Dataset Information

Collection of Data on Adverse Events Related to Medicinal Products: A Survey Among Registries in the ENCePP Resources Database.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

As patient registries are not subject to regulatory requirements on the collection of adverse events (AEs) related to medicinal products, they may not have foreseen the collection of such information on a routine basis or as part of specific data collection schemes.

Objective

The European Medicines Agency conducted a survey among registries to better understand their approach towards the collection, management and reporting of AEs related to medicines.

Method

An online survey composed of 15 questions was distributed in May 2020 to registries listed in the European Network of Centres in Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance (ENCePP) resources database for completion by August 2020. Aggregated results are presented in this paper.

Results

One third of the registries completed the survey (31/85; 36.5%). Most of the respondents routinely collect information on medicines (29/31; 93.5%), out of which 65.5% (19/29) also collect data on AEs and adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Frequencies and timelines for collecting and reporting AEs/ADRs vary widely across registries, as does their level of experience in providing data to third parties for regulatory purposes.

Conclusions

The low response rate may indicate little interest in this topic or that registries were not originally developed for routine data collection on AEs/ADRs and, ultimately, monitoring of the safety of medicines. Results indicate that clear guidance on the collection and use of real-world data in regulatory frameworks and strengthened collaboration between registry holders, academia, regulators and medicines developers are needed to achieve comprehensive and high levels of quality of safety data captured by registries to support regulatory decision making. These will hopefully be enabled by the European Medicines Regulatory Network strategy to 2025.

SUBMITTER: Plueschke K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9296377 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTaxanes are an essential class of antineoplastic agents used to treat various cancers and are a fundamental cause of hypersensitivity reactions. In addition, other adverse events, such as bone marrow toxicity and peripheral neuropathy, can lead to chemotherapy discontinuation. This study aimed to evaluate the safety of taxanes in the real world.MethodsTaxane-associated adverse events were identified by the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities Preferred Terms and analyzed and compared by mining the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System pharmacovigilance database from January 2004 to December 2019. Reported adverse events, such as hypersensitivity reaction, bone marrow toxicity, and peripheral neuropathy, were analyzed with the following signal detection algorithms: reporting odds ratio (ROR), proportional reporting ratio (PRR), multi-item gamma Poisson shrinker (MGPS), Bayesian confidence propagation neural network (BCPNN), and logistic regression methods. Adverse outcome events and death outcome rates were compared between different taxane groups using Pearson's χ2 test, whereas significance was determined at P < 0.05 with a 95% confidence interval (CI).ResultsA total of 966 reports of hypersensitivity reactions, 1109 reports of bone marrow toxicity, and 1374 reports of peripheral neuropathy were analyzed. Compared with paclitaxel and docetaxel, bone marrow toxicity following the use of nab-paclitaxel had the highest ROR of 6.45 (95% two-sided CI, 6.05-6.88), PRR of 5.66, (χ2 = 4342.98), information component of 2.50 (95% one-sided CI = 2.34), and empirical Bayes geometric mean of 5.64 (95% one-sided CI = 5.34). Peripheral neuropathy following the use of nab-paclitaxel showed a higher ROR of 12.78 (95% two-sided CI, 11.55-14.14), PRR of 12.16 (χ2 = 4060.88), information component of 3.59 (95% one-sided CI = 3.25), and empirical Bayes geometric mean of 12.07 (95% one-sided CI = 11.09).ConclusionsThe results showed that bone marrow toxicity and peripheral neuropathy were the major adverse events induced by taxanes. Nab-paclitaxel exhibited the highest potential for taxane-associated adverse events. Further research in the future is warranted to explain taxane-associated adverse effects in real-world circumstances.

