Comparing regulatory guidance on risk minimization/mitigation and the Reporting recommendation Intended for pharmaceutical Risk Minimization Evaluation Studies checklist
Sonia Guleria, Emily Brouwer, David A. Brown, Katja M. Hakkarainen
{"title":"Comparing regulatory guidance on risk minimization/mitigation and the Reporting recommendation Intended for pharmaceutical Risk Minimization Evaluation Studies checklist","authors":"Sonia Guleria, Emily Brouwer, David A. Brown, Katja M. Hakkarainen","doi":"10.1111/bcp.16259","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The latest country-specific regulatory guidance for assessing effectiveness of risk minimization measures (RMM) strategies was identified across five continents—Africa (Egypt, South Africa), Asia (Australia, China, Japan, South Korea, Singapore), Europe (EU-27, United Kingdom), North America (Unites States, Canada) and South America (Brazil)—and compared to the Reporting recommendation Intended for pharmaceutical Risk Minimization Evaluation Studies (RIMES) checklist, developed to assess the quality of effectiveness evaluations and endorsed by the European Network of Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance (ENCePP). RIMES checklist items address study hypothesis, participants, measures, statistical analysis and results. European Medical Agency (EMA) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidance only partially aligned with RIMES, primarily for measures and results. In the absence of country-specific guidance, most countries recommended following EMA or FDA guidelines; Japan and South Africa mentioned the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH E2E) guideline; Brazil and China had no guidance/recommendations. Worldwide, there was a lack of RMM-specific guidance and, when guidance existed, they were not harmonized, and alignment with the RIMES checklist was limited.","PeriodicalId":9251,"journal":{"name":"British journal of clinical pharmacology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British journal of clinical pharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/bcp.16259","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The latest country-specific regulatory guidance for assessing effectiveness of risk minimization measures (RMM) strategies was identified across five continents—Africa (Egypt, South Africa), Asia (Australia, China, Japan, South Korea, Singapore), Europe (EU-27, United Kingdom), North America (Unites States, Canada) and South America (Brazil)—and compared to the Reporting recommendation Intended for pharmaceutical Risk Minimization Evaluation Studies (RIMES) checklist, developed to assess the quality of effectiveness evaluations and endorsed by the European Network of Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance (ENCePP). RIMES checklist items address study hypothesis, participants, measures, statistical analysis and results. European Medical Agency (EMA) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidance only partially aligned with RIMES, primarily for measures and results. In the absence of country-specific guidance, most countries recommended following EMA or FDA guidelines; Japan and South Africa mentioned the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH E2E) guideline; Brazil and China had no guidance/recommendations. Worldwide, there was a lack of RMM-specific guidance and, when guidance existed, they were not harmonized, and alignment with the RIMES checklist was limited.
期刊介绍:
Published on behalf of the British Pharmacological Society, the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology features papers and reports on all aspects of drug action in humans: review articles, mini review articles, original papers, commentaries, editorials and letters. The Journal enjoys a wide readership, bridging the gap between the medical profession, clinical research and the pharmaceutical industry. It also publishes research on new methods, new drugs and new approaches to treatment. The Journal is recognised as one of the leading publications in its field. It is online only, publishes open access research through its OnlineOpen programme and is published monthly.