The UK BIO-TRAC Study: A Cross-Sectional Study of Product and Batch Traceability for Biologics in Clinical Practice and Electronic Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting in the UK.

INTRODUCTION: Due to the complexity of biologics and the inherent challenges for manufacturing, it is important to know the specific brand name and batch number of suspected biologics in adverse drug reaction (ADR) reports. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the extent to which biologics are traceable by brand name and batch number in UK hospital practice and in ADRs reported by patients and healthcare professionals. METHODS: We performed an online hospital pharmacist survey to capture information on how specific product details are recorded during the processes of prescribing, dispensing and administration of biologics in routine UK hospital practice. We also assessed the proportion of ADR reports specifying brand name and batch number from electronic ADR reports submitted to the UK national spontaneous reporting database, the Yellow Card Scheme, between 1 January 2009 and 30 September 2017. RESULTS: Brand name recording in routine hospital processes ranged from 79 to 91%, whereas batch numbers were less routinely recorded, ranging from 38 to 58%. Paper-based recording of product details was more commonly used for recording information. A total of 6108 electronic ADR reports were submitted to the Yellow Card Scheme for recombinant biologics, of which 38% and 15%, respectively, had an identifiable brand name and batch numbers. Whereas batch number traceability in electronic ADR reports improved slightly after the implementation of the European Union pharmacovigilance legislation in 2012, no improvement of brand name traceability was observed. CONCLUSION: Brand name and batch number traceability for biologics in UK ADR reports are generally low. Shortcomings in the systematic recording of product details in UK clinical practice may contribute to the limited traceability.

Analysis and reporting of adverse events in randomised controlled trials: a review.

OBJECTIVE: To ascertain contemporary approaches to the collection, reporting and analysis of adverse events (AEs) in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a primary efficacy outcome. DESIGN: A review of clinical trials of drug interventions from four high impact medical journals. DATA SOURCES: Electronic contents table of the BMJ, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), the Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) were searched for reports of original RCTs published between September 2015 and September 2016. METHODS: A prepiloted checklist was used and single data extraction was performed by three reviewers with independent check of a randomly sampled subset to verify quality. We extracted data on collection methods, assessment of severity and causality, reporting criteria, analysis methods and presentation of AE data. RESULTS: We identified 184 eligible reports (BMJ n=3; JAMA n=38, Lancet n=62 and NEJM n=81). Sixty-two per cent reported some form of spontaneous AE collection but only 29% included details of specific prompts used to ascertain AE data. Numbers that withdrew from the trial were well reported (80%), however only 35% of these reported whether withdrawals were due to AEs. Results presented and analysis performed was predominantly on 'patients with at least one event' with 84% of studies ignoring repeated events. Despite a lack of power to undertake formal hypothesis testing, 47% performed such tests for binary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: This review highlighted that the collection, reporting and analysis of AE data in clinical trials is inconsistent and RCTs as a source of safety data are underused. Areas to improve include reducing information loss when analysing at patient level and inappropriate practice of underpowered multiple hypothesis testing. Implementation of standard reporting practices could enable a more accurate synthesis of safety data and development of guidance for statistical methodology to assess causality of AEs could facilitate better statistical practice.

Evidence for the hERG Liability of Antihistamines, Antipsychotics, and Anti-Infective Agents: A Systematic Literature Review From the ARITMO Project.

