COVID-19 Vaccines and Heavy Menstrual Bleeding: The Impact of Media Attention on Reporting to EudraVigilance.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: During the COVID-19 vaccination campaign, over 34,000 reports of heavy menstrual bleeding following the administration of COVID-19 vaccines originating in the Economic European Area were submitted to EudraVigilance, the European Union database of suspected adverse drug reactions. More than 90% of these reports were sent by consumers while the remaining by healthcare professionals. Public concerns regarding menstruation disorders in COVID-19 vaccinees were also covered by the media. We investigated the impact of media attention on the reporting trends of heavy menstrual bleeding to EudraVigilance. METHODS: We used media outlets published in the Economic European Area on menstrual disorders and COVID-19 vaccines from the beginning of the vaccination campaign in the Economic European Area (1 January, 2021) until December 2022 (i.e., after the regulatory request to add the adverse event to the product information) and spontaneous reports from EudraVigilance. RESULTS: We found that the publication of safety updates from regulatory authorities and subsequent coverage in media outlets preceded increased reporting to EudraVigilance. Furthermore, the heavy menstrual bleeding reported in the cases occurred several weeks or months earlier and were not submitted to the respective date. The analysis suggests that the spikes in reporting of heavy menstrual bleeding were to some extent influenced by media coverage in some countries. CONCLUSIONS: Consumer reporting to the European Union spontaneous data collection system, EudraVigilance, was of high value for regulatory safety reviews, albeit the reporting behaviours were not free of the influence of the media. These sources of information can be investigated to understand the context of safety concerns of public health interest.

The Role of the European Medicines Agency in the Safety Monitoring of COVID-19 Vaccines and Future Directions in Enhancing Vaccine Safety Globally.

The European Union (EU) regulatory network was at the forefront of the safety monitoring of COVID-19 vaccines during the pandemic. An unprecedented number of case reports of suspected adverse reactions after vaccination called for huge efforts for the assessment of this safety information, to ensure that any possible risks were detected and managed as early as possible, while ruling out coincidental but temporally related adverse health outcomes. We describe the role of the European Medicines Agency alongside the EU regulatory network in the safety monitoring of the COVID-19 vaccines, and provide an insight into challenges, particularities and outcomes of the scientific assessment and regulatory decisions in the complex, dynamic international environment of the pandemic. We discuss the flexible procedural tools that were used to ensure an expedited scientific assessment of safety issues, and subsequent updates of the product information (i.e., labelling) when available evidence (e.g., spontaneous reports, findings from observational studies and/or scientific literature) suggested that causal association is at least a reasonable possibility. The safety monitoring was accompanied by enhanced transparency measures, proactive communication, and easy access to information, which played a key role in public reassurance. The pandemic has been a powerful booster for worldwide collaboration, exchange of information and work-sharing. The safety monitoring of COVID-19 vaccines continues, and the lessons learned will be applied in future safety reviews, as well as future health emergencies.

Safety Monitoring of COVID-19 Vaccines: Perspective from the European Medicines Agency.

Prior to deployment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines in the European Union in 2021, a high vaccine uptake leading to an unprecedented volume of safety data from spontaneous reports and real-world evidence, was anticipated. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) implemented specific activities to ensure enhanced monitoring of emerging vaccine safety information, including intensive monitoring of reports of adverse events of special interest and the use of observed-to-expected analyses. The EMA also commissioned several independent observational studies using a large network of electronic healthcare databases and primary data collection via mobile and web-based applications. This preparedness was key for two high-profile safety signals: thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS), a new clinical entity associated with adenovirus-vectored vaccines, and myocarditis/pericarditis with messenger RNA vaccines. With no existing case definition nor background rates, the signal of TTS posed particular challenges. Nevertheless, it was rapidly identified, evaluated, contextualized and the risk minimized thanks to close surveillance and an efficient use of available evidence, clinical expertise and flexible regulatory tools. The two signals illustrated the complementarity between spontaneous and real-world data, the former enabling rapid risk identification and communication, the latter enabling further characterization. The COVID-19 pandemic has tremendously enhanced the development of tools and methods to harness the unprecedented volume of safety data generated for the vaccines. Areas for further improvement include the need for better and harmonized data collection across Member States (e.g., stratified vaccine exposure) to support signal evaluation in all population groups, risk contextualization, and safety communication.

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.

Improving the Safety of Medicines in the European Union: From Signals to Action.

