Social Media Listening for Routine Post-Marketing Safety Surveillance.

INTRODUCTION: Post-marketing safety surveillance primarily relies on data from spontaneous adverse event reports, medical literature, and observational databases. Limitations of these data sources include potential under-reporting, lack of geographic diversity, and time lag between event occurrence and discovery. There is growing interest in exploring the use of social media ('social listening') to supplement established approaches for pharmacovigilance. Although social listening is commonly used for commercial purposes, there are only anecdotal reports of its use in pharmacovigilance. Health information posted online by patients is often publicly available, representing an untapped source of post-marketing safety data that could supplement data from existing sources. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this paper is to describe one methodology that could help unlock the potential of social media for safety surveillance. METHODS: A third-party vendor acquired 24 months of publicly available Facebook and Twitter data, then processed the data by standardizing drug names and vernacular symptoms, removing duplicates and noise, masking personally identifiable information, and adding supplemental data to facilitate the review process. The resulting dataset was analyzed for safety and benefit information. RESULTS: In Twitter, a total of 6,441,679 Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA(®)) Preferred Terms (PTs) representing 702 individual PTs were discussed in the same post as a drug compared with 15,650,108 total PTs representing 946 individual PTs in Facebook. Further analysis revealed that 26 % of posts also contained benefit information. CONCLUSION: Social media listening is an important tool to augment post-marketing safety surveillance. Much work remains to determine best practices for using this rapidly evolving data source.

Safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of inhaled once-daily umeclidinium in healthy adults deficient in CYP2D6 activity: a double-blind, randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Umeclidinium is a new, long-acting, muscarinic receptor antagonist currently in development for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). In vitro cell culture data suggest that up to 99 % of umeclidinium is potentially metabolized by cytochrome P450 2D6 (CYP2D6), but without a definitive human metabolism radiolabel study, the extrapolation of in vitro to in vivo is only an estimate. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to investigate the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of umeclidinium in patients with normal and deficient CYP2D6 metabolism. METHODS: This was a randomized, placebo-controlled study to assess the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of inhaled single and repeat doses (for 7 days) of umeclidinium. The study took place at a single clinical site, at which subjects remained throughout the study. Healthy volunteers (HVTs) who were normal CYP2D6 metabolizers (HVT-NMs) [n = 20] and poor CYP2D6 metabolizers (HVT-PMs) [n = 16] participated in the study. The subjects received umeclidinium (100-1,000 µg) and placebo as single and repeat doses. The primary outcome measurements were protocol-defined safety and tolerability endpoints. RESULTS: Thirteen subjects in each population reported adverse events (AEs); none were considered serious. No clinically significant abnormalities in vital signs, lung function, haematology, biochemistry, 12-lead electrocardiograms (ECGs) or 24-h Holter ECGs were attributable to the study drug. There were no differences in plasma and urine pharmacokinetics between populations: the plasma area under the concentration-time curve over the dosing interval (from 0 to 24 h for the once-daily drug) [AUC(τ) (ng·h/mL)] and the maximum plasma concentration [C(max) (ng/mL)] ratios (with 90 % confidence intervals [CIs]) following repeat dosing with 500 µg umeclidinium for HVT-PMs (as compared with HVT-NMs) were 1.03 (0.79-1.34) and 0.80 (0.59-1.08), respectively; the cumulative amount of the unchanged drug excreted into the urine at 24 h (Ae(24)) [ng] ratio was 1.01 (0.82-1.26). Following repeat dosing with umeclidinium 1,000 µg, the plasma AUC(τ) [ng·h/mL] and C(max) (ng/mL) ratios (with 90 % CIs) were 1.33 (0.98-1.81) and 1.07 (0.76-1.51); the urine Ae(24) (ng) ratio was 1.47 (1.15-1.88). Similar ratios for urine and plasma were observed following single and repeat-dose regimens. CONCLUSION: Umeclidinium has favourable safety and pharmacokinetic profiles in both HVT-NM and HVT-PM populations.

Safety, tolerability, pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of umeclidinium and vilanterol alone and in combination: a randomized crossover trial.

UNLABELLED: Umeclidinium bromide (GSK573719; UMEC), a new long-acting muscarinic receptor antagonist (LAMA), is in development with vilanterol (GW642444; VI), a selective long-acting ß(2) agonist (LABA), as a once-daily inhaled combination therapy for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). A single dose healthy volunteer study was conducted to assess the safety and tolerability, pharmacodynamics (PD) and pharmacokinetics (PK) of inhaled umeclidinium (500 µg) and vilanterol (50 µg) when administered separately and in combination using a novel dry powder inhaler (NDPI). Co-administration of single inhaled doses of umeclidinium and vilanterol to healthy Japanese subjects was well tolerated and not associated with meaningful changes in systemic exposure or PD effects compared with administration of either compound individually. Pharmacokinetic assessments showed rapid absorption for both drugs (Tmax = 5 min for both umeclidinium and vilanterol) followed by rapid elimination with median tlast of 4-5 h for umeclidinium and median tlast of 1.5-2.0 h for vilanterol. Assessments of pharmacokinetic interaction were inconclusive since for umeclidinium, Cmax following combination was higher than umeclidinium alone but not AUC whereas for vilanterol, AUC following combination was higher than vilanterol alone but not Cmax. There were no obvious trends observed between individual maximum supine heart rate and umeclidinium Cmax or vilanterol Cmax when delivered as umeclidinium 500 µg and vilanterol 50 µg combination or when delivered as umeclidinium or vilanterol alone. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00976144.