A systematic review was performed to categorize the hERG (human ether-a-go-go-related gene) liability of antihistamines, antipsychotics, and anti-infectives and to compare it with current clinical risk of torsade de pointes (TdP). Eligible studies were hERG assays reporting half-minimal inhibitory concentrations (IC50). A "hERG safety margin" was calculated from the IC50 divided by the peak human plasma concentration (free Cmax ). A margin below 30 defined hERG liability. Each drug was assigned an "uncertainty score" based on volume, consistency, precision, and internal and external validity of evidence. The hERG liability was compared to existing knowledge on TdP risk (www.credibledrugs.org). Of 1828 studies, 82 were eligible, allowing calculation of safety margins for 61 drugs. Thirty-one drugs (51%) had evidence of hERG liability including 6 with no previous mention of TdP risk (eg, desloratadine, lopinavir). Conversely, 16 drugs (26%) had no evidence of hERG liability including 6 with known, or at least conditional or possible, TdP risk (eg, chlorpromazine, sulpiride). The main sources of uncertainty were the validity of the experimental conditions used (antihistamines and antipsychotics) and nonuse of reference compounds (anti-infectives). In summary, hERG liability was categorized for 3 widely used drug classes, incorporating a qualitative assessment of the strength of available evidence. Some concordance with TdP risk was observed, although several drugs had hERG liability without evidence of clinical risk and vice versa. This may be due to gaps in clinical evidence, limitations of hERG/Cmax data, or other patient/drug-specific factors that contribute to real-life TdP risk.

The Contribution of National Spontaneous Reporting Systems to Detect Signals of Torsadogenicity: Issues Emerging from the ARITMO Project.

INTRODUCTION: Spontaneous reporting systems (SRSs) are pivotal for signal detection, especially for rare events with a high drug-attributable component, such as torsade de pointes (TdP). Use of different national SRSs is rarely attempted because of inherent difficulties, but should be considered on the assumption that rare events are diluted in international databases. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to describe TdP-related events associated with antipsychotics, H1-antihistamines and anti-infectives in three national SRSs (in Italy, Germany and France) and highlight potential signals of torsadogenicity through a combined literature evaluation. METHODS: A common search strategy was applied to extract TdP-related events: (1) TdP, (2) QT interval abnormalities, (3) ventricular fibrillation/tachycardia, and (4) sudden cardiac death. Signals of disproportionate reporting (SDRs) were calculated for TdP + QT interval abnormalities and defined by a lower limit of the 95 % confidence interval of the reporting odds ratio (ROR) >1. Among SDRs with at least three cases without concomitant pro-arrhythmic drugs, we defined potential new signal of torsadogenicity as drugs with no published evidence from (a) the crediblemeds(®) website ( http://www.crediblemeds.com , as of November 1st, 2014); (b) studies on the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS); and (c) safety trials or pharmaco-epidemiological studies (as of December 16th, 2014). RESULTS: Overall, 3505 cases were retrieved (1372, 1468, and 801 for France, Germany and Italy, respectively). Antipsychotics were mainly recorded in Germany (792 cases), whereas antibiotics peaked at 515 and 491 (France and Italy, respectively). Forty-one drugs met criteria for SDRs in at least one single source, of which 31 were detected only from one single SRS: 18, ten and three (French, German and Italian SRS, respectively). By contrast, only five SDRs were detected in all national data sources (amisulpride, aripiprazole, haloperidol, olanzapine, risperidone). Overall, five potential new signals of torsadogenicity were identified: flupentixol, ganciclovir, levocetirizine, oxatomide and tiapride. CONCLUSIONS: We found differences across and within national SRSs in the reporting of drug-induced TdP, which finally resulted in five potential new signals of torsadogenicity. These findings warrant targeted pharmacovigilance studies to formally assess the existence of actual drug-event associations.

Quality assessment of observational studies in a drug-safety systematic review, comparison of two tools: the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the RTI item bank.

