Pub Date : 2025-12-01Epub Date: 2025-07-02DOI: 10.1007/s40264-025-01580-3
Daniele Sartori, Jeffrey K Aronson, Judith S Brand, Oskar Gauffin, Sara Hedfors Vidlin, G Niklas Norén, Igho J Onakpoya
<p><strong>Background: </strong>To date, signals of adverse reactions to herbal medicines have not been systematically reviewed, limiting pharmacovigilance of herbal medicines because of a lack of data.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We sought to analyse the available evidence on signals involving herbal medicines and to determine to what extent they had been documented at the European Union (EU) level and in the USA.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used the results of a published scoping review of interventional and non-interventional studies that reported signals of adverse reactions to drugs. We assigned Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical classification to all drugs, and identified herbal medicines when they fell under the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical V90. We ascertained the presence of the adverse reaction, or related adverse reactions, for each signal in reference documents for healthcare professionals: the US Botanical Safety Handbook and the EU monographs and US Dietary Supplement Fact Sheets; and in those for consumers: the US Dietary Supplement Label Database. We summarised the data descriptively, treating US documents as one and comparing harms across pairs of US and EU documents by signal. Documents were deemed concordant if they both included the same or related adverse reactions, or if neither did. We also compared adverse reactions across US documents for healthcare professionals with those for consumers.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 10,861 signals covered by the scoping review, 53 (0.49%) concerned herbal medicines, all based on case reports. Reference documents from both the US and EU were available for 37 signals. Most of the documents were concordant (73%), and ten (27%) were discordant: six adverse reactions were mentioned only in US documents, three only in EU monographs, and one was warned against in US documents but not in EU documents. Twenty-one signals could be followed up in the Botanical Safety Handbook and Dietary Supplement Fact Sheets. Most (68%) US documents for healthcare professionals were concordant. When the Botanical Safety Handbook and Dietary Supplement Fact Sheets did not include an adverse reaction, neither did the Dietary Supplement Label Database. However, when they did, only 20% of the labels for consumers did too. The proportion of labels mentioning adverse reactions otherwise available in documents intended for healthcare professionals ranged widely, reflecting differences across multiple labels for the same products.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Very few signals of adverse reactions from the wider scoping review concerned herbal medicines, and were all based on case reports. Information was mostly concordant across documents in the EU and USA. As manufacturers are solely responsible for the contents of the Dietary Supplement Label Database, regulatory oversight may be required to ensure that consistent and comprehensive information on the harms of herbal medicines is made avai
{"title":"Signals of Adverse Reactions to Herbal Medicines: Evidence and Document Analysis Based on a Scoping Review.","authors":"Daniele Sartori, Jeffrey K Aronson, Judith S Brand, Oskar Gauffin, Sara Hedfors Vidlin, G Niklas Norén, Igho J Onakpoya","doi":"10.1007/s40264-025-01580-3","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s40264-025-01580-3","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To date, signals of adverse reactions to herbal medicines have not been systematically reviewed, limiting pharmacovigilance of herbal medicines because of a lack of data.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We sought to analyse the available evidence on signals involving herbal medicines and to determine to what extent they had been documented at the European Union (EU) level and in the USA.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used the results of a published scoping review of interventional and non-interventional studies that reported signals of adverse reactions to drugs. We assigned Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical classification to all drugs, and identified herbal medicines when they fell under the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical V90. We ascertained the presence of the adverse reaction, or related adverse reactions, for each signal in reference documents for healthcare professionals: the US Botanical Safety Handbook and the EU monographs and US Dietary Supplement Fact Sheets; and in those for consumers: the US Dietary Supplement Label Database. We summarised the data descriptively, treating US documents as one and comparing harms across pairs of US and EU documents by signal. Documents were deemed concordant if they both included the same or related adverse reactions, or if neither did. We also compared adverse reactions across US documents for healthcare professionals with those for consumers.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 10,861 signals covered by the scoping review, 53 (0.49%) concerned herbal medicines, all based on case reports. Reference documents from both the US and EU were available for 37 signals. Most of the documents were concordant (73%), and ten (27%) were discordant: six adverse reactions were mentioned only in US documents, three only in EU monographs, and one was warned against in US documents but not in EU documents. Twenty-one signals could be followed up in the Botanical Safety Handbook and Dietary Supplement Fact Sheets. Most (68%) US documents for healthcare professionals were concordant. When the Botanical Safety Handbook and Dietary Supplement Fact Sheets did not include an adverse reaction, neither did the Dietary Supplement Label Database. However, when they did, only 20% of the labels for consumers did too. The proportion of labels mentioning adverse reactions otherwise available in documents intended for healthcare professionals ranged widely, reflecting differences across multiple labels for the same products.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Very few signals of adverse reactions from the wider scoping review concerned herbal medicines, and were all based on case reports. Information was mostly concordant across documents in the EU and USA. As manufacturers are solely responsible for the contents of the Dietary Supplement Label Database, regulatory oversight may be required to ensure that consistent and comprehensive information on the harms of herbal medicines is made avai","PeriodicalId":11382,"journal":{"name":"Drug Safety","volume":" ","pages":"1339-1352"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2025-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12605554/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144539554","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-12-01Epub Date: 2025-08-21DOI: 10.1007/s40264-025-01586-x
Gerd Rippin, Héctor Sanz, Wilhelmina E Hoogendoorn, Joan A Largent
Background and objective: Missing data and unmeasured confounding may bias results of external comparator (EC) studies. Previous research quantified these effects, but there were still knowledge gaps in terms of studying a broader set of missing data-handling approaches. This knowledge gap is addressed by investigating four different ways to handle missing data for a set of four distinct marginal estimators.
