Drug Safety

, Volume 32, Issue 12, pp 1175–1187 | Cite as

Evaluation of Post-Authorization Safety Studies in the First Cohort of EU Risk Management Plans at Time of Regulatory Approval

  • Thijs J. Giezen
  • Aukje K. Mantel-Teeuwisse
  • Sabine M. J. M. Straus
  • Toine C. G. Egberts
  • Stella Blackburn
  • Ingemar Persson
  • Hubert G. M. Leufkens
Original Research Article

Abstract

Backgound: Since November 2005, an EU Risk Management Plan (EU-RMP) has had to be submitted as part of a marketing application for all new chemical entities in the EU. In the EU-RMP, the safety profile of the medicine has to be described and pharmacovigilance activities should be proposed to study further safety concerns during use of the drug in the real-world setting. These activities include, for example, collection of spontaneously reported adverse events and post-authorization safety studies (PASS). Since the submission of an EU-RMP is a relatively new requirement, there is limited knowledge on the quality and completeness of the study protocols of PASS at the time of approval and there are no data on the influence of certain drug characteristics on the proposed pharmacovigilance activities.

Objective: To examine the types of proposed pharmacovigilance activities in a sample of EU-RMPs, describe and evaluate the methodology of PASS, identify problems and propose remedies, and compare characteristics between biologicals and small molecules.

Methods: Eighteen EU-RMPs (nine for biologicals, nine for small molecules) given a positive decision regarding the marketing application by the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use between November 2005 and May 2007 were included in this descriptive cohort study. The EU-RMPs were selected over time and different therapeutic areas. Classification of the safety concerns (‘important identified risks’, ‘important potential risks’, ‘important missing information’ within the EU-RMP was studied. For PASS, data source (registry, population-based database, sponsor-owned clinical trial database), source of study population to be included in PASS and comprehensiveness of study protocol (full protocol, limited protocol, study synopsis, short description, commitment without further information) were studied.

Results: Compared to small molecules, safety concerns for biologicals were less frequently classified as important identified risks (relative risk [RR] 0.6; 95% CI 0.3, 1.0) and more frequently as important missing information (RR 1.6; 95% CI 1.0, 2.7).

Forty-seven PASS were proposed; 31 for biologicals and 16 for small molecules. Compared with studies proposed in population-based databases (4 for biologicals, 8 for small molecules), studies in registries (18 for biologicals, 4 for small molecules) were more frequently proposed for biologicals than for small molecules (RR 2.5; 95% CI 1.1, 5.7). About 60% of the proposed PASS will include EU inhabitants. No full study protocols were submitted; 26% involved a limited study protocol, 33% a study synopsis, 37% a short description and 4% a commitment without further information.

