Describing diversity of real world data sources in pharmacoepidemiologic studies: The DIVERSE scoping review.

PURPOSE: Real-world evidence (RWE) is increasingly used for medical regulatory decisions, yet concerns persist regarding its reproducibility and hence validity. This study addresses reproducibility challenges associated with diversity across real-world data sources (RWDS) repurposed for secondary use in pharmacoepidemiologic studies. Our aims were to identify, describe and characterize practices, recommendations and tools for collecting and reporting diversity across RWDSs, and explore how leveraging diversity could improve the quality of evidence. METHODS: In a preliminary phase, keywords for a literature search and selection tool were designed using a set of documents considered to be key by the coauthors. Next, a systematic search was conducted up to December 2021. The resulting documents were screened based on titles and abstracts, then based on full texts using the selection tool. Selected documents were reviewed to extract information on topics related to collecting and reporting RWDS diversity. A content analysis of the topics identified explicit and latent themes. RESULTS: Across the 91 selected documents, 12 topics were identified: 9 dimensions used to describe RWDS (organization accessing the data source, data originator, prompt, inclusion of population, content, data dictionary, time span, healthcare system and culture, and data quality), tools to summarize such dimensions, challenges, and opportunities arising from diversity. Thirty-six themes were identified within the dimensions. Opportunities arising from data diversity included multiple imputation and standardization. CONCLUSIONS: The dimensions identified across a large number of publications lay the foundation for formal guidance on reporting diversity of data sources to facilitate interpretation and enhance replicability and validity of RWE.

A comparison of four self-controlled study designs in an analysis of COVID-19 vaccines and myocarditis using five European databases.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to assess the possible extent of bias due to violation of a core assumption (event-dependent exposures) when using self-controlled designs to analyse the association between COVID-19 vaccines and myocarditis. METHODS: We used data from five European databases (Spain: BIFAP, FISABIO VID, and SIDIAP; Italy: ARS-Tuscany; England: CPRD Aurum) converted to the ConcePTION Common Data Model. Individuals who experienced both myocarditis and were vaccinated against COVID-19 between 1 September 2020 and the end of data availability in each country were included. We compared a self-controlled risk interval study (SCRI) using a pre-vaccination control window, an SCRI using a post-vaccination control window, a standard SCCS and an extension of the SCCS designed to handle violations of the assumption of event-dependent exposures. RESULTS: We included 1,757 cases of myocarditis. For analyses of the first dose of the Pfizer vaccine, to which all databases contributed information, we found results consistent with a null effect in both of the SCRI and extended SCCS, but some indication of a harmful effect in a standard SCCS. For the second dose, we found evidence of a harmful association for all study designs, with relatively similar effect sizes (SCRI pre = 1.99, 1.40 - 2.82; SCRI post 2.13, 95 %CI - 1.43, 3.18; standard SCCS 1.79, 95 %CI 1.31 - 2.44, extended SCCS 1.52, 95 %CI = 1.08 - 2.15). Adjustment for calendar time did not change these conclusions. Findings using all designs were also consistent with a harmful effect following a second dose of the Moderna vaccine. CONCLUSIONS: In the context of the known association between COVID-19 vaccines and myocarditis, we have demonstrated that two forms of SCRI and two forms of SCCS led to largely comparable results, possibly because of limited violation of the assumption of event-dependent exposures.

Impact of the 2018 revised Pregnancy Prevention Programme by the European Medicines Agency on the use of oral retinoids in females of childbearing age in Denmark, Italy, Netherlands, and Spain: an interrupted time series analysis.

Background: In March 2018, the European pregnancy prevention programme for oral retinoids was updated as part of risk minimisation measures (RMM), emphasising their contraindication in pregnant women. Objective: To measure the impact of the 2018 revision of the RMMs in Europe by assessing the utilisation patterns of isotretinoin, alitretinoin and acitretin, contraceptive measures, pregnancy testing, discontinuation, and pregnancy occurrence concomitantly with a retinoid prescription. Methods: An interrupted time series (ITS) analysis to compare level and trend changes after the risk minimisation measures implementation was conducted on a cohort of females of childbearing age (12-55 years of age) from January 2010 to December 2020, derived from six electronic health data sources in four countries: Denmark, Netherlands, Spain, and Italy. Monthly utilisation figures (incidence rates [IR], prevalence rates [PR] and proportions) of oral retinoids were calculated, as well as discontinuation rates, contraception coverage, pregnancy testing, and rates of exposed pregnancies to oral retinoids, before and after the 2018 RMMs. Results: From 10,714,182 females of child-bearing age, 88,992 used an oral retinoid at any point during the study period (mean age 18.9-22.2 years old). We found non-significant level and trend changes in incidence or prevalence of retinoid use in females of child-bearing age after the 2018 RMMs. The reason of discontinuation was unknown in >95% of cases. Contraception use showed a significant increase trend in Spain; for other databases this information was limited. Pregnancy testing was hardly recorded thus was not possible to model ITS analyses. After the 2018 RMM, rates of pregnancy occurrence during retinoid use, and start of a retinoid during a pregnancy varied from 0.0 to 0.4, and from 0.2 to 0.8, respectively. Conclusion: This study shows a limited impact of the 2018 RMMs on oral retinoids utilisation patterns among females of child-bearing age in four European countries. Pregnancies still occur during retinoid use, and oral retinoids are still prescribed to pregnant women. Contraception and pregnancy testing information was limited in most databases. Regulators, policymakers, prescribers, and researchers must rethink implementation strategies to avoid any pregnancy becoming temporarily related to retinoid use.

