Does additional monitoring status increase the reporting of adverse drug reactions? An interrupted time series analysis of EudraVigilance data.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of including a medicine in the list of medicinal products subject to additional monitoring (AM) on the reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in the european economic area (EEA). METHODS: Interrupted time series using the monthly number of EEA ADR reports in EudraVigilance during 12 months before and after the addition to AM list. The main outcome was the change (%) in reporting of ADRs with step change as the a priori impact model. Further time series analysis was performed using Joinpoint Regression. RESULTS: The analysis included 11 active substances. No significant immediate (step change) increase of reporting was identified for any product at time of addition to AM list. We identified a significant gradual increase of ADR reporting after addition to AM list (slope change) for two out of five new products-boceprevir (10% per month, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3%-18%) and denosumab-Xgeva (13% per month, 95% CI 4%-22%). No change was identified for Prolia, another denosumab-containing product not subject to AM. No significant increase was identified for any product included in the AM list due to the requirement to conduct a PASS. Conversely, a gradual decrease in reporting was identified for natalizumab (-5% per month; 95% CI -10% to -1%), rivaroxaban (-5%; -8 to -3%), and varenicline (-16%; -21 to -10%). The results were corroborated by the Joinpoint analyses, which yielded similar results. CONCLUSIONS: We identified limited evidence that reporting of ADRs increased modestly and gradually for some new products and not for products with PASS requirement.

What are the patients' and health care professionals' understanding and behaviors towards adverse drug reaction reporting and additional monitoring?

BACKGROUND: The additional monitoring (AM)/black triangle concept is aimed to enhance ADR reporting for certain types of medicinal products for which the safety profile is less well established. PURPOSE: The objective of this survey was to assess (a) attitudes towards ADR reporting and reasons for not reporting an ADR and (b) awareness of AM among HCPs, patients or their careers in EU countries. METHODS: An online questionnaire which was available in all EU languages was completed by 2918 responders coming from all EEA countries. RESULTS: The main factors motivating to report an ADR were severity or novelty of the reaction or novelty of the medicine. The main factors for not reporting an ADR was the fact that the ADR is already known (35%), the ADR was not serious (18%) or reporter was not sure if the ADR was related to the medicine (15%). Half of the respondents indicated that they have seen AM statement before. Thirty percent of the responders had correct understanding of the AM concept while 20 % misunderstood the concept. CONCLUSION: Underreporting occurs but it seems this is because of reporter's prioritisation towards certain type of ADRs. AM aims to increase reporting for certain medicines, however, approximately half of responders have seen the AM symbol before and 20% of all responders (independent of their previous awareness) misunderstood the concept.

Geographical variation in reporting Interstitial Lung Disease as an adverse drug reaction: findings from an European Medicines Agency analysis of reports in EudraVigilance.

PURPOSE: Clinically, interstitial lung disease (ILD) is a heterogeneous group of over 150 respiratory disorders. In the context of its signal evaluation work, the European Medicines Agency's (EMA) Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) has seen geographic clustering of case reports of ILD from Japan. To explore this further, EudraVigilance (EV), the EMA's database of adverse drug reactions (ADRs), was analysed. The results have been used to inform on implications for pharmacovigilance including signal detection and evaluation activities. METHODS: EV was queried for reports of respiratory ADRs coded using MedDRA for the period 1994-2014 for all medicinal products. Descriptive statistics and non-parametric (chi-square) independence tests were produced to compare reporting of ILD from Japan versus the rest of the world. RESULTS: As of 31 December 2014, there were 26 551 case reports of ILD in EV of which 17 526 (66%) originated in Japan. The reporting rate of ILD for Japan has been consistently higher over the period. The odds that a case report from Japan in EV refers to ILD is OR = 20.7, 95% CI 20.2, 21.3 (p < 0.001), compared to OR = 0.60, 95% CI 0.54, 0.67 (p < 0.001) for pulmonary fibrosis. CONCLUSIONS: A geographic imbalance between Japan and the rest of the world in reporting respiratory ADRs as ILD is confirmed. Consequently, the PRAC has developed approaches to address this in relation to signals of ILD it assesses to allow for more targeted risk minimisation including updates to the product information in the EU setting. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.