Enhancing Postmarketing Surveillance of Medical Products With Large Language Models.

Importance: The Sentinel System is a key component of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) postmarketing safety surveillance commitment and uses clinical health care data to conduct analyses to inform drug labeling and safety communications, FDA advisory committee meetings, and other regulatory decisions. However, observational data are frequently deemed insufficient for reliable evaluation of safety concerns owing to limitations in underlying data or methodology. Advances in large language models (LLMs) provide new opportunities to address some of these limitations. However, careful consideration is necessary for how and where LLMs can be effectively deployed for these purposes. Observations: LLMs may provide new avenues to support signal-identification activities to identify novel adverse event signals from narrative text of electronic health records. These algorithms may be used to support epidemiologic investigations examining the causal relationship between exposure to a medical product and an adverse event through development of probabilistic phenotyping of health outcomes of interest and extraction of information related to important confounding factors. LLMs may perform like traditional natural language processing tools by annotating text with controlled vocabularies with additional tailored training activities. LLMs offer opportunities for enhancing information extraction from adverse event reports, medical literature, and other biomedical knowledge sources. There are several challenges that must be considered when leveraging LLMs for postmarket surveillance. Prompt engineering is needed to ensure that LLM-extracted associations are accurate and specific. LLMs require extensive infrastructure to use, which many health care systems lack, and this can impact diversity, equity, and inclusion, and result in obscuring significant adverse event patterns in some populations. LLMs are known to generate nonfactual statements, which could lead to false positive signals and downstream evaluation activities by the FDA and other entities, incurring substantial cost. Conclusions and Relevance: LLMs represent a novel paradigm that may facilitate generation of information to support medical product postmarket surveillance activities that have not been possible. However, additional work is required to ensure LLMs can be used in a fair and equitable manner, minimize false positive findings, and support the necessary rigor of signal detection needed for regulatory activities.

Removing the FDA's Boxed Hepatotoxicity Warning and Liver Function Testing Requirement for Ambrisentan.

Importance: Endothelin receptor antagonists are first-line therapy for pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). The first 2 agents approved in the class, bosentan and ambrisentan, initially carried boxed warnings for hepatotoxicity and required monthly liver function tests (LFTs) as part of a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS); however, in 2011, as further safety data emerged on ambrisentan, the boxed hepatotoxicity warning and LFT requirements were removed. Objective: To analyze changes in the use of and LFT monitoring for ambrisentan and bosentan after changes to the ambrisentan labeling and REMS. Design, Setting, and Participants: This serial cross-sectional study used data from 3 longitudinal health care insurance claims databases-Medicaid, Optum's deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart, and Merative Marketscan-to perform an interrupted time series analysis of prescription fills and LFTs for patients taking ambrisentan and bosentan. Participants were patients filling prescriptions for ambrisentan and bosentan from July 1, 2007, to December 31, 2018. Data analysis was performed from April 2021 to August 2023. Exposure: Removal of the boxed warning for hepatotoxicity and the REMS LFT monitoring requirements on ambrisentan in March 2011. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were use of ambrisentan (ie, individuals with at least 1 dispensing per 1 000 000 individuals enrolled in the 3 datasets) vs bosentan and LFT monitoring (ie, proportion of initiators with at least 1 ordered test) before initiation and before the first refill. Results: A total of 10 261 patients received a prescription for ambrisentan during the study period (7442 women [72.5%]; mean [SD] age, 52.6 [17.6] years), and 11 159 patients received a prescription for bosentan (7931 women [71.1%]; mean [SD] age, 47.7 [23.7] years). Removal of the ambrisentan boxed hepatotoxicity warning and LFT monitoring requirement was associated with an immediate increase in the use of ambrisentan (1.50 patients per million enrollees; 95% CI, 1.08 to 1.92 patients per million enrollees) but no significant change in the use of bosentan. There were reductions in recorded LFTs before drug initiation (13.1% absolute decrease; 95% CI, -18.2% to -8.0%) and before the first refill (26.4% absolute decrease; 95% CI, -34.4% to -18.5%) of ambrisentan but not bosentan. Conclusions and Relevance: In this serial cross-sectional study of ambrisentan, labeling changes and removal of the REMS-related LFT requirement were associated with shifts in prescribing and testing behavior for ambrisentan but not bosentan. Further clinician education may be needed to maximize the benefits of REMS programs and labeling warnings designed to ensure the safe administration of high-risk medications.

Trends in Use and Evidence of Adherence to Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy Pregnancy Testing Requirements for Thalidomide, Lenalidomide, and Pomalidomide in the USA, 2000-2020.

INTRODUCTION: Lenalidomide, pomalidomide, and thalidomide are effective treatments for multiple myeloma but are teratogenic. To mitigate this risk, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) required risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) programs for these drugs, which include pregnancy testing among women of childbearing potential-twice before initiation, weekly in the first month on treatment, and every 2-4 weeks thereafter. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated dispensing trends of lenalidomide, pomalidomide, and thalidomide and assessed adherence to REMS pregnancy testing requirements among at-risk patients taking these drugs. METHODS: Using three US health insurance claims databases (Optum Clinformatics® [2004-2020], Merative Marketscan [2003-2019], and Medicaid [2000-2018]), we assessed monthly use of the drugs, patient characteristics and treatment persistence among drug initiators, and claims-based evidence for adherence to pregnancy testing requirements among initiators with child-bearing potential. RESULTS: Lenalidomide was the most prescribed agent following its approval in 2006 and through the end of the study period. A total of 48,311 lenalidomide (mean age = 59 years [standard deviation (SD) = 16]), 17,550 thalidomide (mean age = 65 years [SD = 12]), and 6560 pomalidomide initiators (mean age = 65 years [SD = 11]) were identified; 45% of initiators of each drug were women. Among initiators under follow-up on day 90, 70% were still on therapy. Initiators of childbearing potential comprised 3% (N = 1,920) of all initiators; among this cohort, 12% had evidence in claims data of two pregnancy tests before initiation, and 9% with at least 33 days of follow-up of four tests during the first month of treatment. By contrast, 52% who received a refill had claims-based evidence of a pregnancy test within 7 days of dispensing. CONCLUSION: Although most patients who initiated lenalidomide, pomalidomide, and thalidomide were not of child-bearing potential, further investigation into actual non-adherence to pregnancy testing is needed.

Sociodemographic Characteristics of Adverse Event Reporting in the USA: An Ecologic Study.

INTRODUCTION: The Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) is a vital source of new drug safety information, but whether adverse event (AE) information collected from these systems adequately captures experiences of the overall United States (US) population is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To examine determinants of consumer AE reporting in the USA. METHODS: Five-year AE reporting rate per 100,000 residents per US county were calculated, mapped, and quartiled for AE reports received directly from consumers between 2011 and 2015. Associations between county-level sociodemographic factors obtained from County Health Rankings and AE reporting rates were evaluated using negative binomial regression. RESULTS: Reporting rates were variable across US counties with > 17.6 reports versus ≤ 5.5 reports/100,000 residents in the highest and lowest reporting quartile, respectively. Controlling for drug utilization, counties with higher reporting rates had higher proportions of individuals age ≥ 65 years (e.g., 2.4% reporting increase per 1% increase in individuals age > 65, incidence rate ratio (IRR): 1.024, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.017-1.030), higher proportions of females (IRR: 1.027, 95% CI 1.012-1.043), uninsured (IRR: 1.009, 95% CI 1.005-1.013), higher median log household incomes (IRR: 1.897, 95% CI 1.644-2.189) and more mental health providers per 100,000 residents (IRR: 1.003, 95% CI 1.001-1.004). Lower reporting was observed in counties with higher proportions of individuals age ≤ 18 years (IRR: 0.966, 95% CI 0.959-0.974), American Indian or Alaska Native individuals (IRR: 0.991, 95% CI 0.986-0.996), individuals not proficient in English (IRR: 0.978, 95% CI 0.965-0.991), and individuals residing in rural areas within a county (IRR: 0.998, 95% CI 0.997-0.998). CONCLUSIONS: Observed variations in consumer AE reporting may be related to sociodemographic factors and healthcare access. Because these factors may also correspond to AE susceptibility, voluntary AE reporting systems may be suboptimal for capturing emerging drug safety concerns among more vulnerable populations.

