风险最小化/缓解监管指南与药品风险最小化评估研究报告建议清单的比较

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY British journal of clinical pharmacology Pub Date : 2024-09-19 DOI:10.1111/bcp.16259
Sonia Guleria, Emily Brouwer, David A. Brown, Katja M. Hakkarainen
{"title":"风险最小化/缓解监管指南与药品风险最小化评估研究报告建议清单的比较","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

在五大洲--非洲(埃及、南非)、亚洲(澳大利亚、中国、日本、韩国、新加坡)、欧洲(欧盟 27 国、英国)、北美洲(美国、加拿大)和南美洲(巴西)--确定了评估风险最小化措施(RMM)战略有效性的最新国别监管指南,并与制药风险最小化评估研究报告建议(RIMES)核对表进行了比较、欧洲药物流行病学和药物警戒中心网络 (ENCePP) 为评估有效性评估的质量而制定了该清单。RIMES 核对表项目涉及研究假设、参与者、措施、统计分析和结果。欧洲医学机构 (EMA) 和美国食品药品管理局 (FDA) 的指南仅部分与 RIMES 保持一致,主要是在测量和结果方面。在没有国家特定指南的情况下,大多数国家建议遵循 EMA 或 FDA 指南;日本和南非提到了国际人用药品技术要求协调理事会 (ICH E2E) 指南;巴西和中国没有指南/建议。在全球范围内,缺乏针对 RMM 的指导,即使有指导,也不统一,与 RIMES 核对表的一致性也很有限。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Comparing regulatory guidance on risk minimization/mitigation and the Reporting recommendation Intended for pharmaceutical Risk Minimization Evaluation Studies checklist
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
8.80%
发文量
419
审稿时长
1 months
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.
期刊最新文献
Physiologically based pharmacokinetic modelling to predict potential drug-drug interactions of dersimelagon (MT-7117). Sustainable medicines development and use: Challenges and opportunities in the sustainable production of active pharmaceutical ingredients. Economic burden of hospital admissions for adverse drug reactions in France: The IATROSTAT-ECO study. Colchicine effect on biomarkers of cardiac remodelling and atherosclerosis in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: A randomized controlled trial. Evaluating the capability of ChatGPT in predicting drug-drug interactions: Real-world evidence using hospitalized patient data.
×
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