Methods: An extensive simulation study was conducted based on two real EC case studies. Four different variants of missing data-handling approaches were assessed in terms of bias and other performance characteristics. Specifically, multiple imputation (MI) for the trial and EC cohorts was conducted by applying within-cohort MI, across-cohort MI and a mixed within-across-cohort MI scheme. Dropping a covariate from the analysis model if missingness exceeded a certain threshold was also added as an analysis strategy. All simulation results were generated for a set of four marginal estimators: the average treatment effect of the untreated (ATU), the average treatment effect (ATE), the average treatment effect of the treated (ATT), and the average treatment effect in the overlap population (ATO). Missingness was simulated to occur only in the EC cohort, and propensity score weighting was applied as causal inference method.
Results: Overall, within-cohort MI and the ATU showed best performance in terms of mitigating bias, while the strategy of leaving out prognostic factors (covariates) due to a higher percentage of missingness performed worst.
Conclusions: Performances of four missing data-handling strategies were assessed for a set of four different marginal estimators. Our results add clarity with regard to potential residual bias for researchers conducting EC studies when using propensity score weighting in the case of missing data or unmeasured confounding. This enables researchers to select most appropriate statistical approaches to minimise bias, potentially by including an additional bias estimation and correction step.
{"title":"External Comparator Studies: Performance of Four Missing Data-Handling Approaches, Stratified by Four Different Marginal Estimators.","authors":"Gerd Rippin, Héctor Sanz, Wilhelmina E Hoogendoorn, Joan A Largent","doi":"10.1007/s40264-025-01586-x","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s40264-025-01586-x","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objective: </strong>Missing data and unmeasured confounding may bias results of external comparator (EC) studies. Previous research quantified these effects, but there were still knowledge gaps in terms of studying a broader set of missing data-handling approaches. This knowledge gap is addressed by investigating four different ways to handle missing data for a set of four distinct marginal estimators.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An extensive simulation study was conducted based on two real EC case studies. Four different variants of missing data-handling approaches were assessed in terms of bias and other performance characteristics. Specifically, multiple imputation (MI) for the trial and EC cohorts was conducted by applying within-cohort MI, across-cohort MI and a mixed within-across-cohort MI scheme. Dropping a covariate from the analysis model if missingness exceeded a certain threshold was also added as an analysis strategy. All simulation results were generated for a set of four marginal estimators: the average treatment effect of the untreated (ATU), the average treatment effect (ATE), the average treatment effect of the treated (ATT), and the average treatment effect in the overlap population (ATO). Missingness was simulated to occur only in the EC cohort, and propensity score weighting was applied as causal inference method.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, within-cohort MI and the ATU showed best performance in terms of mitigating bias, while the strategy of leaving out prognostic factors (covariates) due to a higher percentage of missingness performed worst.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Performances of four missing data-handling strategies were assessed for a set of four different marginal estimators. Our results add clarity with regard to potential residual bias for researchers conducting EC studies when using propensity score weighting in the case of missing data or unmeasured confounding. This enables researchers to select most appropriate statistical approaches to minimise bias, potentially by including an additional bias estimation and correction step.</p>","PeriodicalId":11382,"journal":{"name":"Drug Safety","volume":" ","pages":"1413-1424"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2025-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144946758","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-12-01Epub Date: 2025-09-15DOI: 10.1007/s40264-025-01582-1
Scott Proestel, Vaishali Popat, Ellis F Unger, Linda J B Jeng
The evaluation of safety data by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is a critical step in the review of marketing applications for drugs and biologics. It can be difficult to identify a safety signal, and important signals can be missed if not evaluated comprehensively. Adverse events reported by study participants constitute a major source of safety data, and while previously established standard term groupings have been useful for analysis (e.g., Standardised MedDRA® Queries), the Office of New Drugs (OND) at the FDA determined a need for more clinically meaningful groupings specifically designed for use in premarket drug safety evaluation. To improve safety signal detection and analyses of adverse reactions, OND developed standard groupings of adverse event terms known as OND Custom Medical Queries (OCMQs). OCMQs are intended to capture clinically meaningful groupings (i.e., safety signals) represented in premarketing data. OND has seen great utility in OCMQs during premarket drug safety evaluations, as they have improved OND's ability to detect safety signals and to distinguish and quantify adverse reactions in clinical trial data.
{"title":"The Development and Use of Office of New Drugs Custom Medical Queries for Safety Analyses of Clinical Trial Data.","authors":"Scott Proestel, Vaishali Popat, Ellis F Unger, Linda J B Jeng","doi":"10.1007/s40264-025-01582-1","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s40264-025-01582-1","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The evaluation of safety data by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is a critical step in the review of marketing applications for drugs and biologics. It can be difficult to identify a safety signal, and important signals can be missed if not evaluated comprehensively. Adverse events reported by study participants constitute a major source of safety data, and while previously established standard term groupings have been useful for analysis (e.g., Standardised MedDRA<sup>®</sup> Queries), the Office of New Drugs (OND) at the FDA determined a need for more clinically meaningful groupings specifically designed for use in premarket drug safety evaluation. To improve safety signal detection and analyses of adverse reactions, OND developed standard groupings of adverse event terms known as OND Custom Medical Queries (OCMQs). OCMQs are intended to capture clinically meaningful groupings (i.e., safety signals) represented in premarketing data. OND has seen great utility in OCMQs during premarket drug safety evaluations, as they have improved OND's ability to detect safety signals and to distinguish and quantify adverse reactions in clinical trial data.</p>","PeriodicalId":11382,"journal":{"name":"Drug Safety","volume":" ","pages":"1331-1337"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2025-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12605540/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145063831","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-12-01Epub Date: 2025-08-05DOI: 10.1007/s40264-025-01581-2
Celeste L Y Ewig, Yanning Wang, Nicole E Smolinski, Gita A Toyserkani, Cynthia LaCivita, Leila Lackey, Sara Eggers, Leyla Sahin, Reem S Abu-Rustum, Brian T Bateman, Anick Berard, Christina D Chambers, Beth Choby, Elizabeth A Conover, Michael F Greene, Sonia Hernández-Díaz, Denise J Jamieson, Sarah G Običan, Janine E Polifka, Kay Roussos-Ross, Jeanne S Sheffield, Sharon Voyer Lavigne, Ellen M Zimmermann, Susan B Laffan, Anthony M DeLise, Alicia W Gilsenan, Tarek A Hammad, Christian Hampp, Janet R Hardy, Caitlin A Knox, Kristine Shields, Meredith Y Smith, Rachel E Sobel, Melissa S Tassinari, Judith C Maro, Sonja A Rasmussen, Almut G Winterstein
Background: Preventing fetal exposure to teratogenic medications is an important target for risk mitigation efforts. Decisions about risk mitigation efforts specific to teratogenic medications are complex.