How Do Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies Impact Clinical Practice? A National Survey of Physicians.

The US Food and Drug Administration can require risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) programs for prescription drugs to ensure the benefits of use outweigh the risks. We conducted a national survey of physicians' experiences prescribing eight REMS-covered drugs: (1) ambrisentan; (2) bosentan; (3) clozapine; (4) isotretinoin; (5-7) the multiple myeloma (MM) drugs lenalidomide, pomalidomide, thalidomide; and (8) sodium oxybate. Between May 2022 and January 2023, we surveyed 5,331 physician prescribers of these drugs, and 1,295 (24%) returned surveys (range: 149 for bosentan to 226 for MM drugs). Although 765 (68%) respondents thought the certification process provided useful drug information, 757 (67%) wanted materials to include benefit data and 944 (84%) non-REMS-related risk data. A majority (704, 63%) thought the safe use requirements facilitated discussion with patients, but a similar number (637, 57%) attributed delayed medication access to these requirements. In multivariable modeling, MM drug and isotretinoin respondents were less likely than sodium oxybate respondents to agree that the certification process provided useful drug information (MM drug: odds ratio (OR) = 0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.25-0.55; isotretinoin: OR = 0.39, 95% CI = 0.25-0.61), and isotretinoin, clozapine, and bosetan respondents were more likely than sodium oxybate respondents to agree that the safe use requirements often delayed medication access (isotretinoin: OR = 5.83, 95% CI = 3.70-9.19; clozapine: OR = 1.65, 95% CI = 1.08-2.54; bosentan: OR = 1.78, 95% CI = 1.12-2.85). Most physicians believe REMS programs convey useful drug safety information and facilitate discussion with patients but also seek information on benefits and non-REMS-related risks and better integration of REMS processes into clinical workflows.

Six Years of the US Food and Drug Administration's Postmarket Active Risk Identification and Analysis System in the Sentinel Initiative: Implications for Real World Evidence Generation.

Congress mandated the creation of a postmarket Active Risk Identification and Analysis (ARIA) system containing data on 100 million individuals for monitoring risks associated with drug and biologic products using data from disparate sources to complement the US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) existing postmarket capabilities. We report on the first 6 years of ARIA utilization in the Sentinel System (2016-2021). The FDA has used the ARIA system to evaluate 133 safety concerns; 54 of these evaluations have closed with regulatory determinations, whereas the rest remain in progress. If the ARIA system and the FDA's Adverse Event Reporting System are deemed insufficient to address a safety concern, then the FDA may issue a postmarket requirement to a product's manufacturer. One hundred ninety-seven ARIA insufficiency determinations have been made. The most common situation for which ARIA was found to be insufficient is the evaluation of adverse pregnancy and fetal outcomes following in utero drug exposure, followed by neoplasms and death. ARIA was most likely to be sufficient for thromboembolic events, which have high positive predictive value in claims data alone and do not require supplemental clinical data. The lessons learned from this experience illustrate the continued challenges using administrative claims data, especially to define novel clinical outcomes. This analysis can help to identify where more granular clinical data are needed to fill gaps to improve the use of real-world data for drug safety analyses and provide insights into what is needed to efficiently generate high-quality real-world evidence for efficacy.