BACKGROUND: The study objective was to compare the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and the RTI item bank (RTI-IB) and estimate interrater agreement using the RTI-IB within a systematic review on the cardiovascular safety of glucose-lowering drugs. METHODS: We tailored both tools and added four questions to the RTI-IB. Two reviewers assessed the quality of the 44 included studies with both tools, (independently for the RTI-IB) and agreed on which responses conveyed low, unclear, or high risk of bias. For each question in the RTI-IB (n=31), the observed interrater agreement was calculated as the percentage of studies given the same bias assessment by both reviewers; chance-adjusted interrater agreement was estimated with the first-order agreement coefficient (AC1) statistic. RESULTS: The NOS required less tailoring and was easier to use than the RTI-IB, but the RTI-IB produced a more thorough assessment. The RTI-IB includes most of the domains measured in the NOS. Median observed interrater agreement for the RTI-IB was 75% (25th percentile [p25] =61%; p75 =89%); median AC1 statistic was 0.64 (p25 =0.51; p75 =0.86). CONCLUSION: The RTI-IB facilitates a more complete quality assessment than the NOS but is more burdensome. The observed agreement and AC1 statistic in this study were higher than those reported by the RTI-IB's developers.

The risk of heart failure associated with the use of noninsulin blood glucose-lowering drugs: systematic review and meta-analysis of published observational studies.

BACKGROUND: Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) are at high risk of heart failure. A summary of the effects of blood glucose-lowering drugs other than glitazones on the risk of heart failure in routine clinical practice is lacking. The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies on the risk of heart failure when using blood glucose-lowering drugs. METHODS: We systematically identified and reviewed cohort and case-control studies in which the main exposure of interest was noninsulin blood glucose-lowering medications in patients with T2DM. We searched Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library to identify publications meeting prespecified eligibility criteria. The quality of included studies was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the RTI item bank. Results were combined using fixed and random-effects models when at least 3 independent data points were available for a drug-drug comparison. RESULTS: The summary relative risk of heart failure in rosiglitazone users versus pioglitazone users (95% CI) was 1.16 (1.05-1.28) (5 cohort studies). Heterogeneity was present (I2 = 66%). For new users (n = 4) the summary relative risk was 1.21 (1.14-1.30) and the heterogeneity was reduced (I2 = 31%);. The summary relative risk for rosiglitazone versus metformin was 1.36 (95% CI, 1.17-1.59) (n = 3). The summary relative risk (95% CI) of heart failure in sulfonylureas users versus metformin users was 1.17 (95% CI, 1.06-1.29) (5 cohort studies; I2 = 24%) and 1.22 (1.02-1.46) when restricted to new users (2 studies).Information on other comparisons was very scarce. Information on dose and duration of treatment effects was lacking for most comparisons. Few studies accounted for disease severity; therefore, confounding by indication might be present in the majority of the within-study comparisons of this meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Use of glitazones and sulfonylureas was associated with an increased risk of heart failure compared with metformin use. However, indication bias cannot be ruled out. Ongoing large multidatabase studies will help to evaluate the risk of heart failure in treated patients with diabetes, including those using newer blood glucose-lowering therapies.

How do patients contribute to signal detection? : A retrospective analysis of spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions in the UK's Yellow Card Scheme.

BACKGROUND: In 2005, spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) to the UK's Yellow Card Scheme (YCS) was extended to include patient reports. Here, we investigate the potential pharmacovigilance impact of patient reporting. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to investigate the relative contribution of patient reporting to signal detection through disproportionality analysis. METHODS: Data were analysed from all reports submitted directly to the YCS between October 2005 and September 2007. Three datasets of drug-ADR pairs were created: one for patient reports, one for healthcare professional (HCP) reports and one for all reports combined. The proportional reporting ratio (PRR) method was used to identify signals of disproportionate reporting (SDRs) in each dataset. The number of SDRs identified from patient and HCP reports were compared, as well as the type of ADR and suspect drug involved. A sensitivity analysis was performed to examine how combining the patient and HCP reports may affect the SDRs identified. RESULTS: Data were received for 5,180 patient and 20,949 HCP reports, relating to 16,566 and 28,775 drug-ADR pairs, respectively, with 4,340 (10.6 %) pairs found in both datasets. A significantly higher proportion of the SDRs identified from HCP reports involved reactions classified as serious by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), compared with patient reports (n = 931, 48.0 % vs. n = 185, 28.5 %), or involved newly marketed drugs (n = 596, 30.7 % vs. n = 71, 10.9 %). The proportion of SDRs assessed as not listed on the Summary of Product Characteristics (SPC) was similar in each group (~15 %, based on a random sample). After combining the patient and HCP reports, 278 (~11 %) of the SDRs identified when each group was analysed separately no longer met the SDR criteria, including 12 potentially serious ADRs not listed on the product's SPC. On the other hand, the combined dataset identified an additional 508 SDRs that were not identified when patient or HCP reports were analysed separately. Approximately 10 % (n = 47) of these additional SDRs were assessed as serious ADRs and were not listed on the product's SPC. CONCLUSIONS: Although this study is limited to the UK experience, overall, the results suggest that patient reporting may provide a positive complementary contribution to that of HCPs. Patient reporting may make an important contribution to drug safety by identifying different SDRs not identified from HCP reports alone. The combination of reports from patients and HCPs, however, when used for the purposes of signal detection through disproportionality analysis, may result in the loss of some information. One possible strategy is to conduct such analyses using reports from patients and HCPs combined, as well as separately for each group.