Impact of 2018 EU Risk Minimisation Measures and Revised Pregnancy Prevention Programme on Utilisation and Prescribing Trends of Medicinal Products Containing Valproate: An Interrupted Time Series Study.

INTRODUCTION: Due to established teratogenicity of valproates, the EU risk minimisation measures (RMMs) with a pregnancy prevention programme (PPP) for valproate were updated in March 2018. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effectiveness of the 2018 EU RMMs on valproate utilisation in five European countries/regions. METHODS: A multi-database, times series study of females of childbearing potential (12-55 years) was conducted using electronic medical records from five countries/regions (01.01.2010-31.12.2020): Denmark, Tuscany (Italy), Spain, the Netherlands, and the UK. Clinical and demographic information from each database was transformed to the ConcePTION Common Data Model, quality checks were conducted and a distributed analysis was performed using common scripts. Incident and prevalent use of valproate, proportion of discontinuers and switchers to alternative medicine, frequency of contraception coverage during valproate use, and occurrence of pregnancies during valproate exposure were estimated per month. Interrupted time series analyses were conducted to estimate the level or trend change in the outcome measures. RESULTS: We included 69,533 valproate users from 9,699,371 females of childbearing potential from the five participating centres. A significant decline in prevalent use of valproates was observed in Tuscany, Italy (mean difference post-intervention -7.7%), Spain (-11.3%), and UK (-5.9%) and a non-significant decline in the Netherlands (-3.3%), but no decline in incident use after the 2018 RMMs compared to the period before. The monthly proportion of compliant valproate prescriptions/dispensings with a contraceptive coverage was low (<25%), with an increase after the 2018 RMMs only in the Netherlands (mean difference post-intervention 12%). There was no significant increase in switching rates from valproates to alternative medicine after the 2018 intervention in any of the countries/regions. We observed a substantial number of concurrent pregnancies during valproate exposure, but with a declining rate after the 2018 RMMs in Tuscany, Italy (0.70 per 1000 valproate users pre- and 0.27 post-intervention), Spain (0.48 and 0.13), the Netherlands (0.34 and 0.00), and an increasing rate in UK (1.13 and 5.07). CONCLUSION: There was a small impact of the 2018 RMMs on valproate use in the studied European countries/regions. The substantial number of concurrent pregnancies with valproate exposure warrants a careful monitoring of implementation of the existing PPP for valproate in clinical practice in Europe, to see if there is any need for additional measures in the future.

COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Monitoring Studies in Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs)-A Systematic Review of Study Designs and Methods.

BACKGROUND: Post-marketing vaccine safety surveillance aims to monitor and quantify adverse events following immunization in a population, but little is known about their implementation in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We aimed to synthesize methodological approaches used to assess adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination in LMICs. METHODS: For this systematic review, we searched articles published from 1 December 2019 to 18 February 2022 in main databases, including MEDLINE and Embase. We included all peer-reviewed observational COVID-19 vaccine safety monitoring studies. We excluded randomized controlled trials and case reports. We extracted data using a standardized extraction form. Two authors assessed study quality using the modified Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. All findings were summarized narratively using frequency tables and figures. RESULTS: Our search found 4254 studies, of which 58 were eligible for analysis. Many of the studies included in this review were conducted in middle-income countries, with 26 studies (45%) in lower-middle-income and 28 (48%) in upper-middle-income countries. More specifically, 14 studies were conducted in the Middle East region, 16 in South Asia, 8 in Latin America, 8 in Europe and Central Asia, and 4 in Africa. Only 3% scored 7-8 points (good quality) on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale methodological quality assessment, while 10% got 5-6 points (medium). About 15 studies (25.9%) used a cohort study design and the rest were cross-sectional. In half of them (50%), vaccination data were gathered from the participants' self-reporting methods. Seventeen studies (29.3%) used multivariable binary logistic regression and three (5.2%) used survival analyses. Only 12 studies (20.7%) performed model diagnostics and validity checks (e.g., the goodness of fit, identification of outliers, and co-linearity). CONCLUSIONS: Published studies on COVID-19 vaccine safety surveillance in LMICs are limited in number and the methods used do not often address potential confounders. Active surveillance of vaccines in LMICs are needed to advocate vaccination programs. Implementing training programs in pharmacoepidemiology in LMICs is essential.