Objectives: The Teratogenic Risk Impact and Mitigation (TRIM) tool was developed as an innovative decision support tool to facilitate prioritization of teratogenic medications for risk mitigation strategies.
Methods: We employed a modified Delphi study design involving experts across teratology, obstetrics/gynecology, and medication safety. Panelists proposed decision criteria in three focus groups, followed by e-Delphi rounds to reach a consensus on criteria regarding three dimensions: (1) completeness; (2) relevance; and (3) distinctiveness. Aggregated feedback from each round was used to inform revision of the criteria in subsequent rounds.
Results: A total of 33 candidate criteria proposed by 32 focus group participants were organized into ten distinct criteria for the Delphi process. Consensus (defined as > 85% agreement on all three dimensions) was reached after three e-Delphi rounds, resulting in six criteria: (1) background use among persons of reproductive potential; (2) overall medication benefit considering severity of the indication and availability of alternatives; (3) seriousness of the teratogenic outcome; (4) risk of the teratogenic outcome; (5) certainty regarding teratogenicity; and (6) the risk of exposure during pregnancy.
Conclusions: We established measurable criteria to inform decisions when prioritizing teratogenic medications for risk mitigation programs. Criteria are consensus based and consistent with relevant regulatory guidance. Future work will operationalize these criteria and determine specific weights to facilitate medication-specific TRIM scores. Through its explicit framework, the TRIM tool may support consistent, transparent, and rational decision making and help optimize the contribution of risk mitigation programs to public health.
{"title":"Teratogenic Risk Impact Mitigation (TRIM): Development of Explicit Criteria to Facilitate Decisions Regarding Teratogenic Risk Mitigation Strategies.","authors":"Celeste L Y Ewig, Yanning Wang, Nicole E Smolinski, Gita A Toyserkani, Cynthia LaCivita, Leila Lackey, Sara Eggers, Leyla Sahin, Reem S Abu-Rustum, Brian T Bateman, Anick Berard, Christina D Chambers, Beth Choby, Elizabeth A Conover, Michael F Greene, Sonia Hernández-Díaz, Denise J Jamieson, Sarah G Običan, Janine E Polifka, Kay Roussos-Ross, Jeanne S Sheffield, Sharon Voyer Lavigne, Ellen M Zimmermann, Susan B Laffan, Anthony M DeLise, Alicia W Gilsenan, Tarek A Hammad, Christian Hampp, Janet R Hardy, Caitlin A Knox, Kristine Shields, Meredith Y Smith, Rachel E Sobel, Melissa S Tassinari, Judith C Maro, Sonja A Rasmussen, Almut G Winterstein","doi":"10.1007/s40264-025-01581-2","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s40264-025-01581-2","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Preventing fetal exposure to teratogenic medications is an important target for risk mitigation efforts. Decisions about risk mitigation efforts specific to teratogenic medications are complex.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The Teratogenic Risk Impact and Mitigation (TRIM) tool was developed as an innovative decision support tool to facilitate prioritization of teratogenic medications for risk mitigation strategies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We employed a modified Delphi study design involving experts across teratology, obstetrics/gynecology, and medication safety. Panelists proposed decision criteria in three focus groups, followed by e-Delphi rounds to reach a consensus on criteria regarding three dimensions: (1) completeness; (2) relevance; and (3) distinctiveness. Aggregated feedback from each round was used to inform revision of the criteria in subsequent rounds.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 33 candidate criteria proposed by 32 focus group participants were organized into ten distinct criteria for the Delphi process. Consensus (defined as > 85% agreement on all three dimensions) was reached after three e-Delphi rounds, resulting in six criteria: (1) background use among persons of reproductive potential; (2) overall medication benefit considering severity of the indication and availability of alternatives; (3) seriousness of the teratogenic outcome; (4) risk of the teratogenic outcome; (5) certainty regarding teratogenicity; and (6) the risk of exposure during pregnancy.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We established measurable criteria to inform decisions when prioritizing teratogenic medications for risk mitigation programs. Criteria are consensus based and consistent with relevant regulatory guidance. Future work will operationalize these criteria and determine specific weights to facilitate medication-specific TRIM scores. Through its explicit framework, the TRIM tool may support consistent, transparent, and rational decision making and help optimize the contribution of risk mitigation programs to public health.</p>","PeriodicalId":11382,"journal":{"name":"Drug Safety","volume":" ","pages":"1387-1397"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2025-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12605566/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144783797","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-11-27DOI: 10.1007/s40264-025-01625-7
Andy Stergachis, Esperança Sevene, Mohammad Gazi Shah Alam, Rebecca E Chandler, Alexander Precioso, Samatha Mudigonda, Dale Nordenberg, Robert T Chen
Background: Functional active safety surveillance is essential for post-authorization assessment and life-cycle safety evidence generation of vaccines and medicines. Data collected through active surveillance methods are routinely used for post-approval surveillance of novel vaccines and medicines. Implementing these methods in low- and middle-income countries remains challenging.
