Role of pharmacoepidemiology studies in addressing pharmacovigilance questions: a case example of pancreatitis risk among ulcerative colitis patients using mesalazine.

PURPOSE: Well-designed pharmacoepidemiology studies address several limitations of postmarketing spontaneous reports in regard to signal evaluation. This study evaluated a signal of disproportionate reporting of acute pancreatitis cases observed in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) treated with MMX Multi Matrix System® (MMX®) mesalazine and demonstrated how inherent limitations of postmarketing reports were overcome. METHODS: Adults with UC who were new users of MMX mesalazine or another branded mesalazine (controlled-release, delayed-release, or extended-release mesalazine; balsalazide disodium; olsalazine sodium; sulfasalazine; or sulfasalazine delayed-release) were identified from a large US administrative healthcare claims database. Acute pancreatitis incidence rates were compared between patients on MMX mesalazine versus comparator therapies. Propensity scores were used to match patients on MMX mesalazine with patients on comparator drugs to achieve a balance of baseline patient factors. RESULTS: Crude incidence rates [95 % confidence interval (CI)] of acute pancreatitis among patients on MMX mesalazine were similar to those of patients on comparator therapies [8.55 (5.54-13.21) vs 10.05 (7.54-13.41) per 1000 person-years]; the resulting incidence rate ratio (IRR) was [0.85 (0.48-1.47)]. Propensity score-matching had little influence on the IRR [0.84 (0.46-1.55)]; nor did further adjustment by demographic characteristics, daily dose, and causes of acute pancreatitis [0.76 (0.41-1.43)]. CONCLUSION: Findings of no increase in pancreatitis risk with MMX mesalazine demonstrate the value of pharmacoepidemiology studies for evaluating a drug's postmarket safety profile when confronted with spontaneous reporting data suggestive of a safety issue.

Case histories in pharmaceutical risk management.

The development and implementation of programs in the U.S. to minimize risks and assess unintended consequences of new medications has been increasingly required by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) since the mid 1990s. This paper provides four case histories of risk management and post-marketing surveillance programs utilized recently to address problems associated with possible abuse, dependence and diversion. The pharmaceutical sponsors of each of these drugs were invited to present their programs and followed a similar template for their summaries that are included in this article. The drugs and presenting companies were OxyContin, an analgesic marketed by Purdue Pharma L.P., Daytrana and Vyvanse, ADHD medications marketed by Shire Pharmaceuticals, Xyrem for narcolepsy marketed by Jazz Pharmaceuticals, and Subutex and Suboxone for opioid dependence marketed by Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals Inc. These case histories and subsequent discussions provide invaluable real-world examples and illustrate both the promise of risk management programs in providing a path to market and/or for keeping on the market drugs with serious potential risks. They also illustrate the limitations of such programs in actually controlling unintended consequences, as well as the challenge of finding the right balance of reducing risks without posing undue barriers to patient access. These experiences are highly relevant as the FDA increasingly requires pharmaceutical sponsors to develop and implement the more formalized and enforceable versions of the risk management term Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS).