Medicines for an aging population: The EMA perspective and policies.

The European Medicines Agency adopted their Geriatric Medicines Strategy more than a decade ago. The strategy aims at elucidating the evidence basis for marketing authorization of new medicines which will be used in the older population, and at ensuring the appropriate communication of findings to the patient and healthcare provider. During the past decade new tools and data sources have emerged to support the strategy goals, and their use should be considered. Possible concrete actions are presented to improve the design of clinical trials, the data collection both pre- and post-approval, the assessment of the findings, and the communication to assist informed prescription and safe medicine taking. Implementation and prioritization of these actions should be done from the perspective of addressing the needs of patients while maximizing efficient use of resources, with the aim of integrating geriatric aspects into routine medicines development and assessment.

Inclusion of functional measures and frailty in the development and evaluation of medicines for older adults.

The International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) E7, the guidance for the conduct of clinical trials in people older than age 65 years, dates from 1994. Since then, the inclusion of older people in clinical trials has hardly improved, particularly for the oldest old age group (individuals older than age 75 years), which is the fastest growing demographic bracket in the EU. Even though most medications are taken by this group, relevant endpoints and safety outcomes for this cohort are rarely included and reported, both in clinical trials and regulatory approval documents. To improve the critical appraisal and the regulatory review of medicines taken by frail older adults, eight recommendations are presented and discussed in this Health Policy. These recommendations are brought together from different perspectives and experience of the treatment of older patients. On one side, the perspective of medical practitioners from various clinical disciplines, with their direct experience of clinical decision making; on the other, the perspective of regulators assessing the data submitted in medicine registration dossiers, their relevance to the risk-benefit balance for older patients, and the communication of the findings in the product information. Efforts to improve the participation of older people in clinical trials have been in place for more than a decade, with little success. The recommendations presented here are relevant for stakeholders, authorities, pharmaceutical companies, and researchers alike, as the implementation of these measures is not under the capacity of a single entity. Improving the inclusion of frail older adults requires awareness, focus, and action on the part of those who can effect a much needed change.

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.

Correction to: Safety Communication Tools and Healthcare Professionals' Awareness of Specific Drug Safety Issues in Europe: A Survey Study.

In the original publication of the article, the headings of columns 3 and 4 in the data table.

Safety Communication Tools and Healthcare Professionals' Awareness of Specific Drug Safety Issues in Europe: A Survey Study.

INTRODUCTION: National competent authorities (NCAs) use Direct Healthcare Professional Communications (DHPCs) to communicate new drug safety issues to healthcare professionals (HCPs). More knowledge is needed about the effectiveness of DHPCs and the extent to which they raise awareness of new safety issues among HCPs. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to assess and compare general practitioners' (GPs'), cardiologists', and pharmacists' familiarity with DHPCs as communication tools, their awareness of specific drug safety issues, and the sources through which they had become aware of the specific issues. METHODS: GPs, cardiologists, and pharmacists from nine European countries (Croatia, Denmark, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and the UK) completed a web-based survey. The survey was conducted in the context of the Strengthening Collaboration for Operating Pharmacovigilance in Europe (SCOPE) Joint Action. Respondents were asked about their familiarity with DHPCs in general and their awareness of safety issues that had recently been communicated and involved the following drugs: combined hormonal contraceptives, diclofenac, valproate, and ivabradine. Those HCPs who were aware of the specific safety issues were subsequently asked to indicate the source through which they had become aware of them. Differences between professions in familiarity with DHPCs and awareness were tested using a Pearson χ2 test per country and post hoc Pearson χ2 tests in the case of statistically significant differences. RESULTS: Of the 3288 included respondents, 54% were GPs, 40% were pharmacists, and 7% were cardiologists. The number of respondents ranged from 67 in Denmark to 916 in Spain. Most respondents (92%) were familiar with DHPCs, with one significant difference between the professions: pharmacists were more familiar than GPs in Italy (99 vs 90%, P = 0.004). GPs' awareness ranged from 96% for the diclofenac issue to 70% for the ivabradine issue. A similar pattern was shown for pharmacists (91% aware of the diclofenac issue to 66% of the ivabradine issue). Cardiologists' awareness ranged from 91% for the ivabradine issue to 34% for the valproate issue. Overall, DHPCs were a common source through which GPs (range: 45% of those aware of the contraceptives issue to 60% of those aware of the valproate issue), cardiologists (range: 33% for the contraceptives issue to 61% for the valproate issue), and pharmacists (range: 41% for the contraceptives issue to 51% for the ivabradine issue) had become aware of the specific safety issues, followed by information on websites or in newsletters. CONCLUSIONS: GPs, cardiologists, and pharmacists were to a similar extent (highly) familiar with DHPCs, but they differed in awareness levels of specific safety issues. Cardiologists were less aware of safety issues associated with non-cardiology drugs even if these had cardiovascular safety concerns. This implies that additional strategies may be needed to reach specialists when communicating safety issues regarding drugs outside their therapeutic area but with risks related to their field of specialisation. DHPCs were an important source for the different professions to become aware of specific safety issues, but other sources were also often used. NCAs should consider the use of a range of sources when communicating important safety issues to HCPs.