Pharmacovigilance and risk minimization must be planned during drug development and forms a critical part of the regulator's decision on whether a medicinal product can be authorized. Pharmacovigilance systems should ensure proactive monitoring of all authorized medicines throughout their lifecycle in clinical use. Signal detection and management are core activities in pharmacovigilance, rapidly delivering new information on the safety of medicines in real-world use which helps to fill knowledge gaps. The first 6 years of the European Union (EU) signal management system resulted in 453 recommendations issued by the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC), of which more than half were for drug labeling changes. The EU pharmacovigilance network has demonstrated its ability to detect and evaluate new drug safety signals. This has resulted in new warnings to guide the safe and effective use of medicines in Europe.

Is patient exposure preapproval and postapproval a determinant of the timing and frequency of occurrence of safety issues?

BACKGROUND: The amount of drug exposure, pre and post approval, is considered to be a direct determinant of knowledge about the safety of a drug. A larger pre-approval exposed population is supposed to reduce the risk of unanticipated safety issues post-approval. The amount of use in the postapproval population is also expected to influence the occurrence and timing of safety issues. We investigated how the amount of pre and post approval exposure influences the detection of post-approval safety issues. METHODS: A cohort of innovative drugs approved in Europe was followed for the period of 2012-2016. The main outcome of interest was a new safety issue in the period. Post-approval exposure was collected at 6 month intervals, and pre-approval exposure was collected at the moment of authorisation. Other characteristics collected for the included drugs were anatomical therapeutical chemical (ATC) class, biological status, orphan status and type of approval. We used Cox proportional hazards regression to investigate the association between exposure and the hazard of having a first safety issue. RESULTS: The pre-approval exposure was not associated with the risk of safety issues after adjusting for ATC class, biological status, and treatment duration. Higher post-approval exposure was associated with more new safety issues identified (HR = 2.44 (95% CI = 1.12-5.31)) for drugs with more than 1,000 patient-years of cumulative exposure compared to drugs with less than 1,000 patient years of exposure. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that postapproval exposure influences the detection of safety issues.

Promoting and Protecting Public Health: How the European Union Pharmacovigilance System Works.

This article provides an overview of the European Union pharmacovigilance system resulting from the rationalisation and strengthening delivered through the implementation of the revised pharmacovigilance legislation. It outlines the system aims, underlying principles, components and drivers for future change. At its core, the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee is responsible for assessing all aspects of the risk management of medicinal products, thus ensuring that medicines approved for the European Union market are optimally used by maximising their benefits and minimising risks. The main objectives of the system are to promote and protect public health by supporting the availability of medicines including those that fulfil previously unmet medical needs, and reducing the burden of adverse drug reactions. These are achieved through a proactive, risk proportionate and patient-centred approach, with high levels of transparency and engagement of civil society. In the European Union, pharmacovigilance is now fully integrated into the life cycle of medicinal products, with the planning of pharmacovigilance activities commencing before a medicine is placed on the market, and companies encouraged to start planning very early in development for high-innovation products. After authorisation, information on the safety of medicines continues to be obtained through a variety of sources, including spontaneous reports of adverse drug reactions or monitoring real-world data. Finally, the measurement of the impact of pharmacovigilance activities, auditing and inspections, as well as capacity building ensure that the system undergoes continuous improvement and can always rely on the best methodologies to safeguard public health.

Patient Reporting in the EU: Analysis of EudraVigilance Data.

INTRODUCTION: New pharmacovigilance legislation was adopted in the EU in 2010 and became operational in July 2012. The legislation placed an obligation on all national competent authorities (NCAs) and marketing authorisation holders (MAHs) to record and report cases of suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) received from patients. OBJECTIVES: This descriptive study aims to provide insight into patient reporting for the totality of the EU by querying the EudraVigilance (EV) database for the period of 3 years before the new pharmacovigilance legislation became operational and the 3 years after as well as comparing patient reports with those from healthcare professionals (HCPs) where feasible. METHODS: We queried the EV database for the following characteristics of patient and HCP reports: demographics (patient sex and age), seriousness, reported ADR terms, reported indications, number of ADRs per report, time to report an ADR, and most reported substances. Wherever feasible, direct comparisons between patient reports and HCP reports were performed using relative risks. RESULTS: The EV database contained a total of 53,130 patient reports in the 3 years preceding the legislation operation period and 113,371 in the 3 years after. Member states contributing the most patient reports to the EV database were the Netherlands, the UK, Germany, France and Italy. The results for indications and substances show that patients were more likely than HCPs to report for genitourinary, hormonal and reproductive indications. Patients reported more in general disorders and administration site conditions Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) System Organ Class (SOC), whereas HCPs reported more Preferred Terms (PTs) belonging in the Investigations SOC. However, 13 of the 20 reactions most frequently reported by patients were also among the top 20 reactions reported by HCPs. CONCLUSION: Patient reporting complemented reporting by HCPs. Patients were motivated to report ADRs, especially those that affected their quality of life. Sharing these results with NCAs and patient associations can inform training and awareness on patient reporting.

