excluded products that were vaccines, topical, reversal, or bleeding prophylactic agents or withdrawn within the study time frame. Where pivotal trials reported surrogate endpoints, we conducted PubMed searches for evidence of validity for predicting clinical outcomes. We used 2 published hierarchies to assess validity level. Surrogates with randomised controlled trials supporting the surrogate-clinical outcome relationship were rated as 'validated'. Fifty-one products met the inclusion criteria; 26 underwent CMAs, and 25 underwent AAs. Overall, 26 products were for oncology indications, 10 for infections, 8 for genetic disorders, and 7 for other systems disorders. Five products (10%), all AAs, were authorised based on pivotal trials reporting clinical outcomes, and 46 (90%) were authorised based on surrogate endpoints. No studies were identified that validated the surrogate endpoints. Among a total of 49 products with surrogate endpoints reported, most were rated according to the published hierarchies as being 'reasonably likely' (n = 30; 61%) or of having 'biological plausibility' (n = 46; 94%) to predict clinical outcomes. EPARs did not consistently explain the nature of the pivotal trial endpoints supporting authorisations, whether surrogate endpoints were validated or not, or describe the endpoints to be reported in the confirmatory postmarketing studies. Our study has limitations: we may have overlooked relevant validation studies; the findings apply to 2 expedited pathways and may not be generalisable to products authorised through the standard assessment pathway.ConclusionsThe pivotal trial evidence supporting marketing authorisations for products granted CMA or AA was based dominantly on nonvalidated surrogate endpoints. EPARs and summary product characteristic documents, including patient information leaflets, need to state consistently the nature and limitations of endpoints in pivotal trials supporting expedited authorisations so that prescribers and patients appreciate shortcomings in the evidence about actual clinical benefit. For products supported by nonvalidated surrogate endpoints, postauthorisation measures to confirm clinical benefit need to be imposed by the regulator on the marketing authorisation holders.

Project description:BackgroundA Guide for Healthcare Professionals (HCP Guide) and patient alert card (PAC) for atezolizumab as additional risk minimization measures for physicians were distributed to raise awareness and help in the detection and management of immune-related adverse drug reactions.ObjectivesThe main objective of this study was to assess the receipt, knowledge, and behaviors of physicians regarding the atezolizumab HCP Guide and PAC.MethodsA multi-country, one-wave, observational, cross-sectional, web-based, self-reported physician survey was conducted to assess the level of knowledge of key messages related to immune-related adverse drug reactions summarized in the atezolizumab HCP Guide and PAC among physicians (oncologists, pulmonologists, and urologists) prescribing atezolizumab in six European countries (Denmark, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden, and the UK). Responses regarding the receipt, understanding and use of the materials, and knowledge and behavior related to the HCP Guide and PAC are presented as percentages and continuous scores scaled out of 100 points, with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).ResultsAmong 313 physicians (255 oncologists, 30 pulmonologists, and 28 urologists), 77.4% received the HCP Guide and 74.2% the PAC. The HCP Guide was read by 71.3% of the 267 physicians who received the materials, and the mean usage score was 69.5 (95% CI 66.0-72.9), and 57.1% of physicians had scores ≥ 70. The HCP Guide was completely understood by 85.4% of physicians who had read it. Mean knowledge scores were 63.9 (95% CI 62.1-65.7) and 39.4% of physicians had correct knowledge scores ≥ 70. Mean knowledge scores were 66.8 (95% CI 64.9-68.7) for receipt of both the HCP Guide and PAC, 59.4 (95% CI 55.5-63.4) for one of the materials, and 60.8 (95% CI 55.4-66.2) for having received none of the materials. Mean behavior scores were 78.9 (95% CI 76.8-81.0), and 74.8% of physicians had behavior scores ≥ 70. The mean behavior score was 79.0 (95% CI 76.5-81.5) for those who received both the HCP Guide and PAC, 76.9 (95% CI 72.2-81.5) for receipt of one of the materials, and 81.5 (95% CI 75.0-88.0) for those who received none of the materials.ConclusionsThe study assessed the effectiveness of the atezolizumab additional risk minimization educational materials among physicians in six European countries, using process indicators. The educational materials reached over 70% of target physicians, 57.1% of whom reported using them. Knowledge and behavior related to immune-related adverse drug reactions for atezolizumab were no better in those who received the additional risk minimization educational materials. The results support the safe use of atezolizumab by these physician groups and contributed to the European Medicines Agency permitting removal of the HCP Guide.