Myocarditis and pericarditis associated with SARS-CoV-2 vaccines: A population-based descriptive cohort and a nested self-controlled risk interval study using electronic health care data from four European countries.

Background: Estimates of the association between COVID-19 vaccines and myo-/pericarditis risk vary widely across studies due to scarcity of events, especially in age- and sex-stratified analyses. Methods: Population-based cohort study with nested self-controlled risk interval (SCRI) using healthcare data from five European databases. Individuals were followed from 01/01/2020 until end of data availability (31/12/2021 latest). Outcome was first myo-/pericarditis diagnosis. Exposures were first and second dose of Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Moderna, and Janssen COVID-19 vaccines. Baseline incidence rates (IRs), and vaccine- and dose-specific IRs and rate differences were calculated from the cohort The SCRI calculated calendar time-adjusted IR ratios (IRR), using a 60-day pre-vaccination control period and dose-specific 28-day risk windows. IRRs were pooled using random effects meta-analysis. Findings: Over 35 million individuals (49·2% women, median age 39-49 years) were included, of which 57·4% received at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose. Baseline incidence of myocarditis was low. Myocarditis IRRs were elevated after vaccination in those aged < 30 years, after both Pfizer vaccine doses (IRR = 3·3, 95%CI 1·2-9.4; 7·8, 95%CI 2·6-23·5, respectively) and Moderna vaccine dose 2 (IRR = 6·1, 95%CI 1·1-33·5). An effect of AstraZeneca vaccine dose 2 could not be excluded (IRR = 2·42, 95%CI 0·96-6·07). Pericarditis was not associated with vaccination. Interpretation: mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines and potentially AstraZeneca are associated with increased myocarditis risk in younger individuals, although absolute incidence remains low. More data on children (≤ 11 years) are needed.

A Landscape Analysis of Post-Marketing Studies Registered in the EU PAS Register and ClinicalTrials.gov Focusing on Pregnancy Outcomes or Breastfeeding Effects: A Contribution from the ConcePTION Project.

INTRODUCTION: A large proportion of medicine product labels lack information on safety in pregnancy and breastfeeding. To address this gap, pharmaceutical companies are requested to develop post-approval studies regarding the use of drugs by pregnant and breastfeeding women. OBJECTIVE: Our study aims to review key features of observational studies in pregnancy and breastfeeding and their impact on the respective medicine product labels. METHODS: Observational studies focusing on the safety evaluation of medicines used during pregnancy and breastfeeding were selected from the European Union Register of Post-Authorization Studies (EU PAS register) and ClinicalTrials.gov. We extracted information on the variables of interest and performed an impact assessment on the respective label. RESULTS: A total of 141 observational studies were eligible. Of these, 63 studies (45%) were based on primary data collection and 55 studies (39%) on secondary use of health data. A small number of studies (8%) aimed to evaluate drug safety during breastfeeding. Studies using secondary data collection lasted around 2.9 years as opposed to 7.5 years' duration for studies using primary data collection. Only two product labels were updated based on the study results. CONCLUSION: The duration is significantly longer for studies based on primary data collection, and these are also smaller in size (less power), whereas outcomes of interest are similar. For completed studies, the impact on the label was very low. Given the gap in adequate pregnancy information on product labels, the current process of generating evidence in pregnancy and breastfeeding seems neither efficient nor impactful. To support evidence-based decision making by prescribers, this current process might be redesigned.

Renal Tubular Acidosis in the Postpartum Period: A Case Report and Literature Review.

Case Presentation. Distal renal tubular acidosis (dRTA) is characterized by impaired hydrogen ion secretion in the distal nephron resulting either from decreased net activity of the proton pump or from increased luminal membrane hydrogen ion permeability. Typical complications of dRTA include severe hypokalemia, normal anion gap metabolic acidosis, nephrolithiasis, and nephrocalcinosis. The patient is a 25-year-old woman in immediate puerperium with hypokalemia leading to paralysis, and the laboratory findings in this patients were concerning for dRTA. It is rare to encounter this entity during pregnancy, and the impact of this pathology is unknown.

