Unpacking the effects of adverse regulatory events: Evidence from pharmaceutical relabeling.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Higgins MJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7486863 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Unpacking the effects of adverse regulatory events: Evidence from pharmaceutical relabeling.
Higgins Matthew J MJ Yan Xin X Chatterjee Chirantan C
Research policy 20200912 1
We provide causal evidence that regulation induced product shocks significantly impact aggregate demand and firm performance in pharmaceutical markets. Event study results suggest an average loss between $569 million and $882 million. Affected products lose, on average, $186 million over their remaining effective patent life. This leaves a loss of between $383 million and $696 million attributable to declines in future innovation. Our findings complement research that shows drugs receiving exped ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundPharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of drugs in elderly individuals differ from those in younger adults; thus, adverse drug events (ADEs) are common in older patients with polypharmacy because co-existing comorbidities elevate the risk of ADEs occurring. However, ADEs have not yet been characterised based on the elderly patients of Japanese origin and polypharmacy.ObjectiveThe 100 most commonly reported ADEs were grouped into four classes (Class 1-Class 4) based on elderly patients with polypharmacy.Patients and methodsIn this study, logistic regression analysis was performed using cases recorded in the Japanese Adverse Drug Event Report (JADER) database.ResultsADEs in elderly patients treated with polypharmacy-in whom the risk of electrolyte abnormalities, renal and respiratory disorders, and coagulopathy was high-were categorised as 'Class 1 [E(+), P(+)]', while ADEs in elderly patients not treated with polypharmacy-in whom the risk of delirium and fall was high-were categorised as 'Class 2 [E(+), P(-)]'. When there was no association with being elderly, ADEs associated with polypharmacy that carried a high risk of myelosuppression and infection were categorised as 'Class 3 [E(-), P(+)]', and allergic ADEs that were not affected by being elderly or polypharmacy, were categorised as 'Class 4 [E(-), P(-)]'. Class 1 events as well as Class 3 ADEs occurred more frequently in females than in males, whereas Class 3 ADEs (deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism) occurred more frequently in males.ConclusionsClass 1 and Class 2 ADEs should be investigated in analyses that focus on individual drugs.
| S-EPMC7984209 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To investigate whether adverse effects data for the sponsor's product are presented more favourably in pharmaceutical industry-funded studies than in non-industry-funded studies.We conducted a systematic review of methodological evaluations that had assessed the relationship between industry funding and the reported risk of adverse effects. Searches were undertaken in 10 databases and supplemented with other sources of information such as handsearching, citation searching, checking conference proceedings and discussion with experts. Two reviewers independently screened the records and carried out data extraction for potentially relevant papers. We included studies that compared the results and interpretation of the adverse effects data according to funding source (e.g. adverse effects data in pharmaceutical industry research vs. data from nonprofit organizations, or from one manufacturer vs. another). Methodological evaluations were excluded if categories of funding source were not explicitly specified by the researchers, and if we were uncertain that industry-funded studies were present in the evaluation.The search strategy yielded 4,069 hits, of which six methodological evaluations met our inclusion criteria. One survey of 370 trials covering a wide range of topics found that trials with industry sponsors had more complete reporting of adverse effects compared with non-industry-funded trials, whereas another survey of 504 inhaled corticosteroid studies showed no apparent difference after confounding factors were adjusted for. In contrast, we found evidence from post hoc subgroup analyses involving two products where the likelihood of harm was of a lower magnitude in manufacturer-funded studies compared with nonmanufacturer-funded studies. There is also evidence from four methodological evaluations that authors with industry funding were more likely than authors without pharmaceutical funding to interpret and conclude that a drug was safe, even among studies that did find a statistically significant increase in adverse effects for the sponsored product.Our review indicates that industry funding may not be a major threat to bias in the reporting of the raw adverse effects data. However, we are concerned about potential bias in the interpretation and conclusions of industry-funded authors and studies.
| S-EPMC2675760 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Evidence synthesis serves an important role to promote informed decision-making in healthcare practice. A key issue of evidence synthesis is the approach to deal with rare adverse events and the methods to address bias of harm effects. Empirical data is essential to help methodologists and statisticians to solve the issues in evidence synthesis of adverse events. For this reason, we have established SMART Safety dataset, the largest empirical dataset of meta-analyses of adverse events. The dataset contains 151 systematic reviews with 629 meta-analyses on safety outcomes, which covers more than 2,300 randomized controlled trials and 362 harm outcomes, with 10,069 rows and 45 columns of trial level information. All information was double- or even quadra-checked and further verified by referring the original source (e.g., the full-text of the included randomized trials) to ensure high validity of the data.