Objective: This systematic review identified and assessed existing active safety surveillance in low- and middle-income countries, including key features, strengths, and limitations.
Methods: A search of EMBASE and PubMed Google Scholar databases was conducted. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO and adhered to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. Findings were synthesized narratively and categorized by surveillance systems characteristics.
Results: Of 13,027 records identified, 423 publications met inclusion criteria. Articles spanned 96 low- and middle-income countries, with India (96), China (57), Brazil (30), Iran (26), Ethiopia (21), Indonesia (20), Uganda (18), Kenya (17), and Ghana (16), most represented. The majority focused on vaccines (211). A total of 127 articles utilized mobile technologies for follow-up, online data collection, and/or adverse event reporting. Fifteen percent of vaccine surveillance systems described in articles demonstrated flexibility to incorporate new vaccines, 34% reported multi-sectoral collaborations, and 10% involved multiple countries. Gaps identified include small sample sizes, lack of sustainability, limited flexible surveillance, staffing challenges, and limited use of standard case definitions and digital technologies.
Conclusions: Active safety surveillance in low- and middle-income countries has made progress but still faces challenges. The capture and management of safety data through harmonized digital tools that promote consistency in recording and reporting and cross-country collaborations are crucial in further strengthening active safety surveillance in low- and middle-income countries.
{"title":"Systematic Review of Active Safety Surveillance of Vaccines and Medicines in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.","authors":"Andy Stergachis, Esperança Sevene, Mohammad Gazi Shah Alam, Rebecca E Chandler, Alexander Precioso, Samatha Mudigonda, Dale Nordenberg, Robert T Chen","doi":"10.1007/s40264-025-01625-7","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-025-01625-7","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Functional active safety surveillance is essential for post-authorization assessment and life-cycle safety evidence generation of vaccines and medicines. Data collected through active surveillance methods are routinely used for post-approval surveillance of novel vaccines and medicines. Implementing these methods in low- and middle-income countries remains challenging.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This systematic review identified and assessed existing active safety surveillance in low- and middle-income countries, including key features, strengths, and limitations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A search of EMBASE and PubMed Google Scholar databases was conducted. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO and adhered to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. Findings were synthesized narratively and categorized by surveillance systems characteristics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 13,027 records identified, 423 publications met inclusion criteria. Articles spanned 96 low- and middle-income countries, with India (96), China (57), Brazil (30), Iran (26), Ethiopia (21), Indonesia (20), Uganda (18), Kenya (17), and Ghana (16), most represented. The majority focused on vaccines (211). A total of 127 articles utilized mobile technologies for follow-up, online data collection, and/or adverse event reporting. Fifteen percent of vaccine surveillance systems described in articles demonstrated flexibility to incorporate new vaccines, 34% reported multi-sectoral collaborations, and 10% involved multiple countries. Gaps identified include small sample sizes, lack of sustainability, limited flexible surveillance, staffing challenges, and limited use of standard case definitions and digital technologies.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Active safety surveillance in low- and middle-income countries has made progress but still faces challenges. The capture and management of safety data through harmonized digital tools that promote consistency in recording and reporting and cross-country collaborations are crucial in further strengthening active safety surveillance in low- and middle-income countries.</p>","PeriodicalId":11382,"journal":{"name":"Drug Safety","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2025-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145631265","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-11-27DOI: 10.1007/s40264-025-01636-4
Susan Chimonas, Carol Cosenza, Aaron S Kesselheim, Gita A Toyserkani, Kate Heinrich Oswell, Cynthia LaCivita, Gerald J Dal Pan, Ameet Sarpatwari
Background: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-mandates Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) programs for certain drugs with serious side effects help ensure that the benefits of use outweigh the risks. REMS materials-including enrollment forms, fact sheets, and medication guides-inform patients and caregivers about drug risks and program requirements.
Objective: To explore how effectively REMS materials communicate drug risk information and program requirements to patients and caregivers and to identify patients' and caregivers' preferences for risk communication.
Methods: Interviews with patients and caregivers of patients prescribed REMS-covered drugs focused on REMS materials. Transcripts were coded manually, with answers to closed-ended questions tabulated in Excel.
Results: The study included 43 patients and six caregivers across eight REMS-covered drugs: alemtuzumab, ambrisentan, clozapine, isotretinoin, lenalidomide, pegvaliase, pomalidomide, and sodium oxybate. Most participants were female (N = 42, 86%), white/non-Hispanic (N = 40, 82%), and college educated (N = 37, 76%). The average age was 40 years, with 27 (55%) having annual family incomes over $100,000. Most participants learned about REMS-covered drugs via printed information (N = 36, 73%), mostly REMS materials; conversations with providers about drug risks and benefits (N = 29, 59%); and websites found on their own (N = 42, 86%). Nearly all participants (N = 47, 96%) felt well-informed about drug risks and benefits, and most participants taking self-administered drugs (N = 28, 67%) reported understanding safe use "very well." However, knowledge gaps emerged around REMS-related risks and reasons for safe use measures; some participants misunderstood REMS enrollment forms as legal protections, not safety measures. Patients also widely varied in their valuations of REMS materials, with some feeling informed and empowered and others confused or intimidated. Preferences for risk communication varied; most participants (N = 36, 73%) wanted to receive information verbally from providers, with several wanting visual aids, summaries, and other resources.
Discussion: Gaps in patients' and caregivers' understanding of REMS programs and drug risks highlight the merits of reviewing communication materials and strategies. Clear, concise, and comprehensive educational documents could promote understanding and adherence to REMS requirements.