Potential negative impact of reputed regulators' decisions on the approval status of new cancer drugs in Latin American countries: A descriptive analysis.

BACKGROUND: Many new cancer drugs are being approved by reputed regulatory authorities without evidence of overall survival benefit, quality of life improvement, and often based on clinical trials at high risk of bias. In recent years, most Latin American (LA) countries have reformed their marketing authorization (MA) rules to directly accept or abbreviate the approval process in case of earlier authorization by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the US Food and Drug Administration, mainly. This study assessed the potential impact of decisions taken by EMA regarding the approval of new cancer drugs based on no evidence of overall survival or in potentially biased clinical trials in LA countries. DESIGN: Descriptive analysis. SETTING: Publicly accessible marketing authorization databases from LA regulators, European Public Assessment Report by EMA, and previous studies accessing EMA approvals of new cancer drugs 2009-2016. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: Number of new cancer drugs approved by LA countries without evidence of overall survival (2009-2013), and without at least one clinical trial scored at low risk of bias, or with no trial supporting the marketing authorization at all (2014-2016). RESULTS: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Panama and Peru have publicly accessible and trustful MA databases and were included. Of the 17 cancer drugs approved by EMA (2009-2013) without evidence of OS benefit after a postmarketing median time of 5.4 years, 6 LA regulators approved more than 70% of them. Of the 13 drugs approved by EMA (2014-2016), either without supporting trial or with no trial at low risk of bias, Brazil approved 11, Chile 10, Peru 10, Argentina 10, Colombia 9, Ecuador 9, and Panama 8. CONCLUSIONS: LA countries keep approving new cancer drugs often based on poorly performed clinical trials measuring surrogate endpoints. EMA and other reputed regulators must be aware that their regulatory decisions might directly influence decisions regarding MA, health budgets and patient's care elsewhere.

Preprints in times of COVID19: the time is ripe for agreeing on terminology and good practices.

Over recent years, the research community has been increasingly using preprint servers to share manuscripts that are not yet peer-reviewed. Even if it enables quick dissemination of research findings, this practice raises several challenges in publication ethics and integrity. In particular, preprints have become an important source of information for stakeholders interested in COVID19 research developments, including traditional media, social media, and policy makers. Despite caveats about their nature, many users can still confuse pre-prints with peer-reviewed manuscripts. If unconfirmed but already widely shared first-draft results later prove wrong or misinterpreted, it can be very difficult to "unlearn" what we thought was true. Complexity further increases if unconfirmed findings have been used to inform guidelines. To help achieve a balance between early access to research findings and its negative consequences, we formulated five recommendations: (a) consensus should be sought on a term clearer than 'pre-print', such as 'Unrefereed manuscript', "Manuscript awaiting peer review" or ''Non-reviewed manuscript"; (b) Caveats about unrefereed manuscripts should be prominent on their first page, and each page should include a red watermark stating 'Caution-Not Peer Reviewed'; (c) pre-print authors should certify that their manuscript will be submitted to a peer-review journal, and should regularly update the manuscript status; (d) high level consultations should be convened, to formulate clear principles and policies for the publication and dissemination of non-peer reviewed research results; (e) in the longer term, an international initiative to certify servers that comply with good practices could be envisaged.

Regulatory reliance to approve new medicinal products in Latin American and Caribbean countries.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the current status of regulatory reliance in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) by assessing the countries' regulatory frameworks to approve new medicines, and to ascertain, for each country, which foreign regulators are considered as trusted regulatory authorities to rely on. METHODS: Websites from LAC regulators were searched to identify the official regulations to approve new drugs. Data collection was carried out in December 2019 and completed in June 2020 for the Caribbean countries. Two independent teams collected information regarding direct recognition or abbreviated processes to approve new drugs and the reference (trusted) regulators defined as such by the corresponding national legislation. RESULTS: Regulatory documents regarding marketing authorization were found in 20 LAC regulators' websites, covering 34 countries. Seven countries do not accept reliance on foreign regulators. Thirteen regulatory authorities (Argentina, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, and the unique Caribbean Regulatory System for 15 Caribbean States) explicitly accept relying on marketing authorizations issued by the European Medicines Agency, United States Food and Drug Administration, and Health Canada. Ten countries rely also on marketing authorizations from Australia, Japan, and Switzerland. Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Mexico are reference authorities for eight LAC regulators. CONCLUSIONS: Regulatory reliance has become a common practice in the LAC region. Thirteen out of 20 regulators directly recognize or abbreviate the marketing authorization process in case of earlier approval by a regulator from another jurisdiction. The regulators most relied upon are the European Medicines Agency, United States Food and Drug Administration, and Health Canada.

Regulatory reliance to approve new medicinal products in Latin American and Caribbean countries

[ABSTRACT]. Objective. To describe the current status of regulatory reliance in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) by assessing the countries’ regulatory frameworks to approve new medicines, and to ascertain, for each country, which foreign regulators are considered as trusted regulatory authorities to rely on. Methods. Websites from LAC regulators were searched to identify the official regulations to approve new drugs. Data collection was carried out in December 2019 and completed in June 2020 for the Caribbean countries. Two independent teams collected information regarding direct recognition or abbreviated processes to approve new drugs and the reference (trusted) regulators defined as such by the corresponding national legislation. Results. Regulatory documents regarding marketing authorization were found in 20 LAC regulators’ websites, covering 34 countries. Seven countries do not accept reliance on foreign regulators. Thirteen regulatory authorities (Argentina, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, and the unique Caribbean Regulatory System for 15 Caribbean States) explicitly accept relying on marketing authorizations issued by the European Medicines Agency, United States Food and Drug Administration, and Health Canada. Ten countries rely also on marketing authorizations from Australia, Japan, and Switzerland. Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Mexico are reference authorities for eight LAC regulators. Conclusions. Regulatory reliance has become a common practice in the LAC region. Thirteen out of 20 regulators directly recognize or abbreviate the marketing authorization process in case of earlier approval by a regulator from another jurisdiction. The regulators most relied upon are the European Medicines Agency, United States Food and Drug Administration, and Health Canada.

[RESUMEN]. Objetivo. Describir el estado actual de la utilización de las decisiones de autoridades regulatorias de otras jurisdicciones en América Latina y el Caribe mediante la evaluación de los marcos regulatorios nacionales para la aprobación de nuevos medicamentos y establecer los organismos regulatorios extranjeros que se consideran autoridades regulatorias confiables para cada país. Métodos. Se realizaron búsquedas en los sitios web de las autoridades regulatorias de América Latina y el Caribe para identificar las regulaciones oficiales para la aprobación de nuevos medicamentos. La recopilación de datos se llevó a cabo en diciembre del 2019 y se completó en junio del 2020 para los países del Caribe. Dos equipos independientes recopilaron información sobre el reconocimiento directo o los procedimientos abreviados para la aprobación de nuevos medicamentos y los autoridades regulatorias de referencia (confiables) así definidos en la legislación nacional correspondiente. Resultados. Se encontraron documentos regulatorios sobre la aprobación de nuevos productos en los sitios web de veinte organismos regulatorios de América Latina y el Caribe, que abarcaban 34 países. Siete países no aceptan la utilización de decisiones de autoridades regulatorias extranjeras. Trece autoridades regulatorias (Argentina, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, México, Panamá, Paraguay, Perú, República Dominicana, Uruguay y el sistema regulador único para quince Estados del Caribe) aceptan de manera explícita confiar las decisiones para aprobación de nuevos medicamentos emitidas por la Agencia Europea de Medicamentos, la Administración de Alimentos y Medicamentos de Estados Unidos y Salud Canadá. Diez países aceptan también utilizar las autorizaciones para la comercialización de Australia, Japón y Suiza. Argentina, Brasil, Chile y México son autoridades de referencia para ocho autoridades regulatorias en la región. Conclusiones. La utilización de las decisiones de autoridades regulatorias de otras jurisdicciones se han convertido en una práctica común en América Latina y el Caribe. Trece de veinte autoridades regulatorias reconocen directamente o abrevian el proceso de aprobación de nuevos medicamentos en caso de que hayan recibido previamente la aprobación por parte de un organismo regulatorio de otra jurisdicción. La Agencia Europea de Medicamentos, la Administración de Alimentos y Medicamentos de Estados Unidos y Salud Canadá son las autoridades regulatorias de otras jurisdicciones en las cuales los reguladores de América Latina y el Caribe confían más.