| S-EPMC10589771 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSafety is important in the assessment of health interventions, while the results of adverse events are often susceptive to potential effect modifiers since the event risk tends to be rare. In this study, we investigated whether the potential impact of the important effect modifiers on harmful effects was analyzed in meta-analyses of adverse events.MethodsSystematic reviews of healthcare interventions, had adverse events as the exclusive outcomes, had at least one meta-analysis, and published between 1st January 2015, and 1st January 2020 were collected. An adverse event was defined as any untoward medical occurrence in a patient or subject in healthcare practice. Six effect modifiers that are the most important for harmful effects were identified by a group discussion. The proportions of eligible systematic reviews that investigated the potential impact of the six effect modifiers on harmful effects were summarized.ResultsWe identified 279 systematic reviews eligible for this study. Except for the modifier of interventions/controls (70.61%, 197/279), most of the systematic reviews failed to investigate the potential impact of treatment duration (21.15%, 59/279), dosage (24.73%, 69/279), age (11.47%, 32/279), risk of bias (6.45%, 18/279), and source of funding (1.08%, 3/279) on harmful effects. Systematic reviews with meta-analyses containing more studies were more likely to investigate the potential impacts of these modifiers on the effects, but the proportion was still low (2.3% to 33.3%). Systematic reviews that developed a protocol were significantly more likely to investigate the potential impact of all these effect modifiers (e.g. treatment duration: odds ratio = 5.08, 95% CI: 2.76 to 9.35) on the results.ConclusionsCurrent systematic reviews rarely investigated the potential impact of the important effect modifiers on harmful effects. Methodological guidelines for meta-analysis of adverse events should consider "effect modifier" as one of the domains to help systematic review authors better investigate harmful effects.
| S-EPMC10142201 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI), which target immune regulatory pathways to unleash antitumor responses, have revolutionized cancer immunotherapy. Despite the remarkable success of ICI immunotherapy, a significant proportion of patients whose tumors respond to these treatments develop immune-related adverse events (irAE) resembling autoimmune diseases. Although the clinical spectrum of irAEs is well characterized, their successful management remains empiric. This is in part because the pathogenic mechanisms involved in the breakdown of peripheral tolerance and induction of irAEs remain elusive. Herein, we focused on regulatory T cells (Treg) in individuals with irAEs because these cells are vital for maintenance of peripheral tolerance, appear expanded in the peripheral blood of individuals with cancer, and abundantly express checkpoint molecules, hence representing direct targets of ICI immunotherapy. Our data demonstrate an intense transcriptomic reprogramming of CD4+CD25+CD127- Tregs in the blood of individuals with advanced metastatic melanoma who develop irAEs following ICI immunotherapy, with a characteristic inflammatory, apoptotic, and metabolic signature. This inflammatory signature was shared by Tregs from individuals with different types of cancer developing irAEs and individuals with autoimmune diseases. Our findings suggest that inflammatory Treg reprogramming is a feature of immunotherapy-induced irAEs, and this may facilitate translational approaches aiming to induce robust antitumor immunity without disturbing peripheral tolerance.
| S-EPMC7611354 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundsZero-events studies frequently occur in systematic reviews of adverse events, which consist of an important source of evidence. We aimed to examine how evidence of zero-events studies was utilized in the meta-analyses of systematic reviews of adverse events.MethodsWe conducted a survey of systematic reviews published in two periods: January 1, 2015, to January 1, 2020, and January 1, 2008, to April 25, 2011. Databases were searched for systematic reviews that conducted at least one meta-analysis of any healthcare intervention and used adverse events as the exclusive outcome. An adverse event was defined as any untoward medical occurrence in a patient or subject in healthcare practice. We summarized the frequency of occurrence of zero-events studies in eligible systematic reviews and how these studies were dealt with in the meta-analyses of these systematic reviews.ResultsWe included 640 eligible systematic reviews. There were 406 (63.45%) systematic reviews involving zero-events studies in their meta-analyses, among which 389 (95.11%) involved single-arm-zero-events studies and 223 (54.93%) involved double-arm-zero-events studies. The majority (98.71%) of these systematic reviews incorporated single-arm-zero-events studies into the meta-analyses. On the other hand, the majority (76.23%) of them excluded double-arm-zero-events studies from the meta-analyses, of which the majority (87.06%) did not discuss the potential impact of excluding such studies. Systematic reviews published at present (2015-2020) tended to incorporate zero-events studies in meta-analyses than those published in the past (2008-2011), but the difference was not significant (proportion difference=-0.09, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.03, p = 0.12).ConclusionSystematic review authors routinely treated studies with zero-events in both arms as "non-informative" carriers and excluded them from their reviews. Whether studies with no events are "informative" or not largely depends on the methods and assumptions applied, thus sensitivity analyses using different methods should be considered in future meta-analyses.
| S-EPMC8204528 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAnti-interleukin (IL)-23 agents are widely used for autoimmune disease treatment; however, the safety and risks of specific symptoms have not been systematically assessed.ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to summarize the characteristics and mechanisms of occurrence of five immunological and non-immunological adverse events caused by different anti-IL-23 agents.MethodsThe Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science databases were searched for eligible randomized clinical trials published from inception through May 1, 2020. Randomized clinical trials that reported at least one type of adverse event after treatment were included, regardless of sex, age, ethnicity, and diagnosis. Two investigators independently screened and extracted the characteristics of the studies, participants, drugs, and adverse event types. The Cochrane Handbook was used to assess the methodological quality of the included randomized clinical trials. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. Meta-regression was applied to determine the sources of heterogeneity, and subgroup analysis was used to identify the factors contributing to adverse events.ResultsForty-eight studies were included in the meta-analysis, comprising 25,624 patients treated with anti-IL-23 agents. Serious immunological or non-immunological adverse events were rare. Anti-IL-12/23-p40 agents appeared to cause adverse events more easily than anti-IL-23-p19 agents. The incidence of cancer did not appear to be related to anti-IL-23 agent treatment, and long-term medication could lead to mental diseases. The prevention of complications should be carefully monitored when administered for over approximately 40 weeks to avoid further adverse reactions, and the incidence of infection was the highest among general immunological adverse events.ConclusionsThe application of anti-IL-23 agents induced a series of immunological and non-immunological adverse events, but these agents tend to be well-tolerated with good safety profiles.
