Evaluation of FDA safety-related drug label changes in 2010.

PURPOSE: This study characterizes drug safety-related label changes by evidence source contribution, time from drug approval to label change, initiator (FDA or sponsor), and drug class. METHODS: A retrospective review of the FDA's internal files was used to obtain regulatory documentation on drugs undergoing a 2010 label change. Contribution of evidence sources were identified and label change initiator and drug class were determined for each drug. RESULTS: A total of 371 drugs were analyzed. Spontaneous reports contributed to 52% and 55% of label changes when analyzed by unique safety issue and drug, respectively. The median time from approval to 2010 safety-related label change was 11 years. The sponsor was more likely than the FDA to initiate a label change (58% and 42%). Label changes were most common among nervous system drugs (23%), antiinfectives for systemic use (17%), and cardiovascular system drugs (14%). CONCLUSIONS: Drug label changes involve contributions from multiple evidence sources. The findings from this comprehensive review are consistent with previous findings and demonstrate (i) the continued importance of the spontaneous reporting system and complementary evidence sources and (ii) safety-related label changes take place years after postmarket approval, emphasizing the importance of continued drug safety surveillance throughout a product's lifecycle.

Reporting of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials with a focus on drug safety: an empirical assessment.

BACKGROUND: Due to the sparse nature of serious drug-related adverse events (AEs), meta-analyses combining data from several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate drug safety issues are increasingly being conducted and published, influencing clinical and regulatory decision making. Evaluation of meta-analyses involves the assessment of both the individual constituent trials and the approaches used to combine them. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting framework is designed to enhance the reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. However, PRISMA may not cover all critical elements useful in the evaluation of meta-analyses with a focus on drug safety particularly in the regulatory-public health setting. PURPOSE: This work was conducted to (1) evaluate the adherence of a sample of published drug safety-focused meta-analyses to the PRISMA reporting framework, (2) identify gaps in this framework based on key aspects pertinent to drug safety, and (3) stimulate the development and validation of a more comprehensive reporting tool that incorporates elements unique to drug safety evaluation. METHODS: We selected a sample of meta-analyses of RCTs based on review of abstracts from high-impact journals as well as top medical specialty journals between 2009 and 2011. We developed a preliminary reporting framework based on PRISMA with specific additional reporting elements critical for the evaluation of drug safety meta-analyses of RCTs. The reporting of pertinent elements in each meta-analysis was reviewed independently by two authors; discrepancies in the independent evaluations were resolved through discussions between the two authors. RESULTS: A total of 27 meta-analyses, 12 from highest impact journals, 13 from specialty medical journals, and 2 from Cochrane reviews, were identified and evaluated. The great majority (>85%) of PRISMA elements were addressed in more than half of the meta-analyses reviewed. However, the majority of meta-analyses (>60%) did not address most (>80%) of the additional reporting elements critical for the evaluation of drug safety. Some of these elements were not addressed in any of the reviewed meta-analyses. LIMITATIONS: This review included a sample of meta-analyses, with a focus on drug safety, recently published in high-impact journals; therefore, we may have underestimated the extent of the reporting problem across all meta-analyses of drug safety. Furthermore, temporal trends in reporting could not be evaluated in this review because of the short time interval selected. CONCLUSIONS: While the majority of PRISMA elements were addressed by most studies reviewed, the majority of studies did not address most of the additional safety-related elements. These findings highlight the need for the development and validation of a drug safety reporting framework and the importance of the current initiative by the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) to create a guidance document for drug safety information synthesis/meta-analysis, which may improve reporting, conduct, and evaluation of meta-analyses of drug safety and inform clinical and regulatory decision making.

Secondary use of randomized controlled trials to evaluate drug safety: a review of methodological considerations.

