Adverse Drug Reaction Case Safety Practices in Large Biopharmaceutical Organizations from 2007 to 2017: An Industry Survey
Drug safety remains a top global public health concern. An increase in the number of data sources available has increased the complexity of pharmacovigilance operations, so the US FDA has created draft guidance focusing on optimizing drug safety data for well-characterized medicines. However, to date, no data demonstrating changes in reports have been presented.
This study provided data assessing changes in individual case safety reports (ICSRs) and aggregate reports (ARs) for large biopharmaceutical companies from 2007 to 2017. This study also evaluated current trends on the use of advanced machine and deep learning in order to process all data captured for ICSRs as well as opinions from industry thought leaders on creating a sustainable case-processing operation.
Using data captured from Navitas Life Science’s annual pvnet® benchmark, we calculated workload indicators characterizing pharmacovigilance operations for large biopharmaceutical organizations. Workload indicators included the number of ICSRs by organization, the number of ARs, and the number and types of data sources used. We also conducted structured in-depth interviews with seven biopharmaceutical executives to discover the reasons for changes in workload indicators across time as well as current strategies for increasing efficiencies in drug safety reporting.
The median number of ICSRs increased from 84,960 cases in 2007 to over 200,000 cases in 2017; this increase was largely attributable to an increase in both nonserious cases and follow-up cases. Member companies reported using 12 ± 3 data sources for case identification. The number of ARs also increased from a median of 70 reports in 2007 to 258 reports in 2017. To address these increases, 61% of the biopharmaceutical organizations we surveyed planned to adopt machine learning for full ICSR processing; however, as of 2018, none of the organizations surveyed had mechanisms in place.
This study demonstrated that pharmacovigilance departments are currently burdened by ever-increasing case volumes. With increased guidance from regulatory agencies, as well as improvements in artificial intelligence and natural language processing, biopharmaceutical organizations must determine the most resource-efficient and sustainable methods to process the growing volume of cases.
The authors acknowledge Marie-Claire Wilson and Pete Boyd for their contributions to the study.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
No sources of funding were used to conduct this study or prepare this manuscript.
Conflict of interest
SS is a paid employee of Foundation Medicine, Inc. but was employed at the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development at the time the study was conducted. MF is a paid employee of Bayer AG. PC is a paid employee of Pfizer, Inc. LT and LJ are paid employees of Navitas Life Sciences. No companies contributed to or influenced the data analysis, study conduct, or writing of the manuscript. The manuscript reflects the authors’ personal opinions and contributions.
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.
- 8.Annual Report on EudraVigilance for the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission. European Medicines Agency. 2018.Google Scholar
- 10.CFDA Sees Increase in Adverse Event Reports. FDANews. The QMN Weekly Bulletin Web site. https://www.fdanews.com/articles/181935-cfda-sees-increase-in-adverse-event-reports. Published 2017. Updated May 26, 2017. Accessed 12 Febr 2019.
- 12.Mitta I. Current status on Adverse Event Reporting in Japan. In: Paper presented at: 6th Joint Conference of Taiwan and Japan on Medical Products Regulation; October 11, 2018, 2018.Google Scholar
- 13.Uppsala Monitoring Center: Annual report July 2017-June 2018. Uppsala, Sweden: Uppsala Monitoring Center; World Health Organization;2018Google Scholar
- 14.Sessa M, di Mauro G, Mascolo A, et al. Pillars and pitfalls of the new pharmacovigilance legislation: consequences for the identification of adverse drug reactions deriving from abuse, misuse, overdose, occupational exposure, and medication errors. Front Pharmacol. 2018;9:611.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 16.Pharmacovigilance Market Dynamics and Service Provider Benchmarking. USA: Industry Standard Research (ISR) Reports; November 2014 2014.Google Scholar
- 19.Vermeer NS, Straus SM, Mantel-Teeuwisse AK, et al. Traceability of biopharmaceuticals in spontaneous reporting systems: a cross-sectional study in the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) and EudraVigilance databases. Drug Saf Int J Med Toxicol Drug Exp. 2013;36(8):617–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.Directive 2012/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the council of 25 October 2012 amending Directive 2001/83/EC as regards pharmacovigilance. Off J Eur Union. 2012:4Google Scholar
- 22.Submitting Documents Using Real-World Data and Real-World Evidence to FDA for Drugs and Biologics: Guidance for Industry. In: Services USDoHaH, Administration FaD, (CDER) CfDEaR, (CBER) CfBEaR, eds. Rockville, MD: Federal Register; 2019:8.Google Scholar
- 24.Legal framework: Pharmacovigilance. European Medicines Agency. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory/overview/pharmacovigilance/legal-framework-pharmacovigilance. Published 2015. Updated May 18, 2015. Accessed 12 Febr 2019.
- 25.Good pharmacovigilance practices. European Medicines Agency. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory/post-authorisation/pharmacovigilance/good-pharmacovigilance-practices#introduction-section. Published 2019. Accessed 12 Feb 2019.
- 40.The International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use. ICH harmonised guideline E19: optimisation of safety data collection. Draft version, 3 April 2019. https://www.fda.gov/media/128313/download. Accessed 30 October 2019.