{"title":"Prescription Drugs Subject to a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy: Patient Perspectives on Risk Communication and the Value of Educational Materials.","authors":"Susan Chimonas, Carol Cosenza, Aaron S Kesselheim, Gita A Toyserkani, Kate Heinrich Oswell, Cynthia LaCivita, Gerald J Dal Pan, Ameet Sarpatwari","doi":"10.1007/s40264-025-01636-4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-025-01636-4","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-mandates Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) programs for certain drugs with serious side effects help ensure that the benefits of use outweigh the risks. REMS materials-including enrollment forms, fact sheets, and medication guides-inform patients and caregivers about drug risks and program requirements.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To explore how effectively REMS materials communicate drug risk information and program requirements to patients and caregivers and to identify patients' and caregivers' preferences for risk communication.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Interviews with patients and caregivers of patients prescribed REMS-covered drugs focused on REMS materials. Transcripts were coded manually, with answers to closed-ended questions tabulated in Excel.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study included 43 patients and six caregivers across eight REMS-covered drugs: alemtuzumab, ambrisentan, clozapine, isotretinoin, lenalidomide, pegvaliase, pomalidomide, and sodium oxybate. Most participants were female (N = 42, 86%), white/non-Hispanic (N = 40, 82%), and college educated (N = 37, 76%). The average age was 40 years, with 27 (55%) having annual family incomes over $100,000. Most participants learned about REMS-covered drugs via printed information (N = 36, 73%), mostly REMS materials; conversations with providers about drug risks and benefits (N = 29, 59%); and websites found on their own (N = 42, 86%). Nearly all participants (N = 47, 96%) felt well-informed about drug risks and benefits, and most participants taking self-administered drugs (N = 28, 67%) reported understanding safe use \"very well.\" However, knowledge gaps emerged around REMS-related risks and reasons for safe use measures; some participants misunderstood REMS enrollment forms as legal protections, not safety measures. Patients also widely varied in their valuations of REMS materials, with some feeling informed and empowered and others confused or intimidated. Preferences for risk communication varied; most participants (N = 36, 73%) wanted to receive information verbally from providers, with several wanting visual aids, summaries, and other resources.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Gaps in patients' and caregivers' understanding of REMS programs and drug risks highlight the merits of reviewing communication materials and strategies. Clear, concise, and comprehensive educational documents could promote understanding and adherence to REMS requirements.</p>","PeriodicalId":11382,"journal":{"name":"Drug Safety","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2025-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145631257","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-11-27DOI: 10.1007/s40264-025-01629-3
Sungho Bea, Elisabetta Patorno, Georg Hahn, Julie M Paik, Deborah J Wexler, Katsiaryna Bykov
Background: Sulfonylureas (SU) are widely used for diabetes management in older adults but can cause hypoglycemia, which may be worsened by drug interactions. We applied high-throughput data mining to identify medications that could increase hypoglycemia risk when taken with SU.
Methods: Using Medicare, MarketScan, and Optum Clinformatics (2003-2022), we identified patients aged ≥ 65 years who experienced a severe hypoglycemic event after at least 90 days on SU. We evaluated all medications dispensed in the 90 days before the event using a case-crossover (CCO) design. We adjusted for time-varying confounding and direct effect of the evaluated medications (precipitant) using a case-case time-control (CCTC) approach and metformin as control. We computed odds ratios (ORs) for its association with hypoglycemia. The false discovery rate (FDR) was controlled at 0.05 to adjust for multiple testing. To reduce confounding from other diabetes medications, we analyzed non-diabetes and diabetes medications separately.
Results: Among 1607 candidate drugs received before experiencing hypoglycemia, 86 non-diabetes medications showed a CCO OR ≥ 1.00. With metformin as control, sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim (CCTC OR 1.76, p < 0.01, FDR q < 0.01) and metronidazole (CCTC OR 2.17, p < 0.01, FDR q = 0.04) were associated with severe hypoglycemia. Among 10 diabetes medications, insulin showed increased association (CCO OR 1.22, p < 0.01); however, once adjusted for the drug's direct effects, CCTC OR was 1.03 (p = 0.47, FDR q = 0.47).
Conclusions: Using a high-throughput data mining approach, we identified two antibiotics (sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim and metronidazole) that may increase hypoglycemia risk in older adults on sulfonylureas. Given the exploratory nature of this study, these findings warrant further investigation.
