[Erratum in "Point-of-Care Blood Glucose Testing: Post-Market Performance Assessment of the Accu-Chek Inform II Hospital-Use Glucose Meter" (DOI: 10.26442/00403660.2023.12.202522)].

In the article "Point-of-care blood glucose testing: post-market performance assessment of the Accu-Chek Inform II hospital-use glucose meter," published in the Terapevticheskii Arkhiv journal, Vol. 95, No.12, 2023 (DOI: 10.26442/00403660.2023.12.202522), errors were made: the term "measurements at the place of treatment" was changed, as well as the section "Conflict of interest." At the request of the authors' team, errors in the conflict of interest and the wording of the term have been corrected, and the section "Information about the authors" has been updated. The publisher replaced the original version of the published article with the corrected one; the information on the website was also corrected. Correct text of the section "Conflict of interest": Conflict of interest. All authors are not employees or consultants of Roche Diagnostics and have not received any compensation from Roche Diagnostics. Correct wording of the term in Russian: "измерения по месту лечения". Changes were made to the title of the article in Russian: "Измерения глюкозы по месту лечения: пострегистрационное испытание госпитального глюкометра Акку-Чек Информ II", the text of the abstract, keywords, citation, in the text of the article, and abbreviations. Information of the place of work has been updated: Center for Laboratory Diagnostics of the Russian Children Clinical Hospital, a Branch of the Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University. The publisher apologizes to readers and authors for the errors and is confident that the correction of errors will ensure the correct perception and interpretation of the results of the study described in the text.

Premarket Evidence and Postmarketing Requirements for Real-Time Oncology Review Indication Approvals.

This cross-sectional study evaluates the use of the US Food and Drug Administration's Real-Time Oncology Review (RTOR) program in confirming the effectiveness of cancer drugs.

Phase IV Studies: What Clinicians Need to Know!

Phase IV trials, also known as postmarketing safety and efficacy studies and postmarketing surveillance (PMS) studies, occur after a drug or medical device has received regulatory approval and is available in the market. These trials are designed to collect additional information regarding the product's safety, efficacy, and prolonged effects in a larger and more diverse patient population. The foremost goal of phase IV trials is to detect any rare or long-term adverse effects that may not have been identified during the prior phases of clinical development. During phase IV trials, pharmaceutical companies, academic institutions, or other research organizations conduct studies to evaluate various aspects of the product, including its real-world effectiveness, optimal use, and any potential safety concerns. The regulatory agencies play a role in overseeing these trials to ensure that they are conducted ethically and in compliance with good clinical practice (GCP) guidelines.

Lessons learned from a multi-data source research collaboration: The mirabegron post-authorization safety study program.

BACKGROUND: Many factors contribute to developing and conducting a successful multi-data source, non-interventional, post-authorization safety study (NI-PASS) for submission to multiple health authorities. Such studies are often large undertakings; evaluating and sharing lessons learned can provide useful insights to others considering similar studies. OBJECTIVES: We discuss challenges and key methodological and organizational factors that led to the delivery of a successful post-marketing requirement (PMR)/PASS program investigating the risk of cardiovascular and cancer events among users of mirabegron, an oral medication for the treatment of overactive bladder. RESULTS: We provide context and share learnings, including sections on research program collaboration, scientific transparency, organizational approach, mitigation of uncertainty around potential delays, validity of study outcomes, selection of data sources and optimizing patient numbers, choice of comparator groups and enhancing precision of estimates of associations, potential confounding and generalizability of study findings, and interpretation of results. CONCLUSIONS: This large PMR/PASS program was a long-term commitment from all parties and benefited from an effective coordinating center and extensive scientific interactions across research partners, scientific advisory board, study sponsor, and health authorities, and delivered useful learnings related to the design and organization of multi-data source NI-PASS.

Development and Application of a Data-Driven Signal Detection Method for Surveillance of Adverse Event Variability Across Manufacturing Lots of Biologics.

