Dataset Information

Effectiveness of Additional Risk Minimization Measures for Atezolizumab in the European Union.

ABSTRACT:

Background

A 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.

Objectives

The main objective of this study was to assess the receipt, knowledge, and behaviors of physicians regarding the atezolizumab HCP Guide and PAC.

Methods

A 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).

Results

Among 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.

Conclusions

The 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.

SUBMITTER: Patel H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8668858 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSodium oxybate (Xyrem®), approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for narcolepsy with cataplexy, is only available through risk mitigation programs due to potential adverse effects including respiratory and central nervous system depression, neuropsychiatric events, and misuse.ObjectiveWe report findings from a survey evaluating effectiveness of the European Union Xyrem® Risk Management Plan (RMP).Patients and methodsA cross-sectional, online, multiple-choice survey was distributed to randomly selected healthcare professionals (HCPs) from six European countries (April 2016-May 2018). Eligibility criteria: current/potential Xyrem® prescriber and/or sleep disorder specialist; contact information available; on the Xyrem® RMP educational materials mailing list.Primary outcomeproportion of respondents answering each question correctly (< 50% responses correct = unsatisfactory comprehension, 50% to < 70% = satisfactory, ≥ 70% = excellent), with precision assessed using 95% confidence intervals (CIs).ResultsOf the 709 HCPs contacted, 601 did not agree to take part, 108 were screened with 35/108 eligible for inclusion; 31 HCPs completed the survey. Of the 31 respondents, 29 (93.5%; 95% CI 84.4-100.0) reported receiving Xyrem® safety information, commonly from a sales representative, EMA Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC), or educational meeting; only 9/31 (31.0%; 14.3-50.0) recalled receiving mailed educational materials. The number of HCPs answering dosing-related questions correctly ranged from 24/31 to 31/31. All Xyrem® contraindications were correctly identified by 26/31 (83.9%; 70.0-96.7) respondents. All respondents 'always' or 'sometimes' completed SmPC recommended activities upon treatment initiation. The majority indicated signs of abuses/misuse/diversion (23/31; 74.2%; 58.6-88.0) and criminal use (23/31; 74.2%; 59.4-89.3) should be monitored at follow-up.ConclusionsThese data demonstrate the importance of providing a range of educational materials. However, the low sample size limits interpretation; increased HCP engagement would improve understanding of how best to develop educational materials.European post-authorization study (pas) register numberEUPAS15024.

Project description:BackgroundCyproterone acetate (CPA) is a synthetic progesterone derivative introduced in the 1970s and prescribed as antiandrogenic therapy for inoperable prostate cancer, sexual deviations in men, and signs of androgenization in women. In 2020, the CPA summary of product characteristics (SmPC) was revised to include an updated special warning and precaution about (1) the risk of meningioma with increasing cumulative dose and (2) contraindication in patients with meningioma or history of meningioma. A Direct Healthcare Professional Communication (DHPC) was distributed. The European Medicine Agency's Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee requested that marketing authorization holders in Europe conduct a survey to assess physicians' knowledge of the updated key safety information. The primary objective of this study was to measure physicians' awareness (i.e., did they receive and review the revised SmPC and DHPC) and level of knowledge and understanding of the key safety information pertaining to the restricted use of CPA monotherapy because of the risk of meningioma.MethodsThis cross-sectional web-based survey was administered to dermatologists, endocrinologists, gynecologists, urologists, oncologists, psychiatrists, and general practitioners in France, Germany, Poland, Spain, and the Netherlands who had prescribed CPA monotherapy in the previous 12 months to assess awareness of the risk of meningioma associated with CPA monotherapy.ResultsOf the 613 physicians who participated, 85% correctly indicated that CPA monotherapy should be prescribed with the lowest effective dose, 75% correctly indicated that the risk of meningioma increases with increasing cumulative CPA monotherapy doses, and 73% correctly indicated that treatment with CPA-containing products must be stopped permanently if a patient is diagnosed with meningioma. Overall, 40% of physicians reported having received the DHPC, and 42% reported having received the revised SmPC.ConclusionsDespite low recall of receipt of the updated SmPC and DHPC, most physicians surveyed are aware of the meningioma risk and actions to mitigate the risk.