| S-EPMC8226270 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo investigate the validity of data extraction in systematic reviews of adverse events, the effect of data extraction errors on the results, and to develop a classification framework for data extraction errors to support further methodological research.DesignReproducibility study.Data sourcesPubMed was searched for eligible systematic reviews published between 1 January 2015 and 1 January 2020. Metadata from the randomised controlled trials were extracted from the systematic reviews by four authors. The original data sources (eg, full text and ClinicalTrials.gov) were then referred to by the same authors to reproduce the data used in these meta-analyses.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesSystematic reviews were included when based on randomised controlled trials for healthcare interventions that reported safety as the exclusive outcome, with at least one pair meta-analysis that included five or more randomised controlled trials and with a 2×2 table of data for event counts and sample sizes in intervention and control arms available for each trial in the meta-analysis.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was data extraction errors summarised at three levels: study level, meta-analysis level, and systematic review level. The potential effect of such errors on the results was further investigated.Results201 systematic reviews and 829 pairwise meta-analyses involving 10 386 randomised controlled trials were included. Data extraction could not be reproduced in 1762 (17.0%) of 10 386 trials. In 554 (66.8%) of 829 meta-analyses, at least one randomised controlled trial had data extraction errors; 171 (85.1%) of 201 systematic reviews had at least one meta-analysis with data extraction errors. The most common types of data extraction errors were numerical errors (49.2%, 867/1762) and ambiguous errors (29.9%, 526/1762), mainly caused by ambiguous definitions of the outcomes. These categories were followed by three others: zero assumption errors, misidentification, and mismatching errors. The impact of these errors were analysed on 288 meta-analyses. Data extraction errors led to 10 (3.5%) of 288 meta-analyses changing the direction of the effect and 19 (6.6%) of 288 meta-analyses changing the significance of the P value. Meta-analyses that had two or more different types of errors were more susceptible to these changes than those with only one type of error (for moderate changes, 11 (28.2%) of 39 v 26 (10.4%) 249, P=0.002; for large changes, 5 (12.8%) of 39 v 8 (3.2%) of 249, P=0.01).ConclusionSystematic reviews of adverse events potentially have serious issues in terms of the reproducibility of the data extraction, and these errors can mislead the conclusions. Implementation guidelines are urgently required to help authors of future systematic reviews improve the validity of data extraction.
| S-EPMC9086856 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Blood platelets destined for transfusion release panoply of molecules during preparation and storage. The leukoreduction process made the transfusion safer but did not completely abolish the adverse events. The rationale is to study the proteome profile of platelet components SDA-PC (platelet pellets) involved in transfusion adverse events.
2019-02-13 | PXD008886 | Pride
Project description:BACKGROUND:Drug-related adverse events (AEs) are reported to be common amongst patients receiving outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT). However, comparative data regarding intravenous (iv) catheter-related AEs are lacking. OBJECTIVES:To compare drug- and iv catheter-related AEs from a large UK OPAT centre. PATIENTS AND METHODS:We reviewed 544 OPAT episodes [median (IQR) age: 57 (39-71) years, 60% male, 13% with diabetes] with a median (IQR) duration of 7 (2-18) days. Clinically significant drug- and iv catheter-related AEs were calculated as a percentage of OPAT episodes with an AE and also as AEs per 1000 iv drug/catheter days. RESULTS:Drug-related AEs complicated 13 (2.4%) OPAT episodes at 1.7 (95% CI 0.9-2.9) per 1000 drug days. Catheter-related AEs occurred more frequently, complicating 32 (5.9%) episodes at 5.7 (95% CI 4.2-7.9) per 1000 iv catheter days (χ2 test for difference in AE rate: P < 0.001). Non-radiologically guided midline catheters were associated with the most frequent AEs (n = 23) at 15.6 (95% CI 10.3-23.4) per 1000 iv catheter days compared with other types of iv catheters (HR 8.4, 95% CI 2.4-51.9, P < 0.004), and self-administration was associated with a higher rate of catheter-related AEs at 12.0 (95% CI 6.0-23.9) per 1000 iv catheter days (HR 4.15, 95% CI 1.7-9.1, P = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS:Clinically significant iv catheter-related AEs occurred more frequently than drug-related AEs, especially when using non-radiologically guided midline catheters. Regular review of the need for iv therapy and switching to oral antimicrobials when appropriate is likely to minimize OPAT-related AEs.
| S-EPMC6376853 | biostudies-other