The US Food and Drug Administration Sentinel System: a national resource for a learning health system.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) created the Sentinel System in response to a requirement in the FDA Amendments Act of 2007 that the agency establish a system for monitoring risks associated with drug and biologic products using data from disparate sources. The Sentinel System has completed hundreds of analyses, including many that have directly informed regulatory decisions. The Sentinel System also was designed to support a national infrastructure for a learning health system. Sentinel governance and guiding principles were designed to facilitate Sentinel's role as a national resource. The Sentinel System infrastructure now supports multiple non-FDA projects for stakeholders ranging from regulated industry to other federal agencies, international regulators, and academics. The Sentinel System is a working example of a learning health system that is expanding with the potential to create a global learning health system that can support medical product safety assessments and other research.

The Use of Real-World Data to Assess the Impact of Safety-Related Regulatory Interventions.

The regulation of medicines seeks to ensure the efficacy, safety, and quality of prescription and non-prescription medicines. Given that the conditions under which a medicine's benefits outweigh its risks are complex, it is essential that communications about the safe and effective use of medicines be clear and actionable. Assessing the impact of interventions to improve the safe and effective use of medicines is a developing area, and one in which real-world data are playing an increasingly important role. Although real-world data are commonly used to assess the impact of regulatory interventions, there are several areas where their use could be improved. Specific areas for improvement include assessing regulatory interventions across a wider range of medicines, rather than concentrating on a relatively few therapeutic areas; assessing more clinically relevant outcomes rather than relying on measures such as changes in the number of prescriptions, which may not always correlate with the desired impact; assessing the potential unintended or negative consequences of regulatory interventions; applying methods to address potential confounders; assessing long-term, rather than just short-term, impacts of an intervention; increasing the use of comparator groups, when feasible; and evaluating the impact of regulatory interventions from multiple dimensions, rather than from a single dimension. Expanded use of real-world data could inform some of these efforts, although data sources beyond administrative claims data will likely be necessary to achieve all these goals.

Trend changes of national zolpidem users and exposure cases after FDA drug safety communications.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of FDA's 2013 zolpidem Drug Safety Communications (DSCs), which recommended lowering the initial dose to mitigate drowsiness, on national estimates of zolpidem users and zolpidem exposure cases. METHODS: We analyzed trend changes of national zolpidem users from the IQVIA Total Patient Tracker (TPT) and zolpidem exposure cases reported to the National Poison Data System (NPDS), 2009-2018. To control for time varying confounding, the adjusted trends were analyzed using simple and controlled interrupted time series (ITS). We also adjusted for seasonal changes. Three sedating antidepressants were used together as a control. RESULTS: The national estimates of high-dose zolpidem users in TPT decreased significantly in the month immediately post-DSC; the absolute level decrease was -12.51 (95% CI: -14.12, -10.89) per 10 000 U.S. population relative to sedating antidepressants. The trend continuously decreased post-DSC, resulting in a 59% overall decrease by the end of the study period. There was a larger decrease in high-dose zolpidem use in females than in males. There was a level decrease of zolpidem exposure cases in the NPDS immediately post-DSC, -0.37 absolute decline (95% CI, -0.53, -0.20) per 10 000 national zolpidem users; or -1.33 absolute decline (95% CI, -1.54, -1.13) per 1000 total NPDS exposure cases relative to sedating antidepressants. Similar patterns were observed for cases reporting drowsiness. The results from the single ITS and controlled ITS were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Zolpidem users and exposure cases decreased significantly post-DSC, suggesting practitioners and patients became aware of and responded to the zolpidem DSCs.

A COVID-19-ready public health surveillance system: The Food and Drug Administration's Sentinel System.

The US Food and Drug Administration's Sentinel System was established in 2009 to use routinely collected electronic health data for improving the national capability to assess post-market medical product safety. Over more than a decade, Sentinel has become an integral part of FDA's surveillance capabilities and has been used to conduct analyses that have contributed to regulatory decisions. FDA's role in the COVID-19 pandemic response has necessitated an expansion and enhancement of Sentinel. Here we describe how the Sentinel System has supported FDA's response to the COVID-19 pandemic. We highlight new capabilities developed, key data generated to date, and lessons learned, particularly with respect to working with inpatient electronic health record data. Early in the pandemic, Sentinel developed a multi-pronged approach to support FDA's anticipated data and analytic needs. It incorporated new data sources, created a rapidly refreshed database, developed protocols to assess the natural history of COVID-19, validated a diagnosis-code based algorithm for identifying patients with COVID-19 in administrative claims data, and coordinated with other national and international initiatives. Sentinel is poised to answer important questions about the natural history of COVID-19 and is positioned to use this information to study the use, safety, and potentially the effectiveness of medical products used for COVID-19 prevention and treatment.