Project description:BackgroundCholesterol management drugs known as statins are widely used and often well tolerated; however, a variety of muscle-related side effects can arise. These adverse events (AEs) can have serious impact, and form a significant barrier to therapy adherence. Surveillance of post-marketing AEs is of vital importance to understand real-world AEs and reporting differences between individual statin drugs. We conducted a review of post-approval muscle and tendon AE reports in association with statin use, to assess differences within the drug class.MethodsWe analyzed all case reports from the FDA AE Reporting System (AERS) database linking muscle-related AEs to statin use (07/01/2005-03/31/2011). Drugs examined were: atorvastatin, simvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, rosuvastatin, and fluvastatin.ResultsRelative risk rates for rosuvastatin were consistently higher than other statins. Atorvastatin and simvastatin showed intermediate risks, while pravastatin and lovastatin appeared to have the lowest risk rates. Relative risk of muscle-related AEs, therefore, approximately tracked with per milligram LDL-lowering potency, with fluvastatin an apparent exception. Incorporating all muscle categories, rates for atorvastatin, simvastatin, pravastatin, and lovastatin were, respectively, 55%, 26%, 17%, and 7.5% as high, as rosuvastatin, approximately tracking per milligram potency (Rosuvastatin>Atorvastatin>Simvastatin>Pravastatin ? Lovastatin) and comporting with findings of other studies. Relative potency, therefore, appears to be a fundamental predictor of muscle-related AE risk, with fluvastatin, the least potent statin, an apparent exception (risk 74% vs rosuvastatin).InterpretationAE reporting rates differed strikingly for drugs within the statin class, with relative reporting aligning substantially with potency. The data presented in this report offer important reference points for the selection of statins for cholesterol management in general and, especially, for the rechallenge of patients who have experienced muscle-related AEs (for whom agents of lower expected potency should be preferred).

Project description:BackgroundCrowdsourcing is a useful way to rapidly collect information on COVID-19 symptoms. However, there are potential biases and data quality issues given the population that chooses to participate in crowdsourcing activities and the common strategies used to screen participants based on their previous experience.ObjectiveThe study aimed to (1) build a pipeline to enable data quality and population representation checks in a pilot setting prior to deploying a final survey to a crowdsourcing platform, (2) assess COVID-19 symptomology among survey respondents who report a previous positive COVID-19 result, and (3) assess associations of symptomology groups and underlying chronic conditions with adverse outcomes due to COVID-19.MethodsWe developed a web-based survey and hosted it on the Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) crowdsourcing platform. We conducted a pilot study from August 5, 2020, to August 14, 2020, to refine the filtering criteria according to our needs before finalizing the pipeline. The final survey was posted from late August to December 31, 2020. Hierarchical cluster analyses were performed to identify COVID-19 symptomology groups, and logistic regression analyses were performed for hospitalization and mechanical ventilation outcomes. Finally, we performed a validation of study outcomes by comparing our findings to those reported in previous systematic reviews.ResultsThe crowdsourcing pipeline facilitated piloting our survey study and revising the filtering criteria to target specific MTurk experience levels and to include a second attention check. We collected data from 1254 COVID-19-positive survey participants and identified the following 6 symptomology groups: abdominal and bladder pain (Group 1); flu-like symptoms (loss of smell/taste/appetite; Group 2); hoarseness and sputum production (Group 3); joint aches and stomach cramps (Group 4); eye or skin dryness and vomiting (Group 5); and no symptoms (Group 6). The risk factors for adverse COVID-19 outcomes differed for different symptomology groups. The only risk factor that remained significant across 4 symptomology groups was influenza vaccine in the previous year (Group 1: odds ratio [OR] 6.22, 95% CI 2.32-17.92; Group 2: OR 2.35, 95% CI 1.74-3.18; Group 3: OR 3.7, 95% CI 1.32-10.98; Group 4: OR 4.44, 95% CI 1.53-14.49). Our findings regarding the symptoms of abdominal pain, cough, fever, fatigue, shortness of breath, and vomiting as risk factors for COVID-19 adverse outcomes were concordant with the findings of other researchers. Some high-risk symptoms found in our study, including bladder pain, dry eyes or skin, and loss of appetite, were reported less frequently by other researchers and were not considered previously in relation to COVID-19 adverse outcomes.ConclusionsWe demonstrated that a crowdsourced approach was effective for collecting data to assess symptomology associated with COVID-19. Such a strategy may facilitate efficient assessments in a dynamic intersection between emerging infectious diseases, and societal and environmental changes.