Advertisement

Drug Safety

, Volume 35, Issue 4, pp 299–314 | Cite as

Risk Minimization Activities of Centrally Authorized Products in the EU

A Descriptive Study
  • Inge M. ZomerdijkEmail author
  • Fakhredin A. Sayed-Tabatabaei
  • Gianluca Trifirò
  • Stella C. F. Blackburn
  • Miriam C. J. M. Sturkenboom
  • Sabine M. J. M. Straus
Original Research Articles
First Online:

Abstract

Background: Since the new legislation on risk management, which came into force in November 2005, an EU Risk Management Plan (EU-RMP) is a required part of the authorization dossier of innovative drugs licensed in the EU. The EU-RMP can include additional risk minimization activities (RMAs) to strengthen the benefit-risk balance of a drug. This study describes the additional RMAs of centrally authorized medicinal products authorized between 1 January 1995 and 1 January 2010.

Methods: The European Public Assessment Reports of all centrally authorized products were analysed to identify characteristics of the product (active substance, authorization date, Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical classification), the additional RMAs and the corresponding safety concerns (classified at Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA®) System Organ Class level).

Results: Additional RMAs were identified for 58 of the 391 active substances that were authorized as of 1 January 2010. The proportion of active substances with additional RMAs was 5% among those authorized before, and 29% among those approved after the new risk management legislation. Since the new legislation, blood products and antineoplastic and immunomodulating agents most often had additional RMAs. All active substances with additional RMAs required the provision of educational material, most frequently involving healthcare professionals (n = 57) and the patient (n = 31). Thirty-three active substances required additional RMAs on top of the provision of educationalmaterial,most frequently including patientmonitoring and screening (n = 19).

Conclusions: The proactive pharmacovigilance approach is evolving and the number of products with additional RMAs is growing since the introduction of the EU-RMP. The provision of educational material is the primary additional risk minimization strategy in the EU. The effect of additional RMA implementation has to be explored.

Keywords

Active Substance Medicinal Product Educational Material Marketing Authorization Pharmacovigilance Activity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

No sources of funding were used to conduct this study or prepare this manuscript. Stella Blackburn was the lead author of the risk management guideline and is responsible for risk management policy at the EMA. Miriam Sturkenboom is heading a research group that conducts unconditional research on the safety and effects of drugs for several pharmaceutical companies (AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Eli Lilly), none of which is related to this current research. Inge Zomerdijk, Fakhredin Sayed-Tabatabaei, Gianluca Trifiro and Sabine Straus have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this study.