INTRODUCTION: Postmarketing drug safety surveillance research has focused on the product-patient interaction as the primary source of variability in clinical outcomes. However, the inherent complexity of pharmaceutical manufacturing and distribution, especially of biologic drugs, also underscores the importance of risks related to variability in manufacturing and supply chain conditions that could potentially impact clinical outcomes. We propose a data-driven signal detection method called HMMScan to monitor for manufacturing lot-dependent changes in adverse event (AE) rates, and herein apply it to a biologic drug. METHODS: The HMMScan method chooses the best-fitting candidate from a family of probabilistic Hidden Markov Models to detect temporal correlations in per lot AE rates that could signal clinically relevant variability in manufacturing and supply chain conditions. Additionally, HMMScan indicates the particular lots most likely to be related to risky states of the manufacturing or supply chain condition. The HMMScan method was validated on extensive simulated data and applied to three actual lot sequences of a major biologic drug by combining lot metadata from the manufacturer with AE reports from the US FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS). RESULTS: Extensive method validation on simulated data indicated that HMMScan is able to correctly detect the presence or absence of variable manufacturing and supply chain conditions for contiguous sequences of 100 lots or more when changes in these conditions have a meaningful impact on AE rates. Applying the HMMScan method to FAERS data, two of the three actual lot sequences examined exhibited evidence of potential manufacturing or supply chain-related variability. CONCLUSIONS: HMMScan could be utilized by both manufacturers and regulators to automate lot variability monitoring and inform targeted root-cause analysis. Broad application of HMMScan would rely on a well-developed data input pipeline. The proposed method is implemented in an open-source GitHub repository.

An overview of methodological flaws of real-world studies investigating drug safety in the post-marketing setting.

INTRODUCTION: The evaluation of the post-marketing safety profile of drugs is a continuous monitoring process for approved and marketed medicines and it is crucial for detecting new adverse drug reactions. As such, real-world studies are essential to complement pre-marketing evidence with information concerning drug risk-benefit profile and use in wider patient populations and they have a great potential to support post-marketing drug safety evaluations. AREAS COVERED: A detailed description of the main limitations of real-world data sources (i.e. claims databases, electronic healthcare records, drug/disease registers and spontaneous reporting system databases) and of the main methodological challenges of real-world studies in generating real-world evidence is provided. EXPERT OPINION: Real-world evidence biases can be ascribed to both the methodological approach and the specific limitations of the different real-world data sources used to carry out the study. As such, it is crucial to characterize the quality of real-world data, by establishing guidelines and best practices for the assessment of data fitness for purpose. On the other hand, it is important that real-world studies are conducted using a rigorous methodology, aimed at minimizing the risk of bias.

Assessment of the Impact of Mandated Postmarketing Pediatric-Focused Safety Reviews on Safety-Related Regulatory Actions 2013-2019.

The US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) routine postmarketing drug safety monitoring may lead to safety-related labeling changes for identified risks. Additionally, the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act (BPCA) and Pediatric Research Equity Act (PREA) require the FDA to conduct postmarket pediatric-focused safety reviews of adverse events. The purpose of these pediatric reviews is to identify risks associated with drug or biological products 18 months after the FDA approves a pediatric labeling change pursuant to studies conducted under the BPCA or PREA. These reviews are presented to the FDA Pediatric Advisory Committee (PAC) or publicly posted on FDA's website. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of pediatric reviews prompted by BPCA/PREA from October 1, 2013, to September 30, 2019. The impact was quantified by the number of new safety signals identified and the subsequent safety-related labeling changes resulting from pediatric reviews relative to safety-related labeling changes triggered by other data sources. Among 163 products with at least one pediatric review completed, a new safety signal that resulted in a safety-related labeling change was found for 5 of these products (representing 3 active ingredients); none described risks specific to the pediatric population. Between October 2013 and September 2021, there were 585 safety-related labeling changes implemented for products with at least one completed pediatric review. Less than 1% of 585 safety-related labeling changes were the result of a mandated pediatric review. Our study suggests that mandated pediatric reviews conducted 18 months after a pediatric labeling change provided minimal value over other postmarket safety surveillance activities.

