Concept of Routine Pharmacovigilance, Especially Signal Management in the US and Europe / 薬剤疫学

Monitoring of the safety profile for the approved medical products consists of routine pharmacovigilance activities for all drugs and additional pharmacovigilance activities for product-specific concerns. Signal management is an important part of routine pharmacovigilance activities, so EMA and FDA have published the guidelines for signal management in various documents. The AMED Risk Management Plan （RMP） research group, which started its activities in 2018 to enhance risk management plan in Japan, reviewed the guidelines and related articles and then put together the principles of signal management. The guidelines in EU and US describes the signal detection and evaluation methods including points to consider when conducting them, responsibilities of each action, and the procedures that the regulatory authorities disclose the outcome of their activities, in addition to the principles and procedures of signal management. Through the guidelines, they establish transparency for public including pharmaceutical industry. Our group first created the Japanese definitions of signal-related terms. Based on them, we created high-level concept for a series of activities from signal detection to risk identification and discussed the future vision of signal management in Japan.

Research for Recognition of Pharmaceutical Companies toward the Effective Use of “Drug Guide for Patients” as Package Inserts for Patients / 医薬品情報学

Objective: “Drug Guide for Patients” (DGP) is a drug information tool designated as one of the routine risk minimization activities in risk management plan (RMP) developed by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. However, patients and their families hardly recognize DGP. Therefore, we administered a questionnaire on drug consultation service of pharmaceutical companies that provide DGP with an aim to collect their views, elucidate problems when they prepare DGPs and examine effective utilization of DGP in the future.Methods: We sent a questionnaire by letter for 127 drug consultation service of pharmaceutical companies, and received questionnaire results using “Questant” that is web questionnaire making software. The results were examined using Fisher’s exact test or Pearson’s chi-squared test.Results: We obtained responses from 84 (66.1%) companies out of 127. As for the question of the published situation of DGP on their website, the most companies responded “Not published” with 47.6% and subsequently 41.7% for “Published for healthcare professionals”. The combined rate of “Published for Patients (3.6%)” and “Published for both healthcare professionals and patients (7.1%)” was only 10.7%. On the other hand, regarding the burden of companies making DGP, we found that more than 60% of pharmaceutical companies (63.5%) felt burdensome, whereas only 36.5% responded “Not burdensome.” Regarding the question on the role of DGP in RMP, pharmaceutical companies answered that the role is “sufficient” 3.6%, 29.8% “not sufficient”, and 66.6% “unknown”.Conclusion: Our results suggested that it is difficult for patients to get DGP from website of pharmaceutical companies and pharmaceutical companies felt burdensome in making DGP, and they recognized that DGP was not very much utilized by patients. Therefore, it would be necessary to improve the creation criteria of DGP. Furthermore, we felt it necessary to have the DGP known and utilized widely by (consumers and) patients.

Survey of the Description of “Medication Guides for Patients” and “Early Post-Marketing Phase Vigilance” on Additional Risk Minimization Activities of Risk Management Plans / 医薬品情報学

Objective: The risk management plan (RMP) is a useful information source for healthcare professionals, including pharmacists, to ensure drug safety. The “risk minimization activities” (RMA) of the RMP are especially important elements for healthcare professionals. It is known that “Medication Guides for Patients” (MGP) and “Early post-marketing phase vigilance” (EPPV) are items listed as part of the RMA. However, the creation of MGPs and the implementation of EPPVs are not performed for all medicines. In a previous study, it was difficult to evaluate this sufficiently with the safety specifications. The aim of this investigation was to evaluate RMAs, especially MGPs and EPPVs, not in terms of the safety specifications of RMP.Methods: The previously published RMPs of 177 drugs were obtained on February 22,2016, and used in the analysis. The relationship between the creation of the MGP and the description in the RMA and the relationship between the conduct described in the EPPV and the description in RMA was investigated for each medicine.Results: An MGP was created in 151 of the analyzed drugs. Of these, it was not listed in the RMA of 40 drugs. In contrast, EPPV was not listed in RMA in 2 out of 33 drugs when underway. EPPV was described in the RMA of 33 of the EPPV finished drugs. The time lag from the end of EPPV until the revision of the RMP was 4.5 month son average.Conclusion: MGPs and EPPVs are created especially for drugs requiring patient education, information provision, or safety monitoring. Therefore, for drugs for which MGPs or EPPVs are required, they should be listed in the RMA. In this study, the time lag of RMP revision was also highlighted as a problem. In order to promote the utilization of RMP by pharmacists, these issues should be resolved.