Modified prescription-event monitoring studies: a tool for pharmacovigilance and risk management.

Prescription-Event Monitoring (PEM) is a well established postmarketing surveillance technique designed to monitor the overall safety of newly marketed medicines as used in real-life clinical practice, usually in cohorts of at least 10 000 patients. At the Drug Safety Research Unit in the UK we are now moving towards a more targeted safety surveillance known as Modified PEM (M-PEM). These studies combine the advantages of conventional PEM studies (in monitoring general safety and identification of unexpected risks of a medicine) with that of a more targeted safety study that addresses specific questions (to better understand known or partially known risks with a medicine). Through the use of enhanced data collection questionnaires, M-PEM expands the range of applications of conventional PEM, which include more detailed characterization of real-life drug use, adherence to prescribing recommendations and targeted analysis of events requiring special monitoring by regulatory authorities. A particularly useful application is the evaluation of the safety of a medicine in special populations or subgroups (e.g. patients switching from another therapy or patients with a particular risk factor) or following important changes in the product's lifecycle (e.g. a licensing or formulation change). M-PEM studies therefore have an important contribution to make to pharmacovigilance and the risk management of medicines by providing valuable information on the use of new medications under real-life situations.

Adverse drug reaction reporting in the UK: a retrospective observational comparison of yellow card reports submitted by patients and healthcare professionals.

BACKGROUND: In the UK, spontaneous reporting of suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) by healthcare professionals has been in operation since 1964 through the Yellow Card Scheme (YCS). From 2005, patients themselves have been able to submit Yellow Card reports. OBJECTIVE: To compare patient characteristics, suspected drugs and suspected ADRs reported by patients with those reported by healthcare professionals using the YCS. DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective observational study in the UK. METHODS: Participants were patients reported to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), either by themselves, a representative or a healthcare professional, as having one or more suspected ADRs between October 2005 and September 2007. The main outcome measures were ADRs and time taken to report. RESULTS: In total, 26 129 Yellow Card reports from patients and healthcare professionals were received from the MHRA for the 2-year study period (19.8% patient and 80.2% healthcare professional). More Yellow Card reports were made for female than male patients (p < 0.001). Patients reported a significantly higher number of suspected ADRs per report than healthcare professionals (median [interquartile range {IQR}] of 3 [2-5] vs 2 [1-3], respectively; p < 0.001). A higher proportion of patient reports (16.1%) contained more than one suspect drug than healthcare professional reports (9%; p < 0.001). Healthcare professional reports had a higher proportion of ADRs that caused hospitalization (18.8% vs 12.9%), were life threatening (11.1% vs 6.2%) or caused death (2.6% vs 0.7%) than patient reports (all p < 0.001). Patient reporters took a significantly longer time to report their reaction than healthcare professionals (median [IQR] of 104 [27-463] vs 28 [13-75] days respectively; p < 0.001). Direct comparisons of the seriousness of the ADRs were not possible because of important differences between patient and healthcare professional versions of the Yellow Cards. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first substantial, published study in the UK to compare Yellow Card reports from patients and healthcare professionals. Whilst patients report more suspected ADRs to more suspect drugs than healthcare professionals, healthcare professionals tend to report more serious reactions that result in hospitalization, are life threatening or cause death. Further research is required to investigate the extent to which the extra information from patient reporters contributes to signal identification when assessing drug safety.

Drug utilization of Intrinsa (testosterone patch) in England: interim analysis of a prescription-event monitoring study to support risk management.

BACKGROUND: Intrinsa is a transdermal testosterone patch that is indicated for use in hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD) in women who have undergone bilateral oophorectomy and hysterectomy (surgically-induced menopause) receiving concomitant oestrogen therapy. OBJECTIVE: To describe the utilization characteristics of the patients prescribed testosterone patch (Intrinsa) based on an interim analysis of an ongoing Prescription-Event Monitoring study in England, and to assess, where possible, if the product is being used within the licensed therapeutic indication. METHODS: In this interim analysis, patients were identified from dispensed prescriptions that had been issued by general practitioners (GPs) for Intrinsa from March 2007. 'Green form' questionnaires were sent to GPs 6 months following the date of the first prescription for Intrinsa for each individual patient, requesting information including age, sex, start and stop dates of treatment (if stopped), prescribing indication and reasons for stopping. Additional questions were asked regarding the patient's menopausal status and use of concomitant oestrogen therapy. RESULTS: The interim cohort consisted of 756 patients. The majority of patients were reported to be female (746 [98.7%]) with a median (interquartile range) age of 50 years (44-55 years). The most commonly reported indication was the licensed indication of HSDD in 580 patients (76.7%). Just under one-half of the patients (n = 364 [48.1%]) were reported to have been hysterectomized and bilaterally oophorectomized (surgically-induced menopause) prior to starting Intrinsa; 127 patients (16.8%) were naturally menopausal. For 222 patients (29.4%) the GP specified that the patient was not using concomitant oestrogen therapy. Overall, only 219 patients (29.0%) in the cohort were being prescribed Intrinsa according to the manufacturer's recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: This study has highlighted that some clinicians are prescribing this product outside the recommended terms of the licence, with less than 30% of patients receiving Intrinsa according to prescribing guidelines. All events experienced by these patients will be analysed to detect any possible adverse events from using Intrinsa outside of the licensed therapeutic indication. The findings support the ongoing postmarketing risk management of the product.

The safety profile of tadalafil as prescribed in general practice in England: results from a prescription-event monitoring study involving 16 129 patients.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the safety of tadalafil as used in general practice in England, and to compare the mortality rate due to ischaemic heart disease (IHD) in tadalafil users with that in the male population in England. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients in this observational cohort study were identified from dispensed prescriptions for tadalafil issued by general practitioners (GPs) from February 2003 to November 2004. Demographic and outcome data (clinical events) were requested from patients' GPs using a postal questionnaire. A standardized mortality ratio (SMR) was calculated using indirect standardization for deaths from IHD in the cohort (where age was known) over a 1-year observation period compared to that in the English male population (2003). A sensitivity analysis was carried out to investigate the effects of missing data for age and cause of death. RESULTS: Clinical information was obtained for 16 129 patients (median age 60 years, interquartile range 52-67); the age was not specified for 3212 (19.9%) patients. At least a third of the patients had diabetes mellitus and 29% had hypertension. Comparison of the mortality rate due to IHD for the patients of known age with that in the English male population provided an SMR of 0.57 (95% confidence interval 0.38-0.83) indicating fewer observed deaths in the cohort than expected. The results of the sensitivity analyses investigating the effect of missing data for age and cause of death produced similar SMR estimates. One confirmed case of non-arteritic anterior ischaemic optic neuropathy (NAION) was reported during tadalafil therapy in a patient with other risk factors for this condition. CONCLUSION: The results from this prescription-event monitoring study suggest that tadalafil is generally well tolerated when used in general practice in England. The most frequently reported adverse clinical events were in keeping with clinical trial data and include headache, dyspepsia and back pain. There was no evidence of a greater mortality rate due to IHD in the tadalafil cohort than in the general male population. However, these results are limited by the use of an external comparator group and might be explained by a 'healthy cohort effect'. One event of NAION was reported, and although a causal relationship was not established it indicates that NAION occurs rarely in patients prescribed tadalafil.

