Handling of New Drug Safety Information in the Dutch Hospital Setting: A Mixed Methods Approach.

INTRODUCTION: The implementation of new drug safety information and Direct Healthcare Professional Communications (DHPCs) in hospitals is important for patient safety. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to gain insight into which procedures and practices are in place to handle new drug safety information and particularly DHPCs in the Dutch hospital setting. METHODS: We first conducted focus groups including medical specialists and hospital pharmacists, focusing on handling of drug safety information at the individual and organisational level. A survey was then developed and distributed among hospital pharmacists in all Dutch hospitals to quantify the existence of specific procedures and committees to handle drug safety information and DHPCs. RESULTS: Eleven specialists and 14 pharmacists from six hospitals participated in focus groups. Drug safety information was usually considered before drugs were included in formularies or treatment protocols. Furthermore, drug safety information was consulted in response to patients experiencing adverse events. DHPCs were mostly dealt with by individual professionals. DHPCs could lead to actions but this was very uncommon. Completed surveys were received from 40 (53%) of the hospitals. In 32 (80%), the hospital pharmacy had procedures to deal with new drug safety information, whereas in 11 (28%) a hospital-wide procedure was in place. Drug safety was considered in committees concerning drug formulary decisions (69%) and antibiotic policies (63%). DHPCs were assessed by a hospital pharmacist in 50% of the hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Drug safety information was used for evaluation of new treatments and in response to adverse events. Assessment of whether a DHPC requires action was primarily an individual task.

Overview of the European post-authorisation study register post-authorization studies performed in Europe from September 2010 to December 2018.

BACKGROUND: The European post-authorisation study (EU PAS) register is a repository launched in 2010 by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). All EMA-requested PAS, commonly observational studies, must be recorded in this register. Multi-database studies (MDS) leveraging secondary data have become an important strategy to conduct PAS in recent years, as reflected by the type of studies registered in the EU PAS register. OBJECTIVES: To analyse and describe PAS in the EU PAS register, with focus on MDS. METHODS: Studies in the EU PAS register from inception to 31st December 2018 were described concerning transparency, regulatory obligations, scope, study type (e.g., observational study, clinical trial, survey, systematic review/meta-analysis), study design, type of data collection and target population. MDS were defined as studies conducted through secondary use of >1 data source not linked at patient-level. Data extraction was carried out independently by 14 centres with expertise in pharmacoepidemiology, using publicly available information in the EU PAS register including study protocol, whenever available, using a standardised data collection form. For validation purposes, a second revision of key fields for a 15% random sample of studies was carried out by a different centre. The inter-rater reliability (IRR) was then calculated. Finally, to identify predictors of primary data collection-based studies/versus those based on secondary use of healthcare databases) or MDS (vs. non-MDS), odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated fitting univariate logistic regression models. RESULTS: Overall, 1426 studies were identified. Clinical trials (N = 30; 2%), systematic reviews/meta-analyses (N = 16; 1%) and miscellaneous study designs (N = 46; 3%) were much less common than observational studies (N = 1227; 86%). The protocol was available for 63% (N = 360) of 572 observational studies requested by a competent authority. Overall, 36% (N = 446) of observational studies were based fully or partially on primary data collection. Of 757 observational studies based on secondary use of data alone, 282 (37%) were MDS. Drug utilisation was significantly more common as a study scope in MDS compared to non-MDS studies. The overall percentage agreement among collaborating centres that collected the data concerning study variables was highest for study type (93.5%) and lowest for type of secondary data (67.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Observational studies were the most common type of studies in the EU PAS register, but 30% used primary data, which is more resource-intensive. Almost half of observational studies using secondary data were MDS. Data recording in the EU PAS register may be improved further, including more widespread availability of study protocols to improve transparency.