背景:磺脲类药物(SU)广泛用于老年人糖尿病治疗,但可引起低血糖,并可能因药物相互作用而恶化。方法:使用Medicare、MarketScan和Optum Clinformatics(2003-2022),我们确定了年龄≥65岁的患者,他们在服用SU至少90天后经历了严重的低血糖事件。我们使用病例交叉(CCO)设计评估了事件发生前90天内分配的所有药物。我们采用病例时间对照(CCTC)方法和二甲双胍作为对照,对时变的混杂因素和评估药物(沉淀剂)的直接影响进行了调整。我们计算了其与低血糖相关的比值比(ORs)。错误发现率(FDR)控制在0.05,以调整多重检验。为了减少其他糖尿病药物的混淆,我们分别分析了非糖尿病药物和糖尿病药物。结果:在发生低血糖前服用的1607种候选药物中,86种非糖尿病药物的CCO OR≥1.00。以二甲双胍为对照,磺胺甲恶唑/甲氧苄啶(CCTC OR 1.76, p < 0.01, FDR q < 0.01)和甲硝唑(CCTC OR 2.17, p < 0.01, FDR q = 0.04)与严重低血糖相关。10种糖尿病药物中,胰岛素相关性增高(CCO OR 1.22, p < 0.01);然而,一旦调整了药物的直接作用,CCTC OR为1.03 (p = 0.47, FDR q = 0.47)。结论:使用高通量数据挖掘方法,我们确定了两种抗生素(磺胺甲恶唑/甲氧苄啶和甲硝唑)可能增加服用磺脲类药物的老年人低血糖风险。鉴于本研究的探索性,这些发现值得进一步调查。
{"title":"Medications Associated with Increased Risk of Hypoglycemia in Older Adults on Sulfonylureas: A High-Throughput Case-Crossover-Based Screening Study.","authors":"Sungho Bea, Elisabetta Patorno, Georg Hahn, Julie M Paik, Deborah J Wexler, Katsiaryna Bykov","doi":"10.1007/s40264-025-01629-3","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-025-01629-3","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Sulfonylureas (SU) are widely used for diabetes management in older adults but can cause hypoglycemia, which may be worsened by drug interactions. We applied high-throughput data mining to identify medications that could increase hypoglycemia risk when taken with SU.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using Medicare, MarketScan, and Optum Clinformatics (2003-2022), we identified patients aged ≥ 65 years who experienced a severe hypoglycemic event after at least 90 days on SU. We evaluated all medications dispensed in the 90 days before the event using a case-crossover (CCO) design. We adjusted for time-varying confounding and direct effect of the evaluated medications (precipitant) using a case-case time-control (CCTC) approach and metformin as control. We computed odds ratios (ORs) for its association with hypoglycemia. The false discovery rate (FDR) was controlled at 0.05 to adjust for multiple testing. To reduce confounding from other diabetes medications, we analyzed non-diabetes and diabetes medications separately.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 1607 candidate drugs received before experiencing hypoglycemia, 86 non-diabetes medications showed a CCO OR ≥ 1.00. With metformin as control, sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim (CCTC OR 1.76, p < 0.01, FDR q < 0.01) and metronidazole (CCTC OR 2.17, p < 0.01, FDR q = 0.04) were associated with severe hypoglycemia. Among 10 diabetes medications, insulin showed increased association (CCO OR 1.22, p < 0.01); however, once adjusted for the drug's direct effects, CCTC OR was 1.03 (p = 0.47, FDR q = 0.47).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Using a high-throughput data mining approach, we identified two antibiotics (sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim and metronidazole) that may increase hypoglycemia risk in older adults on sulfonylureas. Given the exploratory nature of this study, these findings warrant further investigation.</p>","PeriodicalId":11382,"journal":{"name":"Drug Safety","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2025-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145631206","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-11-08DOI: 10.1007/s40264-025-01631-9
Lukas Westphal, Débora D Gräf, Haoxin Le, Christine E Hallgreen, Morten Andersen
Introduction: Sexual side effects of serotonergic drugs are well documented. However, observational evidence comparing specific antidepressants remains sparse.
Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the risk of developing healthcare-recorded sexual dysfunction among male patients after initiating treatment with citalopram, sertraline, venlafaxine, or mirtazapine.
Methods: We conducted a new-user, active comparator cohort study of adult males in Denmark who started treatment with any of the study drugs between 2001 and 2015, allowing multiple cohort entries per person. Data from Danish national healthcare registers included 170,580 new treatment episodes of citalopram, 67,721 of mirtazapine, 51,984 of sertraline, and 19,820 of venlafaxine. A separate analysis examined patients with prior depression-related hospital visits. Results were reported as incidence rates as well as unmatched and propensity score-matched hazard ratios.
Results: In our primary analysis with 1-year follow-up and washout periods, incidence rates ranged from 18.80 (95% CI 17.60-20.00) to 28.5 (95% CI 26.00-31.30) per 1000 person-years. Venlafaxine was associated with the highest risk of healthcare-recorded sexual dysfunction compared with citalopram (hazard ratio [HR] 1.27; 95% CI 1.02-1.46), which was particularly pronounced among those with previous hospital contact for depression (HR 1.93; 95% CI 1.14-1.27). No significant difference was observed for sertraline (HR 0.99; 95% CI 0.90-1.09), while mirtazapine demonstrated modest evidence of a lower risk relative to citalopram (HR 0.87; 95% CI 0.81-0.93). Findings remained consistent across all analyses.
Conclusions: The risk of developing sexual dysfunction varies across antidepressant treatment. Healthcare providers should discuss the potential for sexual side effects, particularly when multiple treatment options are available.
