Value and Implementation of the Aggregate Safety Assessment Plan.

Aggregate safety assessment involves evaluation of the totality of safety data to characterize the emerging safety profile of a product. The Drug Information Association-American Statistical Association Interdisciplinary Safety Evaluation scientific working group recently published an approach to developing an Aggregate Safety Assessment Plan (ASAP). Creation of an ASAP facilitates a consistent approach to safety data collection and analysis across studies and minimizes important missing data at the time of regulatory submission. A critical aspect of the ASAP is identification of the Safety Topics of Interest (STOI). The STOI, as defined in the ASAP, comprises adverse events (AEs), which have the potential to impact the benefit: risk profile of a product and typically require specialized data collection or analyses. While there are clear benefits to developing an ASAP for a drug development program, multiple concerns may be encountered with implementation. This article uses the examples of two STOIs to demonstrate the benefits and efficiencies gained with implementation of the ASAP in safety planning as well as in optimally characterizing the emerging safety profile of a product.

A systematic review of epidemiology and outcomes of Crohn's disease-related enterocutaneous fistulas.

BACKGROUND: Enterocutaneous fistulas (ECF) are rare sequelae of Crohn's disease (CD) that occur either postoperatively or spontaneously. ECFs are associated with high morbidity and mortality. This systematic literature review assesses the disease burden of CD-related ECF and identifies knowledge gaps around incidence/prevalence, treatment patterns, clinical outcomes, healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). METHODS: English language articles published in PubMed and Embase in the past 10 years that provided data and insight into the disease burden of CD-related ECF (PROSPERO Registration number: CRD42020177732) were identified. Prespecified search and eligibility criteria guided the identification of studies by two reviewers who also assessed risk of bias. RESULTS: In total, 582 records were identified; 316 full-text articles were assessed. Of those, eight studies met a priori eligibility criteria and underwent synthesis for this review. Limited epidemiologic data estimated a prevalence of 3265 persons with ECF in the USA in 2017. Clinical response to interventions varied, with closure of ECF achieved in 10% to 62.5% of patients and recurrence reported in 0% to 50% of patients. Very little information on HCRU is available, and no studies of PROs in this specific population were identified. CONCLUSION: The frequency, natural history, and outcomes of ECF are poorly described in the literature. The limited number of studies included in this review suggest a high treatment burden and risk of substantial complications. More robust, population-based research is needed to better understand the epidemiology, natural history, and overall disease burden of this rare and debilitating complication of CD.

A systematic review of the patient burden of Crohn's disease-related rectovaginal and anovaginal fistulas.

BACKGROUND: Crohn's disease (CD)-related rectovaginal fistulas (RVFs) and anovaginal fistulas (AVFs) are rare, debilitating conditions that present a substantial disease and treatment burden for women. This systematic literature review (SLR) assessed the burden of Crohn's-related RVF and AVF, summarizing evidence from observational studies and highlighting knowledge gaps. METHODS: This SLR identified articles in PubMed and Embase that provide data and insight into the patient experience and disease burden of Crohn's-related RVF and AVF. Two trained reviewers used pre-specified eligibility criteria to identify studies for inclusion and evaluate risk of bias using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool for observational studies. RESULTS: Of the 582 records identified, 316 full-text articles were assessed, and 16 studies met a priori eligibility criteria and were included. Few epidemiology studies were identified, with one study estimating the prevalence of RVF to be 2.3% in females with Crohn's disease. Seven of 12 treatment pattern studies reported that patients had or required additional procedures before and/or after the intervention of interest, demonstrating a substantial treatment burden. Seven of 11 studies assessing clinical outcomes reported fistula healing rates between 50 and 75%, with varying estimates based on population and intervention. CONCLUSIONS: This SLR reports the high disease and treatment burden of Crohn's-related RVF and AVF and identifies multiple evidence gaps in this field. The literature lacks robust, generalizable data, and demonstrates a compelling need for substantial, novel research into these rare and debilitating sequelae of CD. Registration The PROSPERO registration number for the protocol for this systematic literature review is CRD42020177732.

How well can we assess the validity of non-randomised studies of medications? A systematic review of assessment tools.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether assessment tools for non-randomised studies (NRS) address critical elements that influence the validity of NRS findings for comparative safety and effectiveness of medications. DESIGN: Systematic review and Delphi survey. DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed, Embase, Google, bibliographies of reviews and websites of influential organisations from inception to November 2019. In parallel, we conducted a Delphi survey among the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology Comparative Effectiveness Research Special Interest Group to identify key methodological challenges for NRS of medications. We created a framework consisting of the reported methodological challenges to evaluate the selected NRS tools. STUDY SELECTION: Checklists or scales assessing NRS. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers extracted general information and content data related to the prespecified framework. RESULTS: Of 44 tools reviewed, 48% (n=21) assess multiple NRS designs, while other tools specifically addressed case-control (n=12, 27%) or cohort studies (n=11, 25%) only. Response rate to the Delphi survey was 73% (35 out of 48 content experts), and a consensus was reached in only two rounds. Most tools evaluated methods for selecting study participants (n=43, 98%), although only one addressed selection bias due to depletion of susceptibles (2%). Many tools addressed the measurement of exposure and outcome (n=40, 91%), and measurement and control for confounders (n=40, 91%). Most tools have at least one item/question on design-specific sources of bias (n=40, 91%), but only a few investigate reverse causation (n=8, 18%), detection bias (n=4, 9%), time-related bias (n=3, 7%), lack of new-user design (n=2, 5%) or active comparator design (n=0). Few tools address the appropriateness of statistical analyses (n=15, 34%), methods for assessing internal (n=15, 34%) or external validity (n=11, 25%) and statistical uncertainty in the findings (n=21, 48%). None of the reviewed tools investigated all the methodological domains and subdomains. CONCLUSIONS: The acknowledgement of major design-specific sources of bias (eg, lack of new-user design, lack of active comparator design, time-related bias, depletion of susceptibles, reverse causation) and statistical assessment of internal and external validity is currently not sufficiently addressed in most of the existing tools. These critical elements should be integrated to systematically investigate the validity of NRS on comparative safety and effectiveness of medications. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL AND REGISTRATION: https://osf.io/es65q.