A Multi-modal Approach to Evaluate the Impact of Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) Programs.

INTRODUCTION: Since 2007, the US Food and Drug Administration has had the authority to require risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) programs for certain medications with serious safety concerns to help ensure the benefits of the medication outweigh its risks. Such programs can include requirements for patient monitoring, restrictions on dispensing or administration, and physician and pharmacy training and certification. However, there has been only scattered evidence on the impact of REMS programs on informed decision making, medication access, or patient outcomes. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this article was to describe a study that researchers at Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School will conduct in partnership with the Food and Drug Administration's Office of Surveillance and Epidemiology to investigate systematically how REMS programs have operated in practice. METHODS: Investigations include health insurance claims-based analyses to understand patterns of drug use, adherence to safety requirements, and patient outcomes under REMS programs; surveys and interviews to understand physician and patient experiences with REMS; and REMS program material-based and interview-based analyses to understand the effectiveness of risk communication in REMS programs. CONCLUSIONS: These research activities will evaluate the performance of REMS programs, provide information on the benefits and burdens to patients and healthcare providers, and generate recommendations for actionable steps to improve REMS programs overall.

Leveraging the Capabilities of the FDA's Sentinel System To Improve Kidney Care.

The Sentinel System is a national electronic postmarketing resource established by the US Food and Drug Administration to support assessment of the safety and effectiveness of marketed medical products. It has built a large, multi-institutional, distributed data network that contains comprehensive electronic health data, covering about 700 million person-years of longitudinal observation time nationwide. With its sophisticated infrastructure and a large selection of flexible analytic tools, the Sentinel System permits rapid and secure analyses, while preserving patient privacy and health-system autonomy. The Sentinel System also offers enhanced capabilities, including accessing full-text medical records, supporting randomized clinical trials embedded in healthcare delivery systems, and facilitating effective collection of patient-reported data using mobile devices, among many other research programs. The nephrology research community can use the infrastructure, tools, and data that this national resource offers for evidence generation. This review summarizes the Sentinel System and its ability to rapidly generate high-quality, real-world evidence; discusses the program's experience in, and potential for, addressing gaps in kidney care; and outlines avenues for conducting research, leveraging this national resource in collaboration with Sentinel investigators.

Changes in emergency department visits for zolpidem-attributed adverse drug reactions after FDA Drug Safety Communications.

Purpose: To identify possible changes in U.S. emergency department (ED) visits from zolpidem-attributed adverse drug reactions (ADRs) after 2013 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Drug Safety Communications (DSCs), which notified the public about FDA's new dosing recommendations for zolpidem. Methods: We estimated the occurrence of ED visits from zolpidem-attributed ADRs using nationally representative, public health surveillance of medication harms (National Electronic Injury Surveillance System-Cooperative Adverse Drug Event Surveillance project, 2010-2017). We estimated the number of zolpidem prescriptions using IQVIA National Prescription Audit, 2010-2017. We calculated rates of ED visits for zolpidem-attributed ADRs per 10 000 dispensed zolpidem prescriptions and identified time trends and potential inflection points using joinpoint regression. For comparison, we repeated these analyses for sedating antidepressants commonly used to treat disordered sleep (trazodone, doxepin, and mirtazapine). Results: The best-fit regression model for rates of ED visits for zolpidem-attributed ADRs by 6-month intervals identified a single inflection point in the second half of 2014 (P = .024) with a 6.7% biannual decrease from 2010 to 2014 ([-13.1%, 0.3%], P = .059) and a 13.9% biannual increase from the second half of 2014 through 2017 ([-1.1%, 31.3%], P = .068). No change or inflection points were identified for rates of ED visits for sedating antidepressant-attributed ADRs. Conclusions: While there was a nominal decline in the rate of ED visits for ADRs in the time period before and for 18 months after FDA's 2013 zolpidem DSCs, the decrease was not sustained, and thus questions remain concerning the long-term impact of the zolpidem DSCs on ADRs.

An Evaluation of Postmarketing Reports with an Outcome of Death in the US FDA Adverse Event Reporting System.

INTRODUCTION: Adverse reactions with an outcome of death are inherently important for pharmacovigilance organizations to evaluate. Prior efforts to systematically evaluate individual case safety reports (ICSRs) with an outcome of death have been limited to high-level summaries. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to characterize ICSRs with an outcome of death contained in the US FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database. METHODS: All ICSRs received through 31 December 2017 reporting an outcome of death were characterized by patient demographics, suspect product(s), adverse events, and reporter type. Using the ICSR's narrative and reporter information, we classified ICSRs by source to include those from industry-sponsored programs, poison control centers, specialty pharmacies, and litigation. Additionally, a random sample of ICSRs was evaluated for completeness of structured data fields and manually reviewed for the availability of key information in the narrative (i.e. cause of death, medical history, and causality assessment). RESULTS: Overall, 1,053,716 ICSRs with a death outcome were received in the study period. Ten medications treating conditions for malignancies, pain, and kidney disease accounted for nearly 20% of all fatal ICSRs. ICSRs originating from industry-sponsored programs, poison control centers, litigation, and specialty pharmacies accounted for 14%, 6.5%, 5.0%, and 3.3% of all fatal ICSRs, respectively. ICSRs in which the only adverse event coded was 'death' were more likely to be missing structured data and less likely to include key information in the narrative. CONCLUSION: Understanding the origins and characteristics of ICSRs with an outcome of death supports meaningful evaluations and interpretations of FAERS data. A wide variability in ICSR quality exists, even in those reports with the most serious outcome.

Towards Automating Adverse Event Review: A Prediction Model for Case Report Utility.

INTRODUCTION: The rapidly expanding size of the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Adverse Event Reporting System database requires modernized pharmacovigilance practices. Techniques to systematically identify high utility individual case safety reports (ICSRs) will support safety signal management. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to develop and validate a model predictive of an ICSR's pharmacovigilance utility (PVU). METHODS: PVU was operationalized as an ICSR's inclusion in an FDA-authored pharmacovigilance review's case series supporting a recommendation to modify product labeling. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine the association between PVU and ICSR features. The best performing model was selected for bootstrapping validation. As a sensitivity analysis, we evaluated the model's performance across subgroups of safety issues. RESULTS: We identified 10,381 ICSRs evaluated in 69 pharmacovigilance reviews, of which 2115 ICSRs were included in a case series. The strongest predictors of ICSR inclusion were reporting of a designated medical event (odds ratio (OR) 1.93, 95% CI 1.54-2.43) and positive dechallenge (OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.50-1.87). The strongest predictors of ICSR exclusion were death reported as the only outcome (OR 2.72, 95% CI 1.76-4.35), more than three suspect products (OR 2.69, 95% CI 2.23-3.24), and > 15 preferred terms reported (OR 2.69, 95% CI 1.90-3.82). The validated model showed modest discriminative ability (C-statistic of 0.71). Our sensitivity analysis demonstrated heterogeneity in model performance by safety issue (C-statistic range 0.58-0.74). CONCLUSIONS: Our model demonstrated the feasibility of developing a tool predictive of ICSR utility. The model's modest discriminative ability highlights opportunities for further enhancement and suggests algorithms tailored to safety issues may be beneficial.

Impact of a New Consumer Form on the Quantity and Quality of Adverse Event Reports Submitted to the United States Food and Drug Administration.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Consumers and healthcare professionals can voluntarily report adverse experiences associated with drug products to the United States Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS). Consumers and healthcare professionals used the same general voluntary reporting form (GVR) until mid-2013, when a consumer voluntary reporting form (ConVR), written in plain language, was implemented. The objective of this study was to examine the effect of the ConVR on the quality and quantity of consumer reports submitted directly to FAERS. DESIGN: Descriptive; quasi-experimental. DATA SOURCE: FAERS database. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We identified all consumer and healthcare professional reports received directly by the FDA from January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2015. Report quality was defined by the completeness of 15 individual data fields and a structured tool measuring clinical documentation. An interrupted time series design was used to evaluate the impact on the quantity of consumer reports. Consumer reports submitted on the ConVR generally included more patient, product, and event data in the structured data fields than those submitted on the GVR. Fields with the greatest absolute percentage difference after the ConVR was introduced included race/ethnicity (+77.2%), product start and stop dates (+43% and +40.3%, respectively), dechallenge and rechallenge information (+19.1% and +29.4%, respectively), and medical history (+27%). Our structured assessment also classified more reports received on the ConVR as well documented relative to the GVR consumer reports (64.9% vs 37.8%, p<0.01). The time series model demonstrated an immediate increase of 499 consumer reports in the month following the ConVR's implementation (p<0.01). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that the ConVR has contributed positively to both the quality and quantity of consumer reports in FAERS.

Patients' Knowledge of Key Messaging in Drug Safety Communications for Zolpidem and Eszopiclone: A National Survey.

Drug Safety Communications (DSCs) are used by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to inform health care providers, patients, caregivers, and the general public about safety issues related to FDA-approved drugs. To assess patient knowledge of the messaging contained in DSCs related to the sleep aids zolpidem and eszopiclone, we conducted a large, cross-sectional patient survey of 1,982 commercially insured patients selected by stratified random sampling from the Optum Research Database who had filled at least two prescriptions for either zolpidem or eszopiclone between July 1, 2012 and June 30, 2013. Among the 594 respondents (32.7% response rate), two-thirds reported hearing generally about drug safety information prior to starting a new drug, with the remaining one-third "rarely" or "never" hearing such information. Providers and pharmacists were primary sources of drug safety information. Two-thirds of zolpidem users and half of eszopiclone users reported having heard about the related DSC messages, ability to accurately identify the major factual messages was limited (overall median 2 correct out of 5, with men and those reporting higher educational level scoring higher [2/5 vs. 1/5, p=0.001]). Respondents reacted to new drug safety information about their sleep aids by reporting that they would want to learn about alternative ways to help them sleep (70%) and seek out more information about the safety of their specific sleeping pill (59-78%). Opportunities may exist for the FDA to work with providers and pharmacies to help ensure the DSC information is more widely received and is more fully understood by those taking the affected medications.

Multimodal Analysis of FDA Drug Safety Communications: Lessons from Zolpidem.

Because clinical trials conducted for US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval occur in carefully monitored settings and often have strict inclusion criteria for participation, new information about drug safety is commonly discovered once a medication is FDA approved and used by larger numbers of patients. The FDA issues Drug Safety Communications when new information arises about the safety of marketed drugs that may change decision making by healthcare providers and patients. Since their inception, over 250 Drug Safety Communications have been issued alerting consumers and prescribers in the USA about safety risks related to prescription and over-the-counter medications. Researchers at the Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston in conjunction with officials from the FDA undertook a multi-modal study of the content, dissemination, and uptake of FDA messaging, focusing on two 2013 Drug Safety Communications related to zolpidem (Ambien; Sanofi, Paris, France). Traditional and social media analyses note incomplete dissemination of key DSC messages. Surveys of patients and interviews of physicians and patients suggest important limitations in patient-provider communication that have hindered sharing of safety information with patients. Finally, pharmacoepidemiologic analyses of zolpidem dispensing patterns after the Drug Safety Communications were released suggest possible opportunities for enhancing uptake of new safety knowledge that may lead to changes in clinical practice, where appropriate.