US FDA Postmarketing Requirements and Commitments: A Systematic Assessment of Clinical Pharmacology Studies and Their Impact on US FDA Prescribing Information.

Many of the conditions for the safe and effective use of new molecular entities (NMEs) are understood at the time of initial drug approval. However, some remaining knowledge gaps can be addressed after drug approval through postmarketing requirements (PMRs) or commitments (PMCs) established by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Our objective was to conduct an assessment of clinical pharmacology-related PMRs and PMCs established at the time of approval and evaluate the impact of fulfilled PMRs and PMCs on prescription information (PI). This analysis included clinical pharmacology-related PMRs and PMCs established for NMEs approved between 2009 and 2020. Of the 1171 PMRs and PMCs, over one-third were clinical pharmacology-related. Of these, 46% were to evaluate drug interactions, 16% were to evaluate drug dosing in patients with hepatic impairment, and 10% were related to dose. The majority (57%) of PMRs and PMCs were fulfilled at the time of analysis, with a median time to fulfillment of approximately 2.3 years. The majority (94%) of the fulfilled PMRs and PMCs, either with or without a PI revision, resulted in new or modified instructions for use or supported existing instructions for use. This is the first time that clinical pharmacology-related PMRs and PMCs have been catalogued and analyzed to understand their impact on PI. An understanding of the knowledge gaps that exist at the time of drug approval could inform the most effective and efficient methods for evidence generation prior to and after new drug approval.

A seasonality-adjusted sequential test for vaccine safety surveillance.

Post-market active safety monitoring is important for the timely capture of safety signals associated with exposure to a new vaccine or drug. The group sequential analysis is a common method employed in safety surveillance. Specifically, it compares the post-vaccination incidence of adverse event (AE) in a vaccinated population with a pre-specified reference level by sequentially conducting hypothesis testing during the surveillance. When the number of AEs is "too high", a safety signal is identified. If the null hypothesis is never rejected, the vaccine is considered safe. Such an approach does not account for either the variation in determining the reference risk from a control population or the seasonality effect. Furthermore, not rejecting the null could be due to a lack of power and cannot always be interpreted as proof of safety. In this paper, we proposed a new group sequential test procedure fully accounting for both seasonality and variation from the historical controls. More importantly, we proposed to construct a confidence interval for the relative AE risk between the exposed and control groups at the end of the study, which can be used to quantify the safety of the vaccine. The proposed method is illustrated via real-data examples on anaphylaxis and examined by extensive simulation studies.

New Drug Postmarketing Requirements and Commitments in the US: A Systematic Review of the Evidence.

INTRODUCTION: After the approval of a new drug, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) may issue postmarketing requirements (PMRs), studies that the law requires manufacturers to conduct for drugs approved under certain conditions, and postmarketing commitments (PMCs), studies that the FDA and manufacturers agree should be conducted as a condition of approval. OBJECTIVE: With regulators' increasing reliance on gathering important evidence after initial product approval, we sought to assess the track record of PMRs and PMCs by synthesizing information about postmarketing study completion rates, timeliness, study types, and results reporting. METHODS: A systematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines was conducted. Studies published in academic journals or government reports that reported original data about the characteristics of PMRs or PMCs were included. Studies of post-approval trial mandates issued by regulators outside the USA were excluded, as were those that addressed post-approval research without mentioning either PMCs or PMRs or a specific approval pathway associated with statutorily required PMRs. Two investigators independently screened and extracted data from studies and reports. Data sources included the Federal Register from 2003 to 2020, FDA backlog reviews from 2008 to 2020, PubMed from January 2006 to April 2021, and the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) database for reports from January 2006 to April 2021. PMR/PMC characteristics (e.g., completion rates, timeliness, results reporting, outcomes) were not meta-analyzed due to the heterogeneity in study designs. RESULTS: Twenty-seven peer-reviewed articles from PubMed, five GAO reports, 17 annual Federal Register notices, and 12 annual backlog reviews were included. Among the 27 studies, 13 reviewed PMRs and PMCs, one reviewed only PMCs, and 13 reviewed only PMRs. A majority of new drugs were approved with at least one PMR or PMC. PMCs were completed at higher rates than PMRs, although delays were common and neither was found to be completed more than two-thirds of the time. Over two-thirds of PMRs and PMCs reported their findings in publications and trial registries. Over half of PMCs and PMRs produced novel information for clinical practice or leading to regulatory action, such as confirmation of benefit or a labeling change. CONCLUSION: PMRs and PMCs are common for new drugs and can lead to worthwhile outcomes, but are often delayed or incomplete. Greater attention is needed to timely completion, improving transparency of findings, and ensuring that PMRs and PMCs produce optimally useful information for prescribers and patients.