Communication on Safety of Medicines in Europe: Current Practices and General Practitioners' Awareness and Preferences.

INTRODUCTION: National competent authorities (NCAs) for medicines coordinate communication relating to the safety of medicines in Europe. The effectiveness of current communication practices has been questioned, particularly with regard to reaching general practitioners (GPs). OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess current European NCA safety communication practices and to investigate European GPs' awareness of and preferences for safety communications on medicines. METHODS: Web-based surveys were distributed among European NCAs and healthcare professionals (HCPs). The survey among regulators was emailed to a representative of each of the 27 European countries participating in the Strengthening Collaboration for Operating Pharmacovigilance in Europe (SCOPE) Joint Action. HCPs from nine European countries (Denmark, Spain, Croatia, Ireland, Italy, The Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the UK) were asked about their preferences through a link to the survey on websites, in newsletters, and/or in a direct email. From this survey, data from GPs were used and descriptive analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Current NCA practices were reported for 26 countries. In 23 countries (88%), NCAs published direct healthcare professional communications (DHPCs, i.e. urgent communication letters for serious safety issues) on their website in addition to distribution to individual HCPs. Educational materials were available on the NCA's website in 10 countries (40%), and 21 NCAs (81%) indicated they had their own bulletin/newsletter, which is often presented on the NCA's website (15 countries; 60%). More than 90% of the 1766 GPs who completed the survey were aware of DHPCs. The most preferred senders of safety information were NCAs and professional bodies, while the preferred channels for keeping up to date with safety information were medicines reference books and clinical guidelines. GPs found the repetition of safety issues useful (range of 80% in the UK to 97% in Italy). Preference for an electronic copy rather than a hardcopy varied per country (36% in Sweden to 72% in Spain). CONCLUSIONS: NCAs use similar methods for safety communications on medicines. Most GPs were aware of urgent communications and preferred similar senders of safety communications; however, their preferences towards the format differed per country.

Off-label use of nicardipine as tocolytic and acute pulmonary oedema: a post-marketing analysis of adverse drug reaction reports in EudraVigilance.

PURPOSE: To evaluate a signal of acute pulmonary oedema (APO) due to nicardipine used off-label as tocolytic in pregnant women. METHODS: All the suspected cases of APO recorded in EudraVigilance database up to 31/01/2013 and associated with nicardipine containing medicinal products were retrieved. The Proportional Reporting Ratio was considered as measure of disproportionality. Individual cases evaluation was conducted. RESULTS: Thirty-four spontaneous cases regarding pregnancy women who experienced APO following nicardipine treatment as tocolytic were collected. The detected proportional reporting ratio was 50.96 (95% confidence interval lower bound equal to 36.75). The analysis focused on 10 serious cases. Most women, aged between 27 and 39 years, were treated with intravenous nicardipine. The most of the suspected adverse reactions occurred between 24 and 96 hours. CONCLUSIONS: A potentially causal association between APO and off-label use of nicardipine as tocolytic has been detected during a periodic signal detection activity. The Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee confirmed our findings, recommending an update of the summary of the product characteristics for medicines containing nicardipine for both intravenous and oral formulations. Then European Medicines Agency reaffirmed that nicardipine use in other indications is no longer recommended.