Project description:BackgroundAdditional risk minimization measures (aRMMs) are required for some pharmaceutical products when routine risk minimization measures (i.e., product labeling) are deemed insufficient. Measures often include educational materials, such as paper brochures, leaflets, and/or alert cards that provide information to healthcare professionals and patients on the key risks associated with a product and risk minimization actions to take should particular signs or symptoms arise. Paper-based educational aRMMs have several limitations. They do not present information in an interactive manner, and their update and distribution can be costly and often complex. Measuring how effective they are in achieving their aims can also be difficult. Digital methods offer design and delivery flexibility, easier updating processes, opportunities to increase engagement with important information, as well possibilities for tracking distribution, receipt, and potentially understanding of the materials. Pharmaceutical companies have started to look to digital methods as an option for educational aRMMs, alongside paper materials.ObjectivesResearch into healthcare professionals and patient needs and preferences, as well as the general acceptability of digital educational options is needed to establish a baseline. This was an exploratory study intended to provide initial insights on the acceptability of digital aRMMs and to inform future research directions.MethodsDigital concepts for educational aRMMs, one for healthcare professionals and one for patients, were evaluated with 30 healthcare professionals and 20 patients in six countries through 1:1 Zoom calls, with responses recorded in a structured Qualtrics-based survey. Criteria for selecting the six countries included local familiarity with aRMMs as well as interest in and capability to deliver a potential digital aRMM program by the sponsoring company's affiliate teams. Of the healthcare professionals, 19 were rheumatologists and 11 were dermatologists. 16 patients had rheumatologic (rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis) conditions and four had atopic dermatitis. These conditions were chosen as they aligned to potential therapeutic areas where the sponsoring company may have the opportunity to use a digital aRMM. Participants were given an overview of the concept as well as the opportunity to interact with it directly via the "control screen" function in Zoom before questions were posed.ResultsThe results demonstrated that the majority of healthcare professionals (87%) and all patients interviewed would prefer website-based or app-based delivery, respectively, of aRMM information instead of, or alongside traditional paper-based approaches, with only 13% of healthcare professionals and no patients expressing a preference for paper-only communication.ConclusionsGiven new options offered by digital technology, its widespread use in many fields, and the importance of patient safety as a topic, there is an imperative for pharmaceutical companies and regulators to work together to establish a way forward for the use of digital options for aRMMs. This study is limited in its generalizability but offers some ideas for future research directions.

Project description:BackgroundApixaban (ELIQUIS®) is a direct oral anticoagulant authorised for multiple indications in the European Economic Area (EEA). Additional risk minimisation measures (aRMMs) to address the risk of bleeding include educational materials comprising a Prescriber Guide and Patient Alert Card.ObjectivesThis study evaluated effectiveness of the apixaban Prescriber Guide and Patient Alert Card in terms of healthcare professional (HCP) and patient knowledge of associated bleeding risk, as well as material distribution, utilisation and behaviour.MethodsThis non-interventional, cross-sectional study included online surveys in ten countries that represented a high proportion of apixaban usage in the EEA. The HCP source population was based on HCP lists used for communications about and distribution of the risk minimisation materials. Patient recruitment took place via HCPs. Study participants included HCPs involved in apixaban treatment and patients treated with apixaban (or their caregivers) for multiple indications. Data collection took place over an 18-month period between August 2015 and February 2017.ResultsSurvey responses from 385 HCPs and 125 patients/caregivers were analysed. HCP knowledge of bleeding risk included early recognition of symptoms requiring immediate contact with an HCP (96.1%), appropriate dosing (83.6%), contraindications (76.1%) and subpopulations at increased risk of bleeding complications (ranging from 63.5 to 85.9%). Patient knowledge included abnormal bleeding as an important side effect (71.2%), communicating risk factors to HCPs (76.8%) and recognition of potential bleeding symptoms ('high' knowledge levels 22.4%, 'moderate' knowledge levels 49.6%). Of 226 (58.7%) HCPs who recalled receiving/obtaining the Prescriber Guide, 97.8% read at least part of it and 74.8% had used it to assist patient discussions. Of 74 (59.2%) patients who were aware of the Patient Alert Card, 89.2% recalled receiving/obtaining a copy. When received, 90.9% of patients read the card at least once and 93.9% kept it with them at least some of the time.ConclusionsHCP and patient respondent knowledge of bleeding risk was satisfactory. Although not optimal, reach of the aRMMs was consistent with other studies. No modifications to aRMM content were required. To increase reach, the Prescriber Guide has been provided in an additional format as a web-based platform whilst the Patient Alert Card was included within product packaging.

Project description:IntroductionStudies measuring the effectiveness of risk minimization measures (RMMs) submitted by pharmaceutical companies to the European Medicines Agency are part of the post-authorization regulatory requirements and represent an important source of data covering a range of medicinal products and safety-related issues. Their objectives, design, and the associated regulatory outcomes were reviewed, and conclusions were drawn that may support future progress in risk minimization evaluation.MethodsInformation was obtained from risk management plans, study protocols, clinical study reports, and assessment reports of 157 medicinal products authorized for cardiovascular, endocrinology, and metabolic indications. We selected observational studies measuring, as outcomes of interest, the relationship between the RMMs in place and (1) implementation measures, such as clinical knowledge or physicians` compliance to recommendations contained in the RMMs; and (2) occurrence or reduced severity of the adverse drug reactions for which the RMMs were required.ResultsOf 59 eligible studies (24 completed, 35 ongoing), 44 assessed implementation measures, whereas only 15 assessed safety outcomes (1 study as a single endpoint and 14 studies with other endpoints). Fifty-one studies used non-experimental designs and 25 studies employed electronic healthcare databases for analysis. Of the 24 completed studies, 17 were considered satisfactory and supported immediate regulatory decision making, 6 were considered inconclusive and required new evaluations, and 1 was terminated early because new safety restrictions were required, thereby necessitating a new evaluation. Compliance with agreed deadlines was considered acceptable in 21 of 24 completed studies; the average time for a submission was 37 months (standard deviation ± 17), with differences observed by type of data source employed.ConclusionsThree important gaps in the evaluation plans of RMMs were identified: lack of early feedback on implementation, limited evaluation of safety outcomes, and inability to provide information on the effectiveness from an integrated measurement of different elements of a set of risk minimization tools. More robust evidence is needed to advance regulatory science and support more rapid adjustment of risk minimization strategies as needed.