BACKGROUND: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are often positioned at the top of evidence hierarchies. Meta-analyses of RCTs aim to integrate the state of knowledge on a given scientific question, particularly for rare drug-related outcomes. However, although RCTs are valuable tools in our armamentarium, they are rarely designed to evaluate drug safety and are thus susceptible to limitations that may hamper the ability of both RCTs and meta-analyses to fully characterize the safety profiles of drugs. Their potential limitations might be exacerbated in the study of rare outcomes, often encountered in drug safety assessment, when even minor deviations from the intended randomization could impact the stability of the risk estimates. PURPOSE: This article considers the methodological caveats of both RCTs and meta-analyses of RCTs pertinent to the study of drug-related harms. It is intended to stimulate discussion about the impact of these caveats on interpreting findings of RCTs and meta-analyses for drug safety, which would foster more robust, critical evaluations, and thus enhance clinical and regulatory decision-making. METHODS: Pertinent issues that can influence the interpretation of drug-related harms discussed in this article were based on authors' expertise and review of the literature. RESULTS: Investigators and clinicians should be cognizant of the potential limitations of the secondary use of RCTs and meta-analyses in the assessment of drug-related harms and, when applicable, should consider potential remedies to overcome these limitations. LIMITATIONS: Only few practical examples are included in the article due to the fact that many of the discussed caveats are not examined and/or reported in many publications. In addition, the confidential nature of data reviewed at a regulatory agency forestalls an in depth discussion of examples pertaining to specific drugs. Furthermore, our ability to quantify the extent of encountering, or the actual impact of, the caveats addressed in this review on the RCTs findings is limited. It is worth noting that the mere encounter of a given caveat does not mean that it will obviate the utility of drug safety information from a given trial. The extent of its impact is expected to vary based on the specifics of the trial, the drugs studied, the indications, and the nature of the adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Although some of the limitations described are inherent in RCTs, some of the sources of bias highlighted in this article could be minimized by careful RCT design, planned follow-up, and improved collection of information on adverse events. As future research sheds more light on pertinent knowledge gaps and issues, the ability to maximize the use of RCTs and meta-analyses of RCTs to address drug safety questions of interest will be greatly enhanced.

Variability in state Medicaid medication management initiatives.

Many U.S. states have expanded Medicaid programs, with over 70 million beneficiaries now enrolled. States' interest in improving care quality and lowering costs has spurred experimentation with several medication management (MM) programs. The implementation of MM programs for beneficiaries has been sporadic, and program elements and implementation methods have been heterogeneous. A survey was conducted to: (1) determine covered MM services in state Medicaid programs, (2) report innovative MM program findings, and (3) identify challenges in creating sustainable MM programs. The survey was sent to state Medicaid pharmacy directors in February 2015. The survey data focused on the type and extent of pharmacist-provided MM services, MM provider qualifications, patient eligibility criteria and enrollment strategies, MM delivery settings and referral patterns, MM program evaluations, program costs and sustainability models, key implementation challenges, and future program enhancements. Many Medicaid programs generally followed Medicare Part D Medication Therapy Management requirements. Highly variable findings were due to different Medicaid eligibility criteria, pharmacist integration with health teams, access to electronic medical records (EMRs), and MM delivery methods/settings to optimize drug therapy regimens. Several implementation challenges were identified. Pharmacist integration on care teams and access to EMRs improves MM implementation. MM program evaluation funding and data support must be secured prior to program implementation. The findings and discussion here can assist states with limited or preliminary Medicaid MM experience to progress toward sustainable programs.

Review of quality assessment tools for the evaluation of pharmacoepidemiological safety studies.

OBJECTIVES: Pharmacoepidemiological studies are an important hypothesis-testing tool in the evaluation of postmarketing drug safety. Despite the potential to produce robust value-added data, interpretation of findings can be hindered due to well-recognised methodological limitations of these studies. Therefore, assessment of their quality is essential to evaluating their credibility. The objective of this review was to evaluate the suitability and relevance of available tools for the assessment of pharmacoepidemiological safety studies. DESIGN: We created an a priori assessment framework consisting of reporting elements (REs) and quality assessment attributes (QAAs). A comprehensive literature search identified distinct assessment tools and the prespecified elements and attributes were evaluated. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was the percentage representation of each domain, RE and QAA for the quality assessment tools. RESULTS: A total of 61 tools were reviewed. Most tools were not designed to evaluate pharmacoepidemiological safety studies. More than 50% of the reviewed tools considered REs under the research aims, analytical approach, outcome definition and ascertainment, study population and exposure definition and ascertainment domains. REs under the discussion and interpretation, results and study team domains were considered in less than 40% of the tools. Except for the data source domain, quality attributes were considered in less than 50% of the tools. CONCLUSIONS: Many tools failed to include critical assessment elements relevant to observational pharmacoepidemiological safety studies and did not distinguish between REs and QAAs. Further, there is a lack of considerations on the relative weights of different domains and elements. The development of a quality assessment tool would facilitate consistent, objective and evidence-based assessments of pharmacoepidemiological safety studies.