Real world evidence: Perspectives from a European Society of Cardiology Cardiovascular Round Table with contribution from the European Medicines Agency.

Real world data (RWD) refers to healthcare information that is routinely collected in electronic healthcare records (EHR), hospital and pharmacy records, patient and disease registries, and health insurance databases. The collection and analysis of this vast amount of data is an important complement to that obtained from conventional randomised controlled trials (RCT). Real world data has been used for healthcare quality improvements, to conduct clinical trials, to support drug and device development, and to inform medical guidelines. The utility of RWD may be facilitated by common data models, which standardise format and content, and allow data from different health systems to be analysed together. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) supports the use of RWD in collaboration with national cardiac societies, regulatory authorities, and industry to encourage continuous quality of care improvements at the hospital and country level, to conduct registry-based randomised clinical trials (R-RCT) and to facilitate safety surveillance of novel drugs and devices. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) is developing systems and processes to enable the use of RWD that can help in trial planning, defining clinical contexts, and enhancing outcome assessments. RWD can also contribute to the measurement of the impact of regulatory actions, such as contraindications or restriction of indications by looking at medicines use patterns over time across European Member States. A number of other initiatives from the European Commission and the EMA are underway to strengthen the EU's health security framework, and foster the collection and utilisation of RWD.

Does additional monitoring status increase the reporting of adverse drug reactions? An interrupted time series analysis of EudraVigilance data.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of including a medicine in the list of medicinal products subject to additional monitoring (AM) on the reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in the european economic area (EEA). METHODS: Interrupted time series using the monthly number of EEA ADR reports in EudraVigilance during 12 months before and after the addition to AM list. The main outcome was the change (%) in reporting of ADRs with step change as the a priori impact model. Further time series analysis was performed using Joinpoint Regression. RESULTS: The analysis included 11 active substances. No significant immediate (step change) increase of reporting was identified for any product at time of addition to AM list. We identified a significant gradual increase of ADR reporting after addition to AM list (slope change) for two out of five new products-boceprevir (10% per month, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3%-18%) and denosumab-Xgeva (13% per month, 95% CI 4%-22%). No change was identified for Prolia, another denosumab-containing product not subject to AM. No significant increase was identified for any product included in the AM list due to the requirement to conduct a PASS. Conversely, a gradual decrease in reporting was identified for natalizumab (-5% per month; 95% CI -10% to -1%), rivaroxaban (-5%; -8 to -3%), and varenicline (-16%; -21 to -10%). The results were corroborated by the Joinpoint analyses, which yielded similar results. CONCLUSIONS: We identified limited evidence that reporting of ADRs increased modestly and gradually for some new products and not for products with PASS requirement.

What are the patients' and health care professionals' understanding and behaviors towards adverse drug reaction reporting and additional monitoring?

BACKGROUND: The additional monitoring (AM)/black triangle concept is aimed to enhance ADR reporting for certain types of medicinal products for which the safety profile is less well established. PURPOSE: The objective of this survey was to assess (a) attitudes towards ADR reporting and reasons for not reporting an ADR and (b) awareness of AM among HCPs, patients or their careers in EU countries. METHODS: An online questionnaire which was available in all EU languages was completed by 2918 responders coming from all EEA countries. RESULTS: The main factors motivating to report an ADR were severity or novelty of the reaction or novelty of the medicine. The main factors for not reporting an ADR was the fact that the ADR is already known (35%), the ADR was not serious (18%) or reporter was not sure if the ADR was related to the medicine (15%). Half of the respondents indicated that they have seen AM statement before. Thirty percent of the responders had correct understanding of the AM concept while 20 % misunderstood the concept. CONCLUSION: Underreporting occurs but it seems this is because of reporter's prioritisation towards certain type of ADRs. AM aims to increase reporting for certain medicines, however, approximately half of responders have seen the AM symbol before and 20% of all responders (independent of their previous awareness) misunderstood the concept.

Improving the Safety of Medicines in the European Union: From Signals to Action.

Pharmacovigilance and risk minimization must be planned during drug development and forms a critical part of the regulator's decision on whether a medicinal product can be authorized. Pharmacovigilance systems should ensure proactive monitoring of all authorized medicines throughout their lifecycle in clinical use. Signal detection and management are core activities in pharmacovigilance, rapidly delivering new information on the safety of medicines in real-world use which helps to fill knowledge gaps. The first 6 years of the European Union (EU) signal management system resulted in 453 recommendations issued by the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC), of which more than half were for drug labeling changes. The EU pharmacovigilance network has demonstrated its ability to detect and evaluate new drug safety signals. This has resulted in new warnings to guide the safe and effective use of medicines in Europe.

Safety monitoring of Influenza A/H1N1 pandemic vaccines in EudraVigilance.

The 14,543 spontaneous reports of suspected adverse reactions received in EudraVigilance from 1 November 2009 to 30 April 2010 for three centrally authorized Influenza A/H1N1 vaccines marketed in the European Economic Area (Celvapan, Focetria and Pandemrix) were extracted to evaluate the effectiveness of recommendations to strengthen pharmacovigilance systems during the pandemic and illustrate methods of signal detection used by the European Medicines Agency in this context. The number of vaccinees on 30 April 2010 was estimated to be at least 37,166,000 with a reporting rate of 391 per million vaccinees. 81.4% of reports were received in a period of 2 months ending 31 December 2009. Reports for A/H1N1 vaccines had fewer missing values for date of birth, age, case narrative, vaccination date and reaction onset date than reports involving human papilloma virus vaccines in a pre-pandemic period but more missing batch numbers (46.6%), with earlier notification by health care professionals to national authorities (median of 7 days since reaction onset date) and by national authorities to EudraVigilance (4 days). The network of European pharmacovigilance centers and the Agency was effective for monitoring the safety of A/H1N1 vaccines during the 2009-2010 influenza pandemic and coped with a sudden increase of the number of reports. Areas to be reinforced in order to improve the response to a future pandemic and to strengthen vaccine pharmacovigilance systems in general are highlighted. Observed-to-expected analyses were affected by uncertainties regarding the numbers of vaccinated individuals and age-specific background incidence rates. Imbalance analysis used by the Agency may overcome some of these limitations but needs further development. A multinational vaccine health outcome resource is needed to assess the burden of vaccine preventable diseases and the epidemiology of potential adverse outcomes, and to quickly evaluate safety signals, estimate the utilization, benefits and risks of vaccines and evaluate the effectiveness of public health measures.