[RESUMO]. Objetivo. Descrever a prática atual de uso de decisões regulatórias de outras jurisdições na América Latina e no Caribe (ALC) mediante avaliação os marcos regulatórios dos países para aprovação de novos medicamentos e verificar, para cada país, quais entidades reguladoras estrangeiras são consideradas autoridades reguladoras de confiança por cada país. Métodos. Foi realizada uma pesquisa nos sites das autoridades reguladoras da ALC para identificar as regulamentações oficiais para aprovação de novos medicamentos. A coleta de dados foi feita em dezembro de 2019 e concluída em junho de 2020 para os países do Caribe. Dois grupos independentes coletaram informações sobre o reconhecimento direto ou o procedimento abreviado para aprovação de novos medicamentos e as autoridades reguladoras de referência (de confiança) definidas como tal pela respectiva legislação nacional. Resultados. Documentos regulatórios relacionados à aprovação de novos produtos foram obtidos de 20 sites de órgãos reguladores da ALC, abrangendo 34 países. Sete países não admitem o uso de decisões regulatórias de entidades reguladoras externas. Treze autoridades reguladoras (na Argentina, Colômbia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Equador, Guatemala, México, Panamá, Paraguai, Peru, República Dominicana, Uruguai e o Sistema Regulador do Caribe unificado para 15 Estados caribenhos) admitem explicitamente a admissibilidade de decisões regulatórias para aprovação de novos medicamentos de outras jurisdições, quais sejam: Agência Europeia de Medicamentos (EMA), Agência Reguladora de Alimentos e Medicamentos (FDA) dos EUA e Health Canada. Dez países também aceitam decisões para autorização de comercialização da Austrália, Japão e Suíça. Argentina, Brasil, Chile e México são autoridades de referência para oito agências reguladoras. Conclusões. O uso de decisões regulatórias de outras jurisdições tornou-se prática comum na América Latina e Caribe. Treze das 20 agências reguladoras reconhecem diretamente ou abreviam o procedimento de aprovação de novos medicamentos no caso de tal aprovação já haver sido concedida por uma autoridade reguladora de outra jurisdição. A EMA, a FDA e a Health Canada são as autoridades estrangeiras nas quais as agências reguladoras da América Latina e Caribe mais confiam.

Regulatory reliance to approve new medicinal products in Latin American and Caribbean countries / Utilización de decisiones de autoridades regulatorias de otras jurisdicciones para aprobar nuevos productos medicinales en países de América Latina y el Caribe / Uso de decisões regulatórias de outras jurisdições para aprovação de novas especialidades farmacêuticas em países da América Latina e Caribe

ABSTRACT Objective. To describe the current status of regulatory reliance in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) by assessing the countries' regulatory frameworks to approve new medicines, and to ascertain, for each country, which foreign regulators are considered as trusted regulatory authorities to rely on. Methods. Websites from LAC regulators were searched to identify the official regulations to approve new drugs. Data collection was carried out in December 2019 and completed in June 2020 for the Caribbean countries. Two independent teams collected information regarding direct recognition or abbreviated processes to approve new drugs and the reference (trusted) regulators defined as such by the corresponding national legislation. Results. Regulatory documents regarding marketing authorization were found in 20 LAC regulators' websites, covering 34 countries. Seven countries do not accept reliance on foreign regulators. Thirteen regulatory authorities (Argentina, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, and the unique Caribbean Regulatory System for 15 Caribbean States) explicitly accept relying on marketing authorizations issued by the European Medicines Agency, United States Food and Drug Administration, and Health Canada. Ten countries rely also on marketing authorizations from Australia, Japan, and Switzerland. Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Mexico are reference authorities for eight LAC regulators. Conclusions. Regulatory reliance has become a common practice in the LAC region. Thirteen out of 20 regulators directly recognize or abbreviate the marketing authorization process in case of earlier approval by a regulator from another jurisdiction. The regulators most relied upon are the European Medicines Agency, United States Food and Drug Administration, and Health Canada.

RESUMEN Objetivo. Describir el estado actual de la utilización de las decisiones de autoridades regulatorias de otras jurisdicciones en América Latina y el Caribe mediante la evaluación de los marcos regulatorios nacionales para la aprobación de nuevos medicamentos y establecer los organismos regulatorios extranjeros que se consideran autoridades regulatorias confiables para cada país. Métodos. Se realizaron búsquedas en los sitios web de las autoridades regulatorias de América Latina y el Caribe para identificar las regulaciones oficiales para la aprobación de nuevos medicamentos. La recopilación de datos se llevó a cabo en diciembre del 2019 y se completó en junio del 2020 para los países del Caribe. Dos equipos independientes recopilaron información sobre el reconocimiento directo o los procedimientos abreviados para la aprobación de nuevos medicamentos y los autoridades regulatorias de referencia (confiables) así definidos en la legislación nacional correspondiente. Resultados. Se encontraron documentos regulatorios sobre la aprobación de nuevos productos en los sitios web de veinte organismos regulatorios de América Latina y el Caribe, que abarcaban 34 países. Siete países no aceptan la utilización de decisiones de autoridades regulatorias extranjeras. Trece autoridades regulatorias (Argentina, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, México, Panamá, Paraguay, Perú, República Dominicana, Uruguay y el sistema regulador único para quince Estados del Caribe) aceptan de manera explícita confiar las decisiones para aprobación de nuevos medicamentos emitidas por la Agencia Europea de Medicamentos, la Administración de Alimentos y Medicamentos de Estados Unidos y Salud Canadá. Diez países aceptan también utilizar las autorizaciones para la comercialización de Australia, Japón y Suiza. Argentina, Brasil, Chile y México son autoridades de referencia para ocho autoridades regulatorias en la región. Conclusiones. La utilización de las decisiones de autoridades regulatorias de otras jurisdicciones se han convertido en una práctica común en América Latina y el Caribe. Trece de veinte autoridades regulatorias reconocen directamente o abrevian el proceso de aprobación de nuevos medicamentos en caso de que hayan recibido previamente la aprobación por parte de un organismo regulatorio de otra jurisdicción. La Agencia Europea de Medicamentos, la Administración de Alimentos y Medicamentos de Estados Unidos y Salud Canadá son las autoridades regulatorias de otras jurisdicciones en las cuales los reguladores de América Latina y el Caribe confían más.

