Studying the Impact of European Union Regulatory Interventions for Minimising Risks From Medicines: Lessons Learnt and Recommendations.

IF 2.4 4区 医学 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety Pub Date : 2024-08-01 DOI:10.1002/pds.5874
Thomas Goedecke, Liana Martirosyan, Nathalie Gault, Karin Seifert, Daniel R Morales, Priya Bahri, Valerie Strassmann, Martin Huber, Sabine Straus
{"title":"Studying the Impact of European Union Regulatory Interventions for Minimising Risks From Medicines: Lessons Learnt and Recommendations.","authors":"Thomas Goedecke, Liana Martirosyan, Nathalie Gault, Karin Seifert, Daniel R Morales, Priya Bahri, Valerie Strassmann, Martin Huber, Sabine Straus","doi":"10.1002/pds.5874","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The European Medicines Agency's (EMA) Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) launched a strategy to examine the public health impact of major regulatory interventions aimed at minimising risks of medicinal products. We conducted a lessons learnt analysis of impact studies completed between 2015 and 2023.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We surveyed PRAC Sponsors and (Co-)Rapporteurs involved in the evaluation of 12 impact studies (10 commissioned by EMA and 2 conducted collaboratively by Member States) to explore how these support regulatory decision-making. Questions covered achievement of study objectives, risk minimisation effectiveness, added value for regulatory decision-making, and recommendations for future impact studies. Themes were generated using thematic content analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Survey responses from 15 PRAC Sponsors and (Co-)Rapporteurs from 10 European Union Member States were included in the analysis. Among four cross-sectional surveys and eight drug utilisation studies, 50% achieved all objectives, the other studies partially due to limitations. Two studies concluded that risk minimisation measures were overall effective, two were effective with variation across countries, two were partially effective and four studies showed limited effectiveness. Two studies were deemed inconclusive due to limitations. The reasons for the limited effectiveness of risk minimisation may be explored using mixed-method approaches. Assessment of study feasibility and a priori discussion of effectiveness measurements is important.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Despite limitations, impact research adds value to regulatory decision-making by addressing knowledge gaps and providing additional information on unintended consequences of regulatory interventions. Our recommendations will help to improve planning, conducting and interpretating future impact studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":19782,"journal":{"name":"Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety","volume":"33 8","pages":"e5874"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.5874","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: The European Medicines Agency's (EMA) Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) launched a strategy to examine the public health impact of major regulatory interventions aimed at minimising risks of medicinal products. We conducted a lessons learnt analysis of impact studies completed between 2015 and 2023.

Methods: We surveyed PRAC Sponsors and (Co-)Rapporteurs involved in the evaluation of 12 impact studies (10 commissioned by EMA and 2 conducted collaboratively by Member States) to explore how these support regulatory decision-making. Questions covered achievement of study objectives, risk minimisation effectiveness, added value for regulatory decision-making, and recommendations for future impact studies. Themes were generated using thematic content analysis.

Results: Survey responses from 15 PRAC Sponsors and (Co-)Rapporteurs from 10 European Union Member States were included in the analysis. Among four cross-sectional surveys and eight drug utilisation studies, 50% achieved all objectives, the other studies partially due to limitations. Two studies concluded that risk minimisation measures were overall effective, two were effective with variation across countries, two were partially effective and four studies showed limited effectiveness. Two studies were deemed inconclusive due to limitations. The reasons for the limited effectiveness of risk minimisation may be explored using mixed-method approaches. Assessment of study feasibility and a priori discussion of effectiveness measurements is important.

Conclusion: Despite limitations, impact research adds value to regulatory decision-making by addressing knowledge gaps and providing additional information on unintended consequences of regulatory interventions. Our recommendations will help to improve planning, conducting and interpretating future impact studies.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
研究欧盟为最大限度降低药品风险而采取的监管干预措施的影响:经验教训与建议》。
目的:欧洲药品管理局 (EMA) 药物警戒风险评估委员会 (PRAC) 启动了一项战略,旨在研究旨在最大限度降低医药产品风险的主要监管干预措施对公众健康的影响。我们对 2015 年至 2023 年期间完成的影响研究进行了经验教训分析:我们对参与评估 12 项影响研究(10 项由 EMA 委托进行,2 项由成员国合作进行)的 PRAC 发起人和(联合)报告员进行了调查,以探讨这些研究如何支持监管决策。问题涉及研究目标的实现、风险最小化的有效性、监管决策的附加值以及对未来影响研究的建议。采用专题内容分析法确定主题:来自 10 个欧盟成员国的 15 位 PRAC 发起人和(联合)报告员的调查回复被纳入分析。在四项横断面调查和八项药物利用研究中,50%的研究实现了所有目标,其他研究则因局限性而部分实现了目标。两项研究认为风险最小化措施总体有效,两项研究认为有效,但各国之间存在差异,两项研究认为部分有效,四项研究认为效果有限。两项研究因存在局限性而无法得出结论。可采用混合方法探讨风险最小化措施效果有限的原因。对研究可行性的评估和对有效性衡量标准的事先讨论非常重要:尽管存在局限性,但影响研究通过填补知识空白和提供有关监管干预意外后果的更多信息,为监管决策增添了价值。我们的建议将有助于改进未来影响研究的规划、实施和解释。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
7.70%
发文量
173
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The aim of Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety is to provide an international forum for the communication and evaluation of data, methods and opinion in the discipline of pharmacoepidemiology. The Journal publishes peer-reviewed reports of original research, invited reviews and a variety of guest editorials and commentaries embracing scientific, medical, statistical, legal and economic aspects of pharmacoepidemiology and post-marketing surveillance of drug safety. Appropriate material in these categories may also be considered for publication as a Brief Report. Particular areas of interest include: design, analysis, results, and interpretation of studies looking at the benefit or safety of specific pharmaceuticals, biologics, or medical devices, including studies in pharmacovigilance, postmarketing surveillance, pharmacoeconomics, patient safety, molecular pharmacoepidemiology, or any other study within the broad field of pharmacoepidemiology; comparative effectiveness research relating to pharmaceuticals, biologics, and medical devices. Comparative effectiveness research is the generation and synthesis of evidence that compares the benefits and harms of alternative methods to prevent, diagnose, treat, and monitor a clinical condition, as these methods are truly used in the real world; methodologic contributions of relevance to pharmacoepidemiology, whether original contributions, reviews of existing methods, or tutorials for how to apply the methods of pharmacoepidemiology; assessments of harm versus benefit in drug therapy; patterns of drug utilization; relationships between pharmacoepidemiology and the formulation and interpretation of regulatory guidelines; evaluations of risk management plans and programmes relating to pharmaceuticals, biologics and medical devices.
期刊最新文献
Core Concepts in Pharmacoepidemiology: Time-To-Event Analysis Approaches in Pharmacoepidemiology. Hydrochlorothiazide Use and Risk of Skin Cancer: A Population-Based Retrospective Cohort Study. The Oncology QCARD Initiative: Fostering efficient evaluation of initial real-world data proposals. Validation Study of the Claims-Based Algorithm Using the International Classification of Diseases Codes to Identify Patients With Coronavirus Disease in Japan From 2020 to 2022: The VENUS Study. A Validated Algorithm to Identify Hepatic Decompensation in the Veterans Health Administration Electronic Health Record System.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1