5 -羟色胺类药物的性副作用是有据可证的。然而,比较特定抗抑郁药物的观察性证据仍然很少。目的:本研究的目的是比较男性患者在开始使用西酞普兰、舍曲林、文拉法辛或米氮平治疗后发生性功能障碍的风险。方法:我们对2001年至2015年间开始接受任何研究药物治疗的丹麦成年男性进行了一项新用户、活跃的比较队列研究,允许每个人进入多个队列。来自丹麦国家卫生保健登记的数据包括西酞普兰的新治疗病例170,580例,米氮平的67,721例,舍曲林的51,984例,文拉法辛的19,820例。另一项单独的分析调查了先前与抑郁症相关的医院就诊的患者。结果报告为发病率以及不匹配和倾向评分匹配的风险比。结果:在我们为期1年的随访和洗脱期的主要分析中,发病率范围为每1000人年18.80 (95% CI 17.60-20.00)至28.5 (95% CI 26.00-31.30)。与西酞普兰相比,文拉法辛与医疗记录中性功能障碍的风险最高(风险比[HR] 1.27; 95% CI 1.02-1.46),这在以前因抑郁症而接触过医院的患者中尤为明显(风险比1.93;95% CI 1.14-1.27)。舍曲林无显著差异(HR 0.99; 95% CI 0.90-1.09),而米氮平相对于西酞普兰显示出较低的风险(HR 0.87; 95% CI 0.81-0.93)。所有分析的结果保持一致。结论:在不同的抗抑郁药物治疗中发生性功能障碍的风险不同。医疗保健提供者应该讨论潜在的性副作用,特别是当多种治疗方案可用时。
{"title":"Sexual Dysfunction in Male Patients After Initiating Treatment with Antidepressants.","authors":"Lukas Westphal, Débora D Gräf, Haoxin Le, Christine E Hallgreen, Morten Andersen","doi":"10.1007/s40264-025-01631-9","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-025-01631-9","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Sexual side effects of serotonergic drugs are well documented. However, observational evidence comparing specific antidepressants remains sparse.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of this study was to compare the risk of developing healthcare-recorded sexual dysfunction among male patients after initiating treatment with citalopram, sertraline, venlafaxine, or mirtazapine.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a new-user, active comparator cohort study of adult males in Denmark who started treatment with any of the study drugs between 2001 and 2015, allowing multiple cohort entries per person. Data from Danish national healthcare registers included 170,580 new treatment episodes of citalopram, 67,721 of mirtazapine, 51,984 of sertraline, and 19,820 of venlafaxine. A separate analysis examined patients with prior depression-related hospital visits. Results were reported as incidence rates as well as unmatched and propensity score-matched hazard ratios.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In our primary analysis with 1-year follow-up and washout periods, incidence rates ranged from 18.80 (95% CI 17.60-20.00) to 28.5 (95% CI 26.00-31.30) per 1000 person-years. Venlafaxine was associated with the highest risk of healthcare-recorded sexual dysfunction compared with citalopram (hazard ratio [HR] 1.27; 95% CI 1.02-1.46), which was particularly pronounced among those with previous hospital contact for depression (HR 1.93; 95% CI 1.14-1.27). No significant difference was observed for sertraline (HR 0.99; 95% CI 0.90-1.09), while mirtazapine demonstrated modest evidence of a lower risk relative to citalopram (HR 0.87; 95% CI 0.81-0.93). Findings remained consistent across all analyses.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The risk of developing sexual dysfunction varies across antidepressant treatment. Healthcare providers should discuss the potential for sexual side effects, particularly when multiple treatment options are available.</p>","PeriodicalId":11382,"journal":{"name":"Drug Safety","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2025-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145470797","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-11-04DOI: 10.1007/s40264-025-01633-7
Roua Azroun, Lisa Kalisch Ellett, Nicole Pratt, Michael Ward, Jack Janetzki
Background: Medicine shortages are an increasing threat to medicine safety and access. In Australia, a 7-month shortage of Coumadin 5-mg tablets (Dec 2022-Jul 2023) prompted Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) intervention via the Serious Scarcity Substitution Instrument (SSSI), allowing pharmacists to substitute 5-mg warfarin tablets with lower-strength tablets. Understanding the impact of this shortage on anticoagulant use and safety is essential for informing future regulatory responses.
Aims: The aim of this study was to assess the impact of the 2023 warfarin shortage in Australia on dispensing of warfarin and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), International Normalised Ratio (INR) testing, and adverse event reporting.
Methods: Monthly national dispensing data (January 2020-August 2024) were obtained from Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) Date of Supply data. INR pathology data were sourced from Services Australia. The TGA Medicines Shortages Database identified relevant shortage periods. Warfarin-related adverse events were extracted from the TGA Database of Adverse Event Notifications. Interrupted time series assessed changes in dispensing and INR testing trends over time.
Results: Warfarin dispensing declined by 1094 prescriptions per month prior to March 2023 (p < 0.0001). A short-term increase occurred in March 2023 (+ 8625 prescriptions; p = 0.0017) following implementation of the SSSI, although this was not sustained. At the warfarin strength level, dispensing rose for warfarin 1 mg and 2 mg but fell for 5 mg, with subsequent compensatory increases; 3 mg remained stable. DOAC dispensing increased steadily before March 2023 (+ 3771 prescriptions per month; p < 0.0001) but declined thereafter (- 3056 per month; p < 0.0001), most notably for rivaroxaban and dabigatran, while apixaban decreased non-significantly. INR testing briefly increased during the shortage and SSSI. A modest rise in haemorrhage-related adverse events was observed.
Conclusion: Warfarin supply was maintained during the 2023 shortage through strength-based substitution under the SSSI, with limited impact on DOAC dispensing.
{"title":"A National Response to Warfarin Shortages: Evaluating Regulatory Substitution and Notified Shortages and Their Effects on Antithrombotic Dispensings, Pathology Monitoring and Adverse Event Trends in Australia.","authors":"Roua Azroun, Lisa Kalisch Ellett, Nicole Pratt, Michael Ward, Jack Janetzki","doi":"10.1007/s40264-025-01633-7","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-025-01633-7","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Medicine shortages are an increasing threat to medicine safety and access. In Australia, a 7-month shortage of Coumadin 5-mg tablets (Dec 2022-Jul 2023) prompted Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) intervention via the Serious Scarcity Substitution Instrument (SSSI), allowing pharmacists to substitute 5-mg warfarin tablets with lower-strength tablets. Understanding the impact of this shortage on anticoagulant use and safety is essential for informing future regulatory responses.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>The aim of this study was to assess the impact of the 2023 warfarin shortage in Australia on dispensing of warfarin and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), International Normalised Ratio (INR) testing, and adverse event reporting.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Monthly national dispensing data (January 2020-August 2024) were obtained from Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) Date of Supply data. INR pathology data were sourced from Services Australia. The TGA Medicines Shortages Database identified relevant shortage periods. Warfarin-related adverse events were extracted from the TGA Database of Adverse Event Notifications. Interrupted time series assessed changes in dispensing and INR testing trends over time.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Warfarin dispensing declined by 1094 prescriptions per month prior to March 2023 (p < 0.0001). A short-term increase occurred in March 2023 (+ 8625 prescriptions; p = 0.0017) following implementation of the SSSI, although this was not sustained. At the warfarin strength level, dispensing rose for warfarin 1 mg and 2 mg but fell for 5 mg, with subsequent compensatory increases; 3 mg remained stable. DOAC dispensing increased steadily before March 2023 (+ 3771 prescriptions per month; p < 0.0001) but declined thereafter (- 3056 per month; p < 0.0001), most notably for rivaroxaban and dabigatran, while apixaban decreased non-significantly. INR testing briefly increased during the shortage and SSSI. A modest rise in haemorrhage-related adverse events was observed.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Warfarin supply was maintained during the 2023 shortage through strength-based substitution under the SSSI, with limited impact on DOAC dispensing.</p>","PeriodicalId":11382,"journal":{"name":"Drug Safety","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2025-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145437501","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-11-01Epub Date: 2025-07-01DOI: 10.1007/s40264-025-01573-2