Conclusion: Approximately 40% of the study proposals for PASS were classified as a short description or a commitment to perform a study without further information, precluding an adequate scientific assessment. Study ing non-EU populations may give rise to difficulties with generalizability of the results to the EU due to differences in patient characteristics, differences in the indication for the medicine and different healthcare systems. This study emphasizes the need for more complete study proposals to be submitted earlier on in the evaluation period and for the inclusion of EU inhabitants in PASS. In addition, differences in the characteristics between biologicals and small molecules, e.g. in the data source proposed, support the need for individualized tailored PASS depending on the type of drug.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Imperato AK, Smiles S, Abramson SB. Long-term risks associated with biologic response modifiers used in rheumatic diseases. Curr Opin Rheumatol 2004 May; 16(3): 199–205PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gomez-Reino JJ, Carmona L, Valverde VR, et al. Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors may predispose to significant increase in tuberculosis risk: a multicenter active-surveillance report. Arthritis Rheum 2003 Aug; 48(8): 2122–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Giezen TJ, Mantel-Teeuwisse AK, Straus SM, et al. Safety-related regulatory actions for biologicals approved in the United States and the European Union. JAMA 2008 Oct; 300(16): 1887–96PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schneeweiss S. Developments in post-marketing comparative effectiveness research. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2007 Aug; 82(2): 143–56PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stricker BH, Psaty BM. Detection, verification, and quantification of adverse drug reactions. BMJ 2004 Jul; 329(7456): 44–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use. ICH harmonised tripartite guideline: pharmacovigilance planning (E2E) [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ich.org/LOB/media/MEDIA1195.pdf [Accessed 2009 Oct 18]
  7. 7.
    European Commission. Volume 9A of the rules governing medicinal products in the European Union: guideline on pharmacovigilance for medicinal products for human use [online]. Available from URL: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/pharmaceuticals/eudralex/vol-9/pdf/vol9a_09-2008.pdf [Accessed 2009 Oct 18]
  8. 8.
    European Medicines Agency. Guideline on risk management systems for medicinal products for human use. Doc. ref. EMEA/CHMP/96268/2005 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.emea.europa.eu/pdfs/human/euleg/96268 05en.pdf [Accessed 2009 Oct 17]
  9. 9.
    Giezen TJ, Mantel-Teeuwisse AK, Leufkens HGM, et al. Risk management of biopharmaceuticals: a regulatory perspective. Eur J Hosp Pharm Pract 2007; 6: 72–4Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schellekens H. Follow-on biologics: challenges of the “next generation”. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2005; 20 Suppl. 4: iv31–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schellekens H. Immunologic mechanisms of EPO-associated pure red cell aplasia. Best Pract Res Clin Haematol 2005 Sep; 18(3): 473–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schellekens H, Ryff JC. ‘Biogenerics’: the off-patent biotech products. Trends Pharmacol Sci 2002 Mar; 23(3): 119–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ryff JC, Schellekens H. Immunogenicity of rDNA-derived pharmaceuticals. Trends Pharmacol Sci 2002 Jun; 23(6): 254–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Crommelin DJ, Storm G, Verrijk R, et al. Shifting paradigms: biopharmaceuticals versus low molecular weight drugs. Int J Pharm 2003 Nov; 266(1–2): 3–16PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Giezen TJ, Mantel-Teeuwisse AK, Leufkens HGM. Pharmacovigilance of biopharmaceuticals: challenges remain. Drug Saf 2009; 32 10: 811–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kessler M, Goldsmith D, Schellekens H. Immunogenicity of biopharmaceuticals. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2006; 21 Suppl. 5: v9–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Suntharalingam G, Perry MR, Ward S, et al. Cytokine storm in a phase 1 trial of the anti-CD28 monoclonal antibody TGN 1412. N Engl J Med 2006 Sep; 355(10): 1018–28PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Commission directive 2003/63/EC, 25 June 2003, amending directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use. Official Journal of the European Union 2003; L159: 61–2Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    European Medicines Agency. Annex C: template for EU risk management plan (EU-RMP). Doc. ref. EMEA/192632/2006 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.emea.europa.eu/pdfs/human/euleg/19263206en.pdf [Accessed 2009 Oct 14]
  20. 20.
    ISPE. Guidelines for good pharmacoepidemiology practices (GPP). Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2007 Feb; 17(2): 200–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hazell L, Shakir SA. Under-reporting of adverse drug reactions: a systematic review. Drug Saf 2006 May; 29(5): 385–96PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Meyboom RH, Egberts AC, Gribnau FW, et al. Pharmacovigilance in perspective. Drug Saf 1999 Jun; 21(6): 429–47PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Grobbee D, Hoes A. Clinical epidemiology: principles methods, and applications for clinical research. Sudbury (MA): Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 2009Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Heemstra HE, de Vrueh RL, van Weely S, et al. Predictors of orphan drug approval in the European Union. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2008 May; 64(5): 545–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    European Medicines Agency. Summary of the work programme for the European Medicines Agency 2008. London: European Medicines Agency, 2007Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thijs J. Giezen
    • 1
    • 2
  • Aukje K. Mantel-Teeuwisse
    • 1
    • 2
  • Sabine M. J. M. Straus
    • 1
  • Toine C. G. Egberts
    • 2
    • 3
  • Stella Blackburn
    • 4
  • Ingemar Persson
    • 4
    • 5
    • 6
  • Hubert G. M. Leufkens
    • 1
    • 2
    • 4
  1. 1.Medicines Evaluation BoardThe Haguethe Netherlands
  2. 2.Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences (UIPS), Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and PharmacotherapyUtrecht UniversityUtrechtthe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of Clinical PharmacyUniversity Medical Center UtrechtUtrechtthe Netherlands
  4. 4.European Medicines AgencyLondonUK
  5. 5.Medical Products AgencyUppsalaSweden
  6. 6.Department of Medical Epidemiology and BiostatisticsKarolinska InstituteStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations