COVID-19 Vaccines and Heavy Menstrual Bleeding: The Impact of Media Attention on Reporting to EudraVigilance.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: During the COVID-19 vaccination campaign, over 34,000 reports of heavy menstrual bleeding following the administration of COVID-19 vaccines originating in the Economic European Area were submitted to EudraVigilance, the European Union database of suspected adverse drug reactions. More than 90% of these reports were sent by consumers while the remaining by healthcare professionals. Public concerns regarding menstruation disorders in COVID-19 vaccinees were also covered by the media. We investigated the impact of media attention on the reporting trends of heavy menstrual bleeding to EudraVigilance. METHODS: We used media outlets published in the Economic European Area on menstrual disorders and COVID-19 vaccines from the beginning of the vaccination campaign in the Economic European Area (1 January, 2021) until December 2022 (i.e., after the regulatory request to add the adverse event to the product information) and spontaneous reports from EudraVigilance. RESULTS: We found that the publication of safety updates from regulatory authorities and subsequent coverage in media outlets preceded increased reporting to EudraVigilance. Furthermore, the heavy menstrual bleeding reported in the cases occurred several weeks or months earlier and were not submitted to the respective date. The analysis suggests that the spikes in reporting of heavy menstrual bleeding were to some extent influenced by media coverage in some countries. CONCLUSIONS: Consumer reporting to the European Union spontaneous data collection system, EudraVigilance, was of high value for regulatory safety reviews, albeit the reporting behaviours were not free of the influence of the media. These sources of information can be investigated to understand the context of safety concerns of public health interest.

The Role of the European Medicines Agency in the Safety Monitoring of COVID-19 Vaccines and Future Directions in Enhancing Vaccine Safety Globally.

The European Union (EU) regulatory network was at the forefront of the safety monitoring of COVID-19 vaccines during the pandemic. An unprecedented number of case reports of suspected adverse reactions after vaccination called for huge efforts for the assessment of this safety information, to ensure that any possible risks were detected and managed as early as possible, while ruling out coincidental but temporally related adverse health outcomes. We describe the role of the European Medicines Agency alongside the EU regulatory network in the safety monitoring of the COVID-19 vaccines, and provide an insight into challenges, particularities and outcomes of the scientific assessment and regulatory decisions in the complex, dynamic international environment of the pandemic. We discuss the flexible procedural tools that were used to ensure an expedited scientific assessment of safety issues, and subsequent updates of the product information (i.e., labelling) when available evidence (e.g., spontaneous reports, findings from observational studies and/or scientific literature) suggested that causal association is at least a reasonable possibility. The safety monitoring was accompanied by enhanced transparency measures, proactive communication, and easy access to information, which played a key role in public reassurance. The pandemic has been a powerful booster for worldwide collaboration, exchange of information and work-sharing. The safety monitoring of COVID-19 vaccines continues, and the lessons learned will be applied in future safety reviews, as well as future health emergencies.

Duration of Effectiveness Evaluation of Additional Risk Minimisation Measures for Centrally Authorised Medicinal Products in the EU Between 2012 and 2021.

INTRODUCTION: In studies evaluating the effectiveness of additional risk minimisation measures (aRMMs), the need for speed must be properly balanced with the quality of the study. We assessed the duration of aRMM effectiveness evaluations, using additional pharmacovigilance activities, for centrally authorised medicinal products in the European Union. METHODS: We established a cohort of medicinal products with aRMMs at marketing authorisation (MA) that were centrally authorised from July 2012-December 2021 using the European Public Assessment Reports. Evaluation studies were identified from the Risk Management Plans at the time of MA. Subsequently, we retrieved protocols, final study reports, Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) assessment reports, and PRAC minutes. We calculated the probability of completing an effectiveness evaluation within 60 months after MA using time-to-event analyses. Besides, we compared the planned final report with the actual final report date. RESULTS: We identified 134 medicinal products authorised with aRMMs, of which almost half (n = 63, 47.0%) had an effectiveness evaluation study. The probability of an evaluation for a medicinal product being completed within 60 months after MA was 20.7% (95% CI 6.8-32.6). Regarding study design, the probability of completing a study was higher for cross-sectional studies when compared to cohort studies (p = 0.002). Moreover, 81.0% of studies were delayed when compared to their planned final report date. CONCLUSION: The probability of completing an aRMM effectiveness evaluation at time for renewal of the MA was only one in five. Furthermore, estimates of the duration of studies around MA are too optimistic, with the majority being delayed.

An Exploratory Study of the Impact of COVID-19 Vaccine Spontaneous Reporting on Masking Signal Detection in EudraVigilance.

INTRODUCTION: During the signal detection process, statistical methods are used to identify drug-event combinations (DECs) which are disproportionately reported when compared with other drugs and events in the entire database. We hypothesise that the high volume of COVID-19 vaccine adverse drug reaction (ADR) reports transmitted to EudraVigilance may have affected the performance of disproportionality statistics used in routine signal detection, potentially resulting in signals either being masked, or false associations being flagged as potential signals. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to study the impact of COVID-19 vaccine spontaneous reporting on statistical signal detection in EudraVigilance. METHODS: We recalculated the reporting odds ratio (ROR) for signals that were previously discussed at the level of the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee, or signals that were retrieved from EudraVigilance, by omitting COVID-19 vaccine reports from the standard ROR calculation and then comparing the lower confidence interval (LCI) of the recalculated ROR to the LCI of the actual ROR in EudraVigilance. RESULTS: In total, 52 signals for 38 active substances were reviewed. For 35 signals, the LCI of the recalculated ROR value was lower than the LCI of the actual ROR (suggesting that COVID-19 vaccine ADR reporting had a positive effect on the strength of the signal) while for 15 signals the LCI of the recalculated ROR value was higher than the LCI of the actual ROR (suggesting that COVID-19 vaccine ADR reporting had an attenuating effect on the strength of the signal). For two signals, no change in the ROR was observed. In our analysis, six significant results were found. Five DECs were found to be masked: bleomycin and immune thrombocytopenia (actual ROR LCI = 0.94, recalculated ROR LCI = 1.02), vortioxetine and heavy menstrual bleeding (actual ROR LCI = 0.3, recalculated ROR LCI = 1.06), caplacizumab and heavy menstrual bleeding (actual ROR LCI = 0.98, recalculated ROR LCI = 3.47), ziprasidone and amenorrhoea (actual ROR LCI = 0.84, recalculated ROR LCI = 1.67), and azacitidine and pericarditis (actual ROR LCI = 0.81, recalculated ROR LCI = 2.01). For the DEC of adalimumab and immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome, the LCI of the actual ROR value was 1.14 and removing COVID-19 vaccine reporting resulted in an LCI of the recalculated ROR value of 0.94 (below threshold). CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated five cases of masking and one case of false-positive association due to the influence of COVID-19 vaccine spontaneous reporting on the ROR. This suggests that the high number of adverse drug reaction reports for COVID-19 vaccines in EudraVigilance has the potential to affect routine statistical signal detection activities. The impact of COVID-19 vaccine ADR reports on current signal detection practices requires further evaluation and solutions to tackle masking issues in EudraVigilance may need to be developed.

Patient Preferences for Rituximab Additional Risk Minimization Measures: Results From an International Online Survey.

OBJECTIVE: Patients' opinions are essential in optimizing risk minimization measures (RMMs) because they bring their real-life experience of disease management and medicines' use into the regulatory assessments. The aim of the survey launched in 2018 by the European Medicines Agency, in collaboration with the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee, was to consult targeted patient groups treated with rituximab for nononcology indications to evaluate their preferences on how to receive information on progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy and (serious) infections. Additional RMMs such as educational materials for physicians and patients including a patient alert card (PAC) and a patient brochure (PB) are in place to minimize these risks. METHODS: A question-based online survey in English created on the EU-Survey platform and disseminated primarily via relevant European patient organizations. RESULTS: Most patients (47 of 61) had knowledge of these potential adverse effects. Mostly, they were informed by a healthcare professional. Both a PAC and a PB were supported as useful tools to raise awareness of these adverse effects and thus minimize the potential risks among patients. Where the participants had to choose only 1 of these educational materials, 43 of them preferred a PAC, a shorted description that is always held by the patient and reaches the relevant healthcare professional when needed. CONCLUSIONS: Collecting patients' preferences supports periodic assessment of additional RMMs and increase transparency of regulatory processes. Considering the limitations of this initial survey, further investigation is needed to generalize the results into patients' safety outcomes.

Regulatory experience of handling Risk Management Plans (RMPs) for medicinal products in the EU.