Tahmineh Garmann, Hilde Samdal, Daniele Sartori, David Jahanlu, Fredrik Andersen, Elena Rocca
<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA<sup>®</sup>) is an international standardized medical terminology used to code various types of medical information, including safety reports of suspected adverse reactions to medicines. Quantitative studies have highlighted varying levels of coding inconsistency across MedDRA<sup>®</sup>-relevant platforms, though the possible grounds of such inconsistency remain unclear.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>We explored the reasoning and strategies employed by pharmacovigilance officers when coding selected ambiguous adverse events to MedDRA<sup>®</sup>, categorized the types of coding inconsistencies, and explored sources of the inconsistencies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Pharmacovigilance officers from the Norwegian public health sector were invited to participate in a survey-based, cross-sectional study followed by focus group interviews. The survey consisted of 11 coding tasks, with varying degrees of ambiguity, purposively sampled from the Norwegian pharmacovigilance registry. Participants selected the appropriate MedDRA<sup>®</sup> terms and graded the difficulty level of each task on a scale from 1 (least difficult) to 4 (most difficult). Terms selected by participants were compared with a Standard Term Selection (STS), agreed upon by the authors in consultation with a MedDRA<sup>®</sup> trainer. Inconsistencies with the STS were classified as omission (missing term), substitution (extra term selected in the presence of an omission), and addition (extra term selected and none omitted). In focus groups, participants discussed challenges in the coding tasks and the strategies they used to overcome them. Interview transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 26 coders (79% of the eligible population) completed the survey. Of the survey answers, 36% were identical to the STS; answers consistent with the STS varied across the specific coding tasks and did not align with the perceived difficulty of the tasks. The most common inconsistency (30% of the survey answers) arose from substituting one of multiple MedDRA<sup>®</sup> terms. Of the survey answers, 18% included omissions without substitutions, and 6% added unnecessary terms to the STS. Eight of the 26 coders (31%) participated in the focus group interviews. Focus group themes revealed that substitutions were explained by difficulties in translating lay language to medical terminology, finding accurate English translations for Norwegian medical terms, and fitting complex descriptions into MedDRA<sup>®</sup> terms. This was explained by themes related to ambiguity-resolution strategies. Themes explaining omissions included strategies for resolving ambiguity, contextual thinking, causal and pharmacological reasoning in the coding process, and information categorization.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Tailored training programs and clear institutiona
{"title":"Strategies and Challenges in Coding Ambiguous Information Using MedDRA<sup>®</sup>: An Exploration Among Norwegian Pharmacovigilance Officers.","authors":"Tahmineh Garmann, Hilde Samdal, Daniele Sartori, David Jahanlu, Fredrik Andersen, Elena Rocca","doi":"10.1007/s40264-025-01573-2","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s40264-025-01573-2","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA<sup>®</sup>) is an international standardized medical terminology used to code various types of medical information, including safety reports of suspected adverse reactions to medicines. Quantitative studies have highlighted varying levels of coding inconsistency across MedDRA<sup>®</sup>-relevant platforms, though the possible grounds of such inconsistency remain unclear.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>We explored the reasoning and strategies employed by pharmacovigilance officers when coding selected ambiguous adverse events to MedDRA<sup>®</sup>, categorized the types of coding inconsistencies, and explored sources of the inconsistencies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Pharmacovigilance officers from the Norwegian public health sector were invited to participate in a survey-based, cross-sectional study followed by focus group interviews. The survey consisted of 11 coding tasks, with varying degrees of ambiguity, purposively sampled from the Norwegian pharmacovigilance registry. Participants selected the appropriate MedDRA<sup>®</sup> terms and graded the difficulty level of each task on a scale from 1 (least difficult) to 4 (most difficult). Terms selected by participants were compared with a Standard Term Selection (STS), agreed upon by the authors in consultation with a MedDRA<sup>®</sup> trainer. Inconsistencies with the STS were classified as omission (missing term), substitution (extra term selected in the presence of an omission), and addition (extra term selected and none omitted). In focus groups, participants discussed challenges in the coding tasks and the strategies they used to overcome them. Interview transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 26 coders (79% of the eligible population) completed the survey. Of the survey answers, 36% were identical to the STS; answers consistent with the STS varied across the specific coding tasks and did not align with the perceived difficulty of the tasks. The most common inconsistency (30% of the survey answers) arose from substituting one of multiple MedDRA<sup>®</sup> terms. Of the survey answers, 18% included omissions without substitutions, and 6% added unnecessary terms to the STS. Eight of the 26 coders (31%) participated in the focus group interviews. Focus group themes revealed that substitutions were explained by difficulties in translating lay language to medical terminology, finding accurate English translations for Norwegian medical terms, and fitting complex descriptions into MedDRA<sup>®</sup> terms. This was explained by themes related to ambiguity-resolution strategies. Themes explaining omissions included strategies for resolving ambiguity, contextual thinking, causal and pharmacological reasoning in the coding process, and information categorization.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Tailored training programs and clear institutiona","PeriodicalId":11382,"journal":{"name":"Drug Safety","volume":" ","pages":"1253-1269"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2025-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12515201/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144539555","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}