Aggregate Safety Assessment Planning for the Drug Development Life-Cycle.

The Program Safety Analysis Plan (PSAP) was proposed previously as a tool to proactively plan for integrated analyses of product safety data. Building on the PSAP and taking into consideration the evolving regulatory landscape, the Drug Information Association-American Statistical Association (DIA-ASA) Interdisciplinary Safety Evaluation scientific working group herein proposes the Aggregate Safety Assessment Plan (ASAP) process. The ASAP evolves over a product's life-cycle and promotes interdisciplinary, systematic safety planning as well as ongoing data review and characterization of the emerging product safety profile. Objectives include alignment on the safety topics of interest, identification of safety knowledge gaps, planning for aggregate safety evaluation of the clinical trial data and preparing for safety communications. The ASAP seeks to tailor the analyses for a drug development program while standardizing the analyses across studies within the program. The document is intended to be modular and flexible in nature, depending on the program complexity, phase of development and existing sponsor processes. Implementation of the ASAP process will facilitate early safety signal detection, improve characterization of product risks, harmonize safety messaging, and inform program decision-making.

The utility of real-world evidence for benefit-risk assessment, communication, and evaluation of pharmaceuticals: Case studies.

PURPOSE: In recent years, novel types of real-world evidence (RWE) have played a role in various decision-making processes relating to medicinal products, including regulatory approval, patient access, health technology assessment, safety monitoring, clinical use, and post-approval lifecycle management. We therefore reviewed the potential utility of RWE in the cycle of medicinal product benefit-risk (BR) assessment, communication/risk minimization and evaluation ("BRACE"). METHODS: A convenience sample of illustrative studies was drawn from the published literature and examined. Specifically, we examined the purpose for using RWE, the type of RWE used, its novelty and how it might be integrated with other data and activities of the BRACE cycle, and how it contributed to regulatory decision-making. RESULTS: Eight studies were selected with each illustrating a different activity in the BRACE cycle ranging from BR assessment in the preapproval setting, post-approval assessment of safety or effectiveness, communicating BR information to patients and healthcare professionals, and evaluating the effectiveness of risk minimization initiatives to support a positive BR balance. CONCLUSIONS: RWE has an important role in informing regulatory decision-making regarding the BR management of medicines. With increasing digitalization, facilitating data collection and stakeholder engagement in health, this role is only expected to expand in the future. To reach the full potential of RWE, both regulators and sponsors will need to be familiar with a range of existing and emerging methods for generating and analyzing such evidence appropriately and achieve convergence regarding how different types of RWE can best be used to inform BR management and decision-making.

Identifying Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Diseases in an Administrative Health Claims Database: Do Algorithms Generate Similar Findings?

Application of selective algorithms to administrative health claims databases allows detection of specific patients and disease or treatment outcomes. This study identified and applied different algorithms to a single data set to compare the numbers of patients with different inflammatory bowel disease classifications identified by each algorithm. A literature review was performed to identify algorithms developed to define inflammatory bowel disease patients, including ulcerative colitis, Crohn's disease, and inflammatory bowel disease unspecified in routinely collected administrative claims databases. Based on the study population, validation methods, and results, selected algorithms were applied to the Optum Clinformatics® Data Mart database from June 2000 to March 2017. The patient cohorts identified by each algorithm were compared. Three different algorithms were identified from literature review and selected for comparison (A, B, and C). Each identified different numbers of patients with any form of inflammatory bowel disease (323 833; 246 953, and 171 537 patients, respectively). The proportions of patients with ulcerative colitis, Crohn's disease, and inflammatory bowel disease unspecified were 32.0% to 47.5%, 38.6% to 43.8%, and 8.7% to 26.6% of the total population with inflammatory bowel disease, respectively, depending on the algorithm applied. Only 5.1% of patients with inflammatory bowel disease unspecified were identified by all 3 algorithms. Algorithm C identified the smallest cohort for each disease category except inflammatory bowel disease unspecified. This study is the first to compare numbers of inflammatory bowel disease patients identified by different algorithms from a single database. The differences between results highlight the need for validation of algorithms to accurately identify inflammatory bowel disease patients.