Literature review of visual representation of the results of benefit-risk assessments of medicinal products.

BACKGROUND: The PROTECT Benefit-Risk group is dedicated to research in methods for continuous benefit-risk monitoring of medicines, including the presentation of the results, with a particular emphasis on graphical methods. METHODS: A comprehensive review was performed to identify visuals used for medical risk and benefit-risk communication. The identified visual displays were grouped into visual types, and each visual type was appraised based on five criteria: intended audience, intended message, knowledge required to understand the visual, unintentional messages that may be derived from the visual and missing information that may be needed to understand the visual. RESULTS: Sixty-six examples of visual formats were identified from the literature and classified into 14 visual types. We found that there is not one single visual format that is consistently superior to others for the communication of benefit-risk information. In addition, we found that most of the drawbacks found in the visual formats could be considered general to visual communication, although some appear more relevant to specific formats and should be considered when creating visuals for different audiences depending on the exact message to be communicated. CONCLUSION: We have arrived at recommendations for the use of visual displays for benefit-risk communication. The recommendation refers to the creation of visuals. We outline four criteria to determine audience-visual compatibility and consider these to be a key task in creating any visual. Next we propose specific visual formats of interest, to be explored further for their ability to address nine different types of benefit-risk analysis information.

A description of signals during the first 18 months of the EMA pharmacovigilance risk assessment committee.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: New pharmacovigilance legislation in the European Union has underlined the importance of signal management, giving the European Medicines Agency's newly established Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) the mandate to oversee all aspects of the use of medicinal products including detection, assessment, minimization, and communication relating to the risk of adverse reactions. In this study, we describe the signals as brought to the PRAC during the first 18 months of its operation and the ensuing regulatory actions. METHODS: Data were collected from publicly available sources, for the period July 2012-December 2013, classified according to predefined rules, and described using the appropriate descriptive statistics. Suspected adverse drug reactions were categorized into the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Affairs and drug names were mapped to the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical codes. RESULTS: During the study period, 125 signals concerning 96 medicinal products were discussed by the PRAC. The majority of signals were triggered by spontaneous reports (62%) and the median drug age (since marketing authorization) for drugs that prompted a signal was 12 years, significantly less compared with drugs that had no signal within the same period (20 years). The mean time until a decision was reached by the PRAC was 75 days (median 30 days, range 0-273) with 43% of all decisions taken during the first meeting. The decisions to start a referral and to send a direct healthcare professional communication took the least amount of time [54 days (median 27 days, range 0-186) and 51 days (median 0 days, range 0-153)]. CONCLUSIONS: The importance of spontaneous reporting in signal detection and monitoring of safety issues throughout the entire life cycle of a medicinal product is confirmed in this study. The amount of time a drug has been on the market is correlated with the number of signals detected. The PRAC decision-making process seems efficient particularly with respect to serious concerns; its role in improving signal prioritization and real-time signal management will be further clarified in its subsequent years of operation.

Balancing benefit and risk of medicines: a systematic review and classification of available methodologies.

BACKGROUND: The need for formal and structured approaches for benefit-risk assessment of medicines is increasing, as is the complexity of the scientific questions addressed before making decisions on the benefit-risk balance of medicines. We systematically collected, appraised and classified available benefit-risk methodologies to facilitate and inform their future use. METHODS: A systematic review of publications identified benefit-risk assessment methodologies. Methodologies were appraised on their fundamental principles, features, graphical representations, assessability and accessibility. We created a taxonomy of methodologies to facilitate understanding and choice. RESULTS: We identified 49 methodologies, critically appraised and classified them into four categories: frameworks, metrics, estimation techniques and utility survey techniques. Eight frameworks describe qualitative steps in benefit-risk assessment and eight quantify benefit-risk balance. Nine metric indices include threshold indices to measure either benefit or risk; health indices measure quality-of-life over time; and trade-off indices integrate benefits and risks. Six estimation techniques support benefit-risk modelling and evidence synthesis. Four utility survey techniques elicit robust value preferences from relevant stakeholders to the benefit-risk decisions. CONCLUSIONS: Methodologies to help benefit-risk assessments of medicines are diverse and each is associated with different limitations and strengths. There is not a 'one-size-fits-all' method, and a combination of methods may be needed for each benefit-risk assessment. The taxonomy introduced herein may guide choice of adequate methodologies. Finally, we recommend 13 of 49 methodologies for further appraisal for use in the real-life benefit-risk assessment of medicines.