Abstract
Background
Risk management plans (RMPs) describe known and potential safety concerns with medicines, how they will be studied further and how the risks will be minimized. Since 2005, European legislation has required RMPs to be submitted with applications for marketing authorizations for new medicines and they can also be requested if safety concerns arise post-authorization. Currently, there is limited information published on experience with RMPs. This study investigated the application of ‘additional’ risk minimization measures (ARMMs), which are those beyond routine product information, looking at all RMPs submitted to the UK regulatory authority during a 5-year period.
Objective
The aim of this article is to describe when ARMMs are successfully approved by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) according to the type of product, risks and measures included in the plan, and to identify common problems with ARMMs included in RMPs from a regulatory perspective.
Methods
In this study, all 225 plans assessed by the MHRA between November 2005 and January 2011 were analysed retrospectively. The RMPs and MHRA assessment reports were reviewed and information was classified using pre-defined categories: type of product, reason for the ARMM, type of safety concern, type of ARMM, type of auditing measure to assess the effectiveness of the ARMM and the MHRA assessment and comments on the plan.
Results
Ninety-five (42%) of 225 RMPs assessed by the MHRA included ARMMs. ARMMs were used more frequently for biological than chemical products (47 vs. 40%). The most common forms of ARMMs were educational materials for healthcare professionals (61%). These were commonly used in RMPs for all types of products and more frequently used for high-risk medicines such as biological products. MHRA regulatory review had an important impact on the content of the plans; 75% required amendments. Inadequate auditing measures, which are tools to assess the effectiveness of each additional risk minimization measure, were a common problem with ARMMs and 24% of those submitted did not include any form of auditing measure. A further 23% were refused because the auditing measures included were not appropriate.
Conclusion
ARMMs and their related auditing measures are important factors in designing RMPs and achieving regulatory approval. It is usual for an RMP with ARMMs to require revisions prior to approval and this should be factored in to the marketing authorization application process. The type of product, type of risks and target audience should all be considered when designing a successful risk minimization strategy and the RMP needs to be individually customized accordingly.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Shakir S. Prescription-event monitoring. In: Strom BL, editor. Pharmacoepidemiology. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Wiley; 2005. p. 203–16.
Edwards I, Olsson S, Lindquist M, et al. Global drug surveillance: the WHO programme for international drug monitoring. In: Strom BL, editor. Pharmacoepidemiology. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Wiley; 2005. p. 161–85.
EMA. CHMP guideline on risk management systems for medicinal products for human use. London: European Medicines Agency; 2005.
The Human Medicines Regulations 2012 no. 1916. Part 11 (2012). http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/1916/part/11/made. Accessed 1 Nov 2012.
Regulation (EC) No. 1235/2010 of the European Parliament Council. Of 15 December 2010. Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007.
European Commission. 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. European Commission, 2003.
EMA. Orphan designation [online]. http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/regulation/general/general_content_000029.jsp&murl=menus/regulations/regulations.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac05800240ce&jsenabled=true. Accessed 3 May 2011.
World Health Organisation. ATC Index. WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology [online]. http://www.whocc.no/atc_ddd_index/. Accessed 4 Jun 2011.
Schellekens H. Follow-on biologicals: challenges of the ‘next generation’. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2005;20(Suppl. 4):iv31–6.
Nieminen O, Kurki P. Risk management of biological products. Int J Pharm Med. 2004;18:149–57.
Griffin J. The textbook of pharmaceutical medicine. 6th ed. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell; 2009.
Giezen TJ, Mantel-Teeuwisse AK, Straus SM, et al. Evaluation of post-authorisation safety studies in the first cohort of EU risk management plans at time of regulatory approval. Drug Saf. 2009;32(12):1175–87.
Heemstra HE, de Vrueh RL, van Weely S, et al. Predictors of orphan drug approval in the European Union. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2008;64(5):545–52.
European Commission. Question and answers on pharmacovigilance. European Commission [online]. http://ec.europa.eu/health/files/pharmacovigilance/qa_pharmacovigilance_2011_en.pdf. Accessed 5 Jun 2011.
Naylor R. Medication Errors: lessons for education and healthcare. Oxford: Radcliffe Medical Press; 2002.
Kaushal R, Bates D. The use of pharmacoepidemiology to study medication errors. In: Strom B, editor. Pharmacoepidemiology. Philadelphia: Wiley; 2005. p. 531–9.
Arana A, Allen S, Burkowitz J, et al. Infliximab paediatric Crohn’s disease educational plan. Drug Saf. 2010;33:489–501.
Baciu A, Stratton K, Burke S. The future of drug safety. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, Institute of Medicine of the National Academies; 2007.
Carbarns I, Hudson A, Wang R, et al. Use of risk management planning to enhance safety of medicines. Int J Pharm Med. 2007;21(6):415–26.
Raynor DK, Silcock J, Knapp P, et al. How do patients use medicine information leaflets in the UK? Int J Pharm Pract. 2007;15:209–18.
Mazor K, Andrade S, Auger J, et al. Communicating safety information to physicians: an examination of dear doctor letters. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2005;14:869–75.
European Commission. Guideline on pharmacovigilance for medicinal products for human use. Volume 9a. 2007. http://eudravigilance.ema.europa.eu/human/docs/vol9A_2007-04.pdf. Accessed 3 May 2011.
Bottoni A. From the seven deadly sins to a risk management plan. Pharm Med. 2009;23:275–7.
de Abajo F. Improving pharmacovigilance beyond spontaneous reporting. Int J Pharm Med. 2005;19:209–18.
Bergman U, Lee D. Studies of drug utilization. In: Strom B, editor. Pharmacoepideimiology. 4th ed. Philadelphia (PA): Wiley; 2005. p. 401–12.
Guo J, Curkendall S, Jones J, et al. Impact of cisapride label changes on codispensing of contraindicated medications. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2003;12:295–301.
Seligman P. ‘Dear Doctor…’: evaluating the impact of risk communication efforts. Pharmacoedpidemiol. Drug Saf. 2003;12:291–3.
Acknowledgements
This work was undertaken as part of the requirements for a Master’s degree at the University of Surrey, UK. I am grateful to my supervisor Patrick Waller for his guidance.
Thank you also to the MHRA for allowing me access to the data I needed to complete this project.
The views expressed in this work are my independent views and do not represent the MHRA.
The author has no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to this study. No sources of funding were used in the conduct of the study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Keddie, S. A Descriptive Study of Additional Risk Minimization Measures Included in Risk Management Plans Reviewed by the United Kingdom Regulatory Authority. Pharm Med 27, 25–34 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40290-013-0006-6
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40290-013-0006-6