Industry Review of Best Practices for Risk Management of Drug-Induced Liver Injury from Development to Real-World Use.

The relative treatment benefit of a drug for patients during development, marketing authorization review, or after approval includes an assessment of the risk of drug-induced liver injury (DILI). In this article, the Pharmacovigilance and Risk Mitigation Working Group of the IQ-DILI Initiative launched in June 2016 within the International Consortium for Innovation and Quality in Pharmaceutical Development presents and reviews three key topics for essential risk management activities to identify, characterize, monitor, mitigate, and communicate DILI risk associated with small molecules during drug development. The three topics are: (1) Current best practices for characterizing the DILI phenotype and the severity and incidence of DILI in the treatment population, including DILI identification, prediction and recovery. (2) Characterization of the relative treatment benefit for patients who will be exposed to a drug and the attendant risk of DILI in conjunction with existing global risk mitigation strategies. (3) Implementation of risk mitigation strategies during drug development highlighting patient factors, healthcare settings and site of product administration, and prescriber and healthcare provider factors. Industry guidance is provided for assessing whether the product labeling is sufficient to minimize the risk of DILI or whether a United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) or European Medicines Agency (EMA) Risk Management Plan (RMP) with additional Risk Minimization Measures (aRMM) is needed.

The relative treatment benefit of a drug for patients during development, marketing authorization review or after approval includes an assessment of the risk of drug-induced liver injury (DILI). Reported incidences of DILI range from 0.74 to 19 per 100,000, and laboratory criteria and/or clinical outcome determine the severity of DILI. At least 10% of patients who develop jaundice caused by DILI (Hy's Law cases) develop liver failure (i.e., severe DILI). A drug's liver safety profile can be assessed using Evaluation of Drug-Induced Serious Hepatotoxicity Plots. Specific recommendations for monitoring DILI in the post-marketing setting depend on characterization of the phenotype during drug development. Risk mitigation tools include additional educational mechanisms, and risk minimization measures include Elements To Assure Safe Use (ETASU) for healthcare professionals, administration sites, and patients. The overall aim of risk management is to ensure that the benefit of a particular product exceeds the risks as far as possible for the individual patient and for the target population.

REMS pharmacy tasks: The adoption of an innovative electronic support system.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to evaluate the pharmacy adoption rates of an online Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) Pharmacy Portal designed as an alternative for REMS-certified pharmacies to perform mandatory pharmacy dispense confirmations and to assess whether Pharmacy Portal uptake was affected by the pharmacy daily dispense volume. SETTING: REMS-certified pharmacies dispensing lenalidomide (Revlimid), pomalidomide (Pomalyst), or thalidomide (Thalomid). PRACTICE DESCRIPTION: Primarily specialty and hospital pharmacies in the limited distribution network that used the REMS Pharmacy Portal. PRACTICE INNOVATION: A self-service pharmacy portal was developed to allow REMS-certified pharmacies to obtain confirmation numbers instead of calling a Celgene Customer Care Representative (CCR) or using the Interactive Voice Response System (IVR) system. EVALUATION: The numbers of pharmacy dispense confirmations obtained were identified, and the mean percentages by quarter (Q) were calculated from January 2013 through August 2016 for the Pharmacy Portal, Celgene CCR, and IVR. RESULTS: In Q1 2013, the CCR and IVR options were used for 57% and 43% of dispense confirmations, respectively. After the training period, the Pharmacy Portal rapidly became the most used option (67% of confirmations from Q2 2014). By August 2016, data displayed the continued preference for the pharmacy portal (98% of all confirmations) regardless of the daily dispense volume of the pharmacy. As of March 30, 2018, the pharmacy portal continued to be the preferred option for all pharmacies (maintained at 98.5% use). CONCLUSION: There is an overwhelming REMS pharmacy preference to use the pharmacy portal over the IVR and CCR options, irrespective of the pharmacy daily dispense volume. The rapid uptake of the pharmacy portal is most likely attributed to robust and comprehensive 1-on-1 training and support provided by the REMS sponsor to the REMS-certified pharmacies, but also because it might be easier to use than the other options, resulting in reduced REMS burden for the pharmacy.