Introduction: Risk Management Plans (RMPs) aim to optimize a medicinal product's benefit/risk balance for the individual patient and the target population. Despite differences in regulatory RMP requirements between jurisdictions worldwide, their ultimate aim is to protect public health.Areas covered: The review presents findings of different RMP requirements by different regulatory authorities and additional risk minimization measures (issued between January 2010 and December 2018) indicate how RMPs and additional risk minimization measures translate into actions to protect public health within the European Union (EU) member states and worldwide. Areas covered also include the different International Council for Harmonization (ICH) regional requirements of RMPs by the different regulatory authorities as well as data regarding the number of RMP assessments carried out by the EMA, FDA and Japan, and number of safety communications issued in Malta (taken as an example of a typical small EU member state) and in the United States of America (USA).Expert opinion: The EU legislation adopted in 2010 required RMPs to be included in all new applications for medicinal products in the EU, both for EU centrally authorized and nationally authorized medicinal products. Lessons learnt by EU regulators during this process are discussed in this review.

Dissemination of Direct Healthcare Professional Communications on Medication Errors for Medicinal Products in the EU: An Explorative Study on Relevant Factors.

INTRODUCTION: When serious medication errors (ME) are identified, communication to the field may be necessary. In the EU, communication of serious safety issues, such as medication errors associated with adverse drug reactions, is done through direct healthcare professional communications (DHPCs). We aimed to identify how often DHPCs about medication errors are distributed, and we explored factors associated with these ME DHPCs. METHODS: We performed a descriptive study of all centrally authorised products (CAPs) approved before 1 May 2019 in the EU. All DHPCs issued between 1 January 2001 and 1 May 2019 were reviewed for ME content. Characteristics of CAPs were collected from the website of the European Medicines Agency. A Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed to estimate the 5- and 10-year probability of the occurrence of a first ME DHPC. A logistic regression was performed to explore risk factors for ME DHPCs. RESULTS: A total of 678 CAPs were included, of which 35 required an ME DHPC during the study period. The 5-year probability for a CAP to have a first ME DHPC was 2.5% (95% CI 1.1-3.9) and the 10-year probability was 4.4% (95% CI 2.2-6.5). Among products with an ME DHPC, the 5-year probability of a second ME DHPC was 21.3% (95% CI 0.2-38.0). The risk of ME DHPCs was increased for products with multiple pharmaceutical formulations, enteral liquid or parenteral injection preparations, and products classified as nervous system agents or antineoplastic and immunomodulating agents. CONCLUSIONS: The absolute number of ME DHPCs for CAPs is low and does not give rise to immediate concern. We identified potential risk factors for ME DHPCs that should be taken into account during approval procedures or line extensions.

Introduction or Discontinuation of Additional Risk Minimisation Measures During the Life Cycle of Medicines in Europe.

INTRODUCTION: Additional risk minimisation measures (aRMMs) may be required to minimise important risks of medicines. aRMMs may be required at the time of authorisation, but may also be introduced or discontinued during the product life cycle as new safety information arises. The aim of this study is to describe post-authorisation introductions of new aRMMs and discontinuations of existing aRMMs for medicines authorised in the European Union (EU). METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study that included all new active substances authorised through the EU centralised procedure between January 1st 2006 and December 31st 2017. Data was extracted from European Public Assessment Reports available on the website of the European Medicines Agency (ema.europa.eu). Medicines were followed up from the date of marketing authorisation (MA) until first introduction or discontinuation of aRMMs, excluding Direct Healthcare Professional Communications (DHPCs), withdrawal/suspension/revocation of the MA, or July 1st 2018, when data extraction took place. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse frequency data, and survival analysis was used to calculate 5- and 10-year probability of introduction or discontinuation of aRMMs. RESULTS: A total of 476 medicines were authorised during the study period. The probability of getting aRMMs after authorisation for products authorised without aRMMs was 3.5% [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.2-5.7] within 5 years after authorisation and 6.9% (95% CI 2.6-11) within 10 years after authorisation. For products authorised with aRMMs, the probability of discontinuation of aRMMs was 0.9% (95% CI 0-2.6) within 5 years and 8.3% (95% CI 0-16.1) within 10 years after authorisation. CONCLUSIONS: We found low probabilities of introduction and discontinuation of aRMMs (excluding DHPCs) during the product life cycle for medicines authorised between 2006 and 2017. The low rate of discontinuation may potentially be due to a lack of robust data on effectiveness of aRMMs. Further research is needed to get more insight into the dynamics of aRMMs during the medicine life cycle.

Proposals for Engaging Patients and Healthcare Professionals in Risk Minimisation from an Analysis of Stakeholder Input to the EU Valproate Assessment Using the Novel Analysing Stakeholder Safety Engagement Tool (ASSET).

INTRODUCTION: Understanding the impact of regulatory actions for medicines and enablers/barriers for positive health outcomes is fundamental to effective risk minimisation measures (RMM). Therefore, the Impact Strategy of the European Union (EU) Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) includes engagement with patient communities and healthcare professional (HCP) bodies regarding RMM. However, there is uncertainty on how best to obtain stakeholder input. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to (1) analyse stakeholder input at a public hearing and dedicated meeting for the 2017-18 EU procedure on valproate teratogenicity and (2) draw proposals for enhancing PRAC engagement. METHODS: For the content analysis, the novel 'Analysing Stakeholder Safety Engagement Tool' (ASSET) was developed with 21 themes in six domains (appropriateness, access, audience, compatibility, integrability, time), based on implementation theories. RESULTS: Stakeholders provided a wide range of RMM proposals, some beyond the regulatory remit. Patients and most HCPs converged remarkably, but there was some divergence among HCPs on the informed choice objective, the therapeutic place of valproate, the RMM appropriateness, and RMM delivery to HCPs and patients. Ethical aspects emerged as relevant for regulatory decision making, and crucial input gaps were identified from an RMM implementation perspective. Nine pilotable proposals for PRAC were made regarding: (A) Agreeing on appropriate RMM with stakeholders and catalysing healthcare leadership for implementation; (B) Building-up stakeholder input on all elements critical to RMM implementation guided by the ASSET; and (C) Collaborating with all stakeholders for monitoring implementation and evaluating RMM. CONCLUSIONS: New implementation theory-based approaches are promising for enhancing the valuable dialogue between regulators, patients and HCPs and achieving patient safety. EU PAS REGISTER NUMBER: EUPAS35947.

Navigating stormy waters: 10 years of operation of the European Union Regulatory Network Incident Management Plan for Medicines for Human Use.

PURPOSE: The article provides an overview of the European Union Incident Management plan (EU-IMP) and reviews its first 10 years of operation. It outlines its scope, objectives, triggers, principles, and components. METHODS: Records were extracted from the European Pharmacovigilance Issues Tracking Tool and a separate tracking system for the period August 20, 2009 to August 19, 2019. RESULTS: During the 10 years of observation, 78 incidents were reviewed by the Incident Review Network and addressed through routine measures. Their number has varied throughout the years with a significant decrease after 2012. Incidents mainly covered safety (56%) and quality (34%) issues or a combination thereof (5%). The majority (70%) were notified by EU regulators and involved centrally and nationally authorized product in similar proportions. A referral was recommended as the assessment pathway for 47% of the issues while lines-to-take were the most frequent communication measure (the sole measure in 65% cases). Forty-six per cent of the issues resulted in a variation, whereas 22% resulted in maintenance of the marketing authorization. CONCLUSION: The EU-IMP is underpinned by a robust regulatory framework with defined processes and clear roles and responsibilities and offers a platform to coordinate actions and communication at EU level, rapidly pool expertise, minimize duplications, and address public health incidents.

SJS/TEN 2019: From science to translation.

Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis (SJS/TEN) are potentially life-threatening, immune-mediated adverse reactions characterized by widespread erythema, epidermal necrosis, and detachment of skin and mucosa. Efforts to grow and develop functional international collaborations and a multidisciplinary interactive network focusing on SJS/TEN as an uncommon but high burden disease will be necessary to improve efforts in prevention, early diagnosis and improved acute and long-term management. SJS/TEN 2019: From Science to Translation was a 1.5-day scientific program held April 26-27, 2019, in Vancouver, Canada. The meeting successfully engaged clinicians, researchers, and patients and conducted many productive discussions on research and patient care needs.

EMA Recommendation for the Pediatric Indications of Plerixafor (Mozobil) to Enhance Mobilization of Hematopoietic Stem Cells for Collection and Subsequent Autologous Transplantation in Children with Lymphoma or Malignant Solid Tumors.

On March 28, 2019, the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use adopted a positive opinion recommending the marketing authorization for the medicinal product plerixafor. The marketing authorization holder for this medicinal product is Genzyme Europe B.Th. The adoption was for an extension of the existing adult indication in combination with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) to pediatric patients (aged 1 year to <18 years) to enhance mobilization of hematopoietic stem cells to the peripheral blood for collection and subsequent autologous transplantation in children with lymphoma or solid malignant tumors. This treatment is indicated either preemptively, when circulating stem cell count on the predicted day of collection after adequate mobilization with G-CSF (with or without chemotherapy) is expected to be insufficient with regard to desired hematopoietic stem cells yield, or in children who previously failed to collect sufficient hematopoietic stem cells. The efficacy and safety of plerixafor were evaluated in an open label, multicenter, phase I/II, dose-ranging, and randomized controlled study (DFI12860) in pediatric patients with solid tumors, including neuroblastoma, sarcoma, Ewing sarcoma, or lymphoma, who were eligible for autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Forty-five patients (aged 1 year to <18 years) were randomized, 2:1, using 0.24 mg/kg of plerixafor plus standard mobilization (G-CSF with or without chemotherapy) versus control (standard mobilization alone). The primary analysis showed that 80% of patients in the plerixafor arm experienced at least a doubling of the peripheral blood (PB) CD34+ count, observed from the morning of the day preceding the first planned apheresis to the morning prior to apheresis, versus 28.6% of patients in the control arm (p = .0019). The median increase in PB CD34+ cell counts from baseline to the day of apheresis was 3.2-fold in the plerixafor arm versus by 1.4-fold in the control arm. The observed safety profile in the pediatric population was consistent with that in adults, with adverse events mainly related to injection site reactions, hypokalemia, and increased blood bicarbonate. Importantly, plerixafor exposure did not seem to negatively affect transplant efficiency. This article summarizes the scientific review of the application leading to regulatory approval in the European Union. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This review of the marketing authorization of plerixafor will raise awareness of pediatric indication granted for this medicinal product.

Fatal outcomes following immunization errors as reported to the EudraVigilance: A case series.

BACKGROUND: Serious adverse reactions after immunization are rare but do occur. In very rare instances, cases with fatal outcome have been reported. These reports can have a huge impact and even more so when due to an immunization error. The aim of this study is to systematically review immunization errors with fatal outcomes in EudraVigilance. METHODS: This was a case-series analysis of Individual Case Safety Reports (ICSRs) reporting immunization errors and a fatal outcome. To determine the level of certainty of a causal association between the immunization errors and fatal outcomes two independent reviewers assessed all ICSRs using the WHO tool "Causality assessment of an Adverse Event Following Immunization (AEFI)". In accordance with the tool, the ICSRs were classified as consistent, indeterminate, inconsistent/coincidental, or unclassifiable. In addition, we estimated the contribution of reported errors to the fatal outcomes as large, moderate, small, none, or unclassifiable using a classification developed for this study. RESULTS: A total of 154 ICSRs met the inclusion criteria. Vaccines reported most frequently were pneumococcal (33), rabies (27) and influenza vaccines (24). Most frequently reported errors were non-compliance with recommended schedules of immunization (63). The most frequently reported vaccine-error combination was rabies vaccines and non-compliance with a recommended schedule of immunization (23). Twelve cases were classified as consistent with causal association and had a large error contribution. These cases concerned a cluster of six cases reporting incorrect handling of multi-dose vials containing measles vaccine and six cases reporting administration of live-attenuated vaccines to immunocompromised patients. DISCUSSION: In this study, we showed that fatal outcomes following immunization errors are very rare. Four key issues were the importance of: (1) quality control of multi-dose vaccines, (2) screening patients for immunocompromising factors, (3) education on the importance of adherence, and (4) measures to improve distinction between vaccines and medicines.

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.

Description of the Risk Management of Medication Errors for Centrally Authorised Products in the European Union.

INTRODUCTION: Medication errors can have serious consequences for patients. To prevent the occurrence of medication errors in clinical practice, safety concerns may be included in the risk management plan and subsequently be addressed with routine and/or additional risk minimisation measures. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to describe safety concerns around medication errors and the risk minimisation measures for centrally authorised products in the European Union. METHODS: All safety concerns included in the risk management plans of originator centrally authorised products, authorised between 1 January, 2010 and 31 December, 2017, were collected from the European Public Assessment Report registry. Medication error safety concerns were categorised by Anatomical Therapeutic Classification code, year of authorisation, type of medication error and type of risk minimisation measure. RESULTS: During the study period, 311 centrally authorised products were approved, of which 84 had at least one medication error safety concern. The proportion of centrally authorised products with medication error safety concerns showed variation between 2010 and 2017 ranging from 15.2% to 36.4%. In total, 95 medication error safety concerns were identified. The type of medication error was highly variable, drug administration error was listed most frequently (n = 17). For 27 out of 95 medication error safety concerns, corresponding to 23 centrally authorised products, additional risk minimisation measures were required. All additional risk minimisation measures consisted of educational material targeted at healthcare professionals (85.2%) and/or patients (51.9%). For 78.3% of centrally authorised products with additional risk minimisation measures for medication errors, studies to evaluate the effectiveness of the additional risk minimisation measures were agreed upon. CONCLUSIONS: Medication error safety concerns were listed for almost a quarter of centrally authorised products approved during the study period. Further research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness and continued need for additional risk minimisation measures for medication errors.