An observational cohort study investigating the cardiovascular safety of tadalafil when prescribed in primary care in England: mortality due to ischaemic heart disease.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the cardiovascular safety of tadalafil, a phosphodiesterase type-5 inhibitor used for treating erectile dysfunction in patients prescribed this drug by general practitioners (GPs) in England in 2003, focusing on mortality due to ischaemic heart disease (IHD). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients in this observational cohort study were identified from dispensed prescriptions for tadalafil issued by GPs from February to November 2003. Demographic and outcome data were requested from patients' GPs using a postal questionnaire. A standardized mortality ratio (SMR) was calculated using indirect standardization for all deaths from IHD or myocardial infarction (MI) in male patients who were prescribed tadalafil, regardless of whether they were taking tadalafil at the time, compared to those in the English male population (2002). RESULTS: Clinical information was obtained for 6266 patients; patient sex could not be confirmed for 37 but in the remaining 6229 the median age was 61 years (interquartile range 53-68). The age was not specified for 2361 (37.7%) of the patients. Excluding patients not taking tadalafil at the time of the event, cardiovascular events included chest pain in 20, angina in 18, MI in 15 (including six fatal) and IHD in 11 (including five fatal). There were also six deaths where the cause was not ascertained; five of these patients were known to be male. Comparison of mortality due to IHD or MI for men with those in the English male population (2002) provided an SMR of 0.91 (95% confidence interval 0.50-1.48). CONCLUSIONS: The results from this study suggest a similar incidence of death due to IHD or MI in men prescribed tadalafil to that in the male English population. However, due to possible under-reporting and the limitations of using an external comparator, these results should be interpreted in context with other studies on the cardiovascular effects and safety of tadalafil.

Under-reporting of adverse drug reactions : a systematic review.

The purpose of this review was to estimate the extent of under-reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) to spontaneous reporting systems and to investigate whether there are differences between different types of ADRs. A systematic literature search was carried out to identify studies providing a numerical estimate of under-reporting. Studies were included regardless of the methodology used or the setting, e.g. hospital versus general practice. Estimates of under-reporting were either extracted directly from the published study or calculated from the study data. These were expressed as the percentage of ADRs detected from intensive data collection that were not reported to the relevant local, regional or national spontaneous reporting systems. The median under-reporting rate was calculated across all studies and within subcategories of studies using different methods or settings. In total, 37 studies using a wide variety of surveillance methods were identified from 12 countries. These generated 43 numerical estimates of under-reporting. The median under-reporting rate across the 37 studies was 94% (interquartile range 82-98%). There was no significant difference in the median under-reporting rates calculated for general practice and hospital-based studies. Five of the ten general practice studies provided evidence of a higher median under-reporting rate for all ADRs compared with more serious or severe ADRs (95% and 80%, respectively). In comparison, for five of the eight hospital-based studies the median under-reporting rate for more serious or severe ADRs remained high (95%). The median under-reporting rate was lower for 19 studies investigating specific serious/severe ADR-drug combinations but was still high at 85%. This systematic review provides evidence of significant and widespread under-reporting of ADRs to spontaneous reporting systems including serious or severe ADRs. Further work is required to assess the impact of under-reporting on public health decisions and the effects of initiatives to improve reporting such as internet reporting, pharmacist/nurse reporting and direct patient reporting as well as improved education and training of healthcare professionals.