References

  1. 1.
    Eichler HG, Pignatti F, Flamion B, et al. Balancing early market access to new drugs with the need for benefit/risk data: a mounting dilemma. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2008 Oct; 7 (10): 818–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vandenbroucke JP, Psaty BM. Benefits and risks of drug treatments: how to combine the best evidence on benefits with the best data about adverse effects. JAMA 2008 Nov 26; 300 (20): 2417–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Meyer BM. The Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007: drug safety and health-system pharmacy implications. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2009 Dec 15; 66 (24 Suppl. 7): S3–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use. ICH harmonised tripartite guideline: pharmacovigilance planning (E2E). November 2004 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ich.org/fileadmin/Public_Web_Site/ICH_Products/Guidelines/Efficacy/E2E/Step4/E2E_Guideline.pdf [Accessed 2010 Apr 15]
  5. 5.
    European Commission. Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorization and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency [online]. Available from URL: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:2004R0726:20090706:EN:PDF [Accessed 2010 Jul 30]
  6. 6.
    European Commission. Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, as amended, on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use [online]. Available from URL: http://ec.europa.eu/health/files/eudralex/vol-1/dir_2001_83_cons/dir2001_83_cons_20081230_en.pdf [Accessed 2010 Jul 24]
  7. 7.
    Committee forMedicinal Products for HumanUse.Guideline on risk management systems for medicinal products for human use. November 2005 [online]. Available from URL: http://web.invima.gov.co/portal/documents/BVSalud/IVC/anexo5emeagrmsmp.pdf [Accessed 2012 Jan 16]
  8. 8.
    Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry: format and content of proposed risk evaluation and mitigation strategies (REMS), REMS assessments, and proposed REMS modifications. Draft guidance, 2009 Sept [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM184128.pdf [Accessed 2010 Jun 30]
  9. 9.
    American Pharmacists Association. White paper on designing a risk evaluation and mitigation strategies (REMS) system to optimize the balance of patient access, medication safety, and impact on the health care system. J Am Pharm Assoc 2009 Nov-Dec; 49 (6): 729–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shane R. Risk evaluation and mitigation strategies: impact on patients, health care providers, and health systems. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2009 Dec 15; 66 (24 Suppl. 7): S6–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stubbings J, Joshi RA, Hoffman JM. Risk evaluation and mitigation strategies: challenges and opportunities for health-system pharmacists. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2010 Sep 15; 67 (18): 1547–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Frau S, Font Pous M, Luppino MR, et al. Risk Management Plans: are they a tool for improving drug safety? Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2010 Jun 25; 66 (8): 785–90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Giezen TJ, Mantel-Teeuwisse AK, Straus SM, et al. Evaluation of post-authorization safety studies in the first cohort of EU risk management plans at time of regulatory approval. Drug Saf 2009; 32 (12): 1175–87PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Arana A, Allen S, Burkowitz J, et al. Infliximab paediatric Crohn’s disease educational plan: a European, cross-sectional, multicentre evaluation. Drug Saf 2010 Jun 1; 33 (6): 489–501PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Raine J, Wise L, Blackburn S, et al. European perspective on risk management and drug safety. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2011 May; 89 (5): 650–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Key C, Mulchrone B, Wai K. The value of reviewing existing EU risk management plans. RAJ Pharma 2010 Feb [online]. Available from URL: http://www.quintiles.com/elements/media/inthenews/reviewing-existing-risk-managementplans.pdf [Accessed 2012 Jan 16]
  17. 17.
    Herxheimer A. The European Medicines Evaluation Agency. BMJ 1996 Feb 17; 312 (7028): 394PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology. Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) index with Defined Daily Doses (DDDs) [online]. Available from URL: http://www.whocc.no/atc_ddd_index [Accessed 2010 May 15]
  19. 19.
    European Medicines Agency. Guideline on similar biological medicinal products. October 2005 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2009/09/WC500003517.pdf [Accessed 2010 Aug 4]
  20. 20.
    European Commission. Directive 2003/63/EC of 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 [online]. Available from URL: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/pharmaceuticals/eudralex/vol-1/dir_2003_63/dir_2003_63_en.pdf [Accessed 2010 Apr 24]
  21. 21.
  22. 22.
    World Health Organisation. The importance of pharmacovigilance: safety monitoring of medicinal products. 2002 [online]. Available from URL: http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/pdf/s4893e/s4893e.pdf [Accessed 2010 Sep 10]
  23. 23.
    European Medicines Agency. Guideline on legal status for the supply to the patient of centrally authorised medicinal products [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Regulatory_and_procedural_guideline/2009/10/WC500004885.pdf [Accessed 2010 May 27]
  24. 24.
    Food and Drug Administration. What we do [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WhatWeDo/default.htme [Accessed 2010 Jul 12]
  25. 25.
    Hirst C, Cook S, Dai W, et al. A call for international harmonization in therapeutic risk management. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2006 Dec; 15 (12): 839–49; discussion 50–1PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Traynor K. Stakeholders urge overhaul of REMS programs: standardization, better access, less paperwork sought. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2010 Sep 1; 67 (17): 1397–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Food and Drug Administration. Approved Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/PostmarketDrugSafetyInformationforPatientsandProviders/ucm111350.htm [Accessed 2010 Jun 9]
  28. 28.
    Dowlat H. The importance and impact of the EU RMP and US REMS to risk-benefit assessments. Regulatory Rapporteur 2011; 8 (2): 20–3Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mitchell AA, Van Bennekom CM, Louik C. A pregnancyprevention program in women of childbearing age receiving isotretinoin. N Engl J Med 1995 Jul 13; 333 (2): 101–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Waller P. Getting to grips with the new European Union pharmacovigilance legislation. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2011 May; 20 (5): 544–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    European Commission. Directive 2010/84/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2010 amending, as regards pharmacovigilance, Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinalproducts for human us [online]. Available from URL: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.douri=OJ:L:2010:348:0074:0099:EN:PDF [Accessed 2011 May 30]
  32. 32.
    European Commission. Regulation (EU) No 1235/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2010 amending, as regards pharmacovigilance of medicinal products for human use, Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorization and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency, and Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007 on advanced therapy medicinal products [online]. Available from URL: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.douri=OJ:L:2010:348:0001:0016:EN:PDF [Accessed 2011 May 30]
  33. 33.
    Shin J, Cheetham TC, Wong L, et al. The impact of the iPLEDGE program on isotretinoin fetal exposure in an integrated health care system. J Am Acad Dermatol 2011; 65 (6): 1117–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Miller D, Bennett L, Hollis K, et al. A patient follow-up survey programme for alosetron: assessing compliance to and effectiveness of the risk management programme. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2006 Sep 1; 24 (5): 869–78PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Brinker A, Kornegay C, Nourjah P. Trends in adherence to a revised risk management program designed to decrease or eliminate isotretinoin-exposed pregnancies: evaluation of the accutane SMART program. Arch Dermatol 2005 May; 141 (5): 563–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    CrijnsHJ, Straus SM,Gispen-de WiedC, et al. Compliance with pregnancy prevention programmes of isotretinoin in Europe: a systematic review. Br J Dermatol 2011 Feb; 164 (2): 238–44Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Chang L, Tong K, Ameen V. Ischemic colitis and complications of constipation associated with the use of alosetron under a risk management plan: clinical characteristics, outcomes, and incidences. Am J Gastroenterol 2010 Apr; 105 (4): 866–75PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hollis K, Calingaert N, Price M, et al. Tysabri TOUCH Prescriber Program Risk Management Program RiskMAP [poster]. Presented at the 26th International Conference on Pharmacoepidemiology & Therapeutic Risk Management. 2010 Aug 19–22; BrightonGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Castaneda C, Zeldis J, Freeman J, et al. RevAssist: a comprehensive risk minimization programme for preventing fetal exposure to lenalidomide. Drug Saf 2008; 31 (9): 743–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Inge M. Zomerdijk
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Fakhredin A. Sayed-Tabatabaei
    • 2
  • Gianluca Trifirò
    • 1
    • 3
  • Stella C. F. Blackburn
    • 4
  • Miriam C. J. M. Sturkenboom
    • 1
  • Sabine M. J. M. Straus
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Medical InformaticsErasmus University Medical CenterRotterdamthe Netherlands
  2. 2.The Dutch Medicines Evaluation BoardUtrechtthe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine and PharmacologyUniversity of MessinaMessinaItaly
  4. 4.European Medicines AgencyLondonUK

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options