RESUMO Objetivo. Descrever a prática atual de uso de decisões regulatórias de outras jurisdições na América Latina e no Caribe (ALC) mediante avaliação os marcos regulatórios dos países para aprovação de novos medicamentos e verificar, para cada país, quais entidades reguladoras estrangeiras são consideradas autoridades reguladoras de confiança por cada país. Métodos. Foi realizada uma pesquisa nos sites das autoridades reguladoras da ALC para identificar as regulamentações oficiais para aprovação de novos medicamentos. A coleta de dados foi feita em dezembro de 2019 e concluída em junho de 2020 para os países do Caribe. Dois grupos independentes coletaram informações sobre o reconhecimento direto ou o procedimento abreviado para aprovação de novos medicamentos e as autoridades reguladoras de referência (de confiança) definidas como tal pela respectiva legislação nacional. Resultados. Documentos regulatórios relacionados à aprovação de novos produtos foram obtidos de 20 sites de órgãos reguladores da ALC, abrangendo 34 países. Sete países não admitem o uso de decisões regulatórias de entidades reguladoras externas. Treze autoridades reguladoras (na Argentina, Colômbia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Equador, Guatemala, México, Panamá, Paraguai, Peru, República Dominicana, Uruguai e o Sistema Regulador do Caribe unificado para 15 Estados caribenhos) admitem explicitamente a admissibilidade de decisões regulatórias para aprovação de novos medicamentos de outras jurisdições, quais sejam: Agência Europeia de Medicamentos (EMA), Agência Reguladora de Alimentos e Medicamentos (FDA) dos EUA e Health Canada. Dez países também aceitam decisões para autorização de comercialização da Austrália, Japão e Suíça. Argentina, Brasil, Chile e México são autoridades de referência para oito agências reguladoras. Conclusões. O uso de decisões regulatórias de outras jurisdições tornou-se prática comum na América Latina e Caribe. Treze das 20 agências reguladoras reconhecem diretamente ou abreviam o procedimento de aprovação de novos medicamentos no caso de tal aprovação já haver sido concedida por uma autoridade reguladora de outra jurisdição. A EMA, a FDA e a Health Canada são as autoridades estrangeiras nas quais as agências reguladoras da América Latina e Caribe mais confiam.

Essential Medicines in Universal Health Coverage: A Scoping Review of Public Health Law Interventions and How They Are Measured in Five Middle-Income Countries.

Very few studies exist of legal interventions (national laws) for essential medicines as part of universal health coverage in middle-income countries, or how the effect of these laws is measured. This study aims to critically assess whether laws related to universal health coverage use five objectives of public health law to promote medicines affordability and financing, and to understand how access to medicines achieved through these laws is measured. This comparative case study of five middle-income countries (Ecuador, Ghana, Philippines, South Africa, Ukraine) uses a public health law framework to guide the content analysis of national laws and the scoping review of empirical evidence for measuring access to medicines. Sixty laws were included. All countries write into national law: (a) health equity objectives, (b) remedies for users/patients and sanctions for some stakeholders, (c) economic policies and regulatory objectives for financing (except South Africa), pricing, and benefits selection (except South Africa), (d) information dissemination objectives (ex. for medicines prices (except Ghana)), and (e) public health infrastructure. The 17 studies included in the scoping review evaluate laws with economic policy and regulatory objectives (n = 14 articles), health equity (n = 10), information dissemination (n = 3), infrastructure (n = 2), and sanctions (n = 1) (not mutually exclusive). Cross-sectional descriptive designs (n = 8 articles) and time series analyses (n = 5) were the most frequent designs. Change in patients' spending on medicines was the most frequent outcome measure (n = 5). Although legal interventions for pharmaceuticals in middle-income countries commonly use all objectives of public health law, the intended and unintended effects of economic policies and regulation are most frequently investigated.

Corrigendum to "Prevalence of APOL1 Risk Variants in Afro-Descendant Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease in a Latin American Country".

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1155/2019/7076326.].

Risk Factors Related to New-Onset Diabetes after Renal Transplantation in Patients of a High Complexity University Hospital in Colombia, 20 Years of Experience.

INTRODUCTION: New-onset diabetes after transplantation (NODAT) is associated with immunosuppression. Its complications can negatively influence patients' quality of life, which is why it is important to study the associated risk factors and expand the possible therapies in this particular group of patients. Materials and methods. Case-control study nested in a retrospective cohort. It included patients who received kidney transplantation at the high complexity University Hospital Fundación Valle del Lili in Cali, Colombia, between 1995 and 2014. Two controls were assigned for each case, depending on the type of donor and the date of the surgery. Information was collected from clinical records and the institutional TRENAL registry. We carried out a descriptive analysis of the selected variables and identified the risk factors with conditional logistic regression. RESULTS: 122 cases were identified to which 224 controls were assigned. The median age was 44 years (IQR: 34-55), and 54% were men. Having >50 years of age at the time of transplantation (OR: 3.18, 95% CI: 1.6-6.3, p = 0.001), body mass index >30 kg/m2 (OR: 3.6, 95% CI: 1.3-9.7, p = 0.010) and being afro-descendant (OR: 2.74, 95% CI: 1.1-6.5, p = 0.023) were identified as risk factors for the development of NODAT. Pretransplant fasting plasma glucose >100 mg/dl (OR: 2.9, 95% CI: 1.4-6.4, p = 0.005) and serum triglycerides >200 mg/dl (OR: 2.5, 95% CI: 1.4-4.4, p = 0.002) were also reported as independent risk factors. CONCLUSION: We ratify some risk factors for the development of this important disease, which include certain modifiable characteristics. Interventions aimed at changes in lifestyle could be established in a timely manner before transplant surgery.

Prevalence of APOL1 Risk Variants in Afro-Descendant Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease in a Latin American Country.

INTRODUCTION: In Colombia, the genetic background of the populations was shaped by different levels of admixture between Natives, European, and Africans. Approximately 35.363 patients have diagnosed chronic kidney disease and according to population studies, 10.4% of these patients are Afro-descendant. We aim to assess the frequency of APOL1 variants G1 and G2 in Afro-descendant patients with ESRD treated at la Fundacion Valle del Lili University Hospital in Cali, Colombia. METHODS: This is an observational cross-sectional study. Afro-descendant patients with ESRD in waitlist or recipients of kidney transplant were evaluated. Clinical data were collected from the electronic medical records. Genotyping was carried out by amplification of the exon 7 of the APOL1 gene. For the identification of risk genotypes, the bioinformatics tool BLAST was used. RESULTS: We enrolled 102 participants. The frequency of APOL1 risk variants was 67.2%, in which 24.5% (n = 25) were G1 heterozygous and 5.8% (n = 6) were G2 heterozygous and 37% of the patients had high-risk status with two alleles in homozygous (G1/G1 = 21 and G2/G2 = 3) or compound heterozygote (G1/G2 = 14) form.

Systematic review of cross-national drug utilization studies in Latin America: methods and comparability.

PURPOSE: We systematically review the cross-national drug utilization studies performed in Latin America (LA) in order to analyze the methods applied and assess the validity of the data to ensure the comparability. METHODS: A systematic search in Medline, Embase, and BIREME was performed. Drug utilization studies including LA countries and comparing drug exposure data on volume were included. The data validity was judged independently by two authors as having low, medium, high, or unclear risk of bias. RESULTS: Out of 1191 articles, 25 were kept for full text reading. Finally, five studies were selected. Eight different Latin American countries were involved in the comparisons. The selected studies analyzed wholesale data from a private research company collecting information from the private healthcare sector. In three studies, a high risk of bias in the extrapolation method applied was identified. In one study, a risk of data collection bias was detected. The most frequent limitation detected by the original authors was related to the unavailability of information from the public sector in LA. CONCLUSION: Drug utilization studies comparing data cross-nationally are scarce in LA. In general, validity of the comparisons is hampered by a potential risk of extrapolation bias given the lack of available data on drug consumption from the public healthcare sector. Setting up systems to remediate this situation is a future challenge for researchers and (supra)national authorities in the region.