Post-market surveillance of consumer products: Framework for adverse event management.

Analysis of spontaneous reports of adverse events is an important source of information that can be used to improve consumer products. Various agencies have adverse event reporting requirements and many companies collect such data directly from consumers. Nonetheless, a universal framework is absent that identifies and evaluates spontaneously reported adverse events, and, most important, assesses the potential association between exposure and adverse events. We are presenting a three-part framework: Phase I - Intake and Documentation of Original Incidents; Phase II - In Depth Review and Follow-up of Phase I Incidents (enhanced, tailored questionnaire); Phase III - Association Assessment. The basis for scoring the strength of association between exposure and adverse events requires assessment of standard factors of association including: temporality; biological, physiological, or pharmacological plausibility; results of de-challenge; results of re-challenge; and consideration of confounding factors. Scores tied to the answers to these questions are totaled for each incident to determine the strength of association between exposure and reported adverse event. We propose that consumer product companies come together to adopt such an association assessment framework to improve adverse event management, obtain maximum value from the data obtained, and use the knowledge derived to improve overall product safety for consumers.

DrugWAS: Drug-wide Association Studies for COVID-19 Drug Repurposing.

This study aimed to systematically investigate if any of the available drugs in the electronic health record (EHR) can be repurposed as potential treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Based on a retrospective cohort analysis of EHR data, drug-wide association studies (DrugWAS) were performed on 9,748 patients with COVID-19 at Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC). For each drug study, multivariable logistic regression with overlap weighting using propensity score was applied to estimate the effect of drug exposure on COVID-19 disease outcomes. Patient exposure to a drug between 3-months prior to the pandemic and the COVID-19 diagnosis was chosen as the exposure of interest. All-cause of death was selected as the primary outcome. Hospitalization, admission to the intensive care unit, and need for mechanical ventilation were identified as secondary outcomes. Overall, 17 drugs were significantly associated with decreased COVID-19 severity. Previous exposure to two types of 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccines, PCV13 (odds ratio (OR), 0.31, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.12-0.81 and OR, 0.33, 95% CI, 0.15-0.73), diphtheria toxoid and tetanus toxoid vaccine (OR, 0.38, 95% CI, 0.15-0.93) were significantly associated with a decreased risk of death (primary outcome). Secondary analyses identified several other significant associations showing lower risk for COVID-19 outcomes: acellular pertussis vaccine, 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23), flaxseed extract, ethinyl estradiol, estradiol, turmeric extract, ubidecarenone, azelastine, pseudoephedrine, dextromethorphan, omega-3 fatty acids, fluticasone, and ibuprofen. In conclusion, this cohort study leveraged EHR data to identify a list of drugs that could be repurposed to improve COVID-19 outcomes. Further randomized clinical trials are needed to investigate the efficacy of the proposed drugs.

Drug Safety in Labeling for Pediatric Drug Development and Dose Selection in Submissions to the US Food and Drug Administration.

Pediatric safety evaluations are an essential part of a pediatric drug development program. Communication of the results of these safety evaluations is primarily accomplished by labeling of the drug either during the initial pediatric drug development program, or during the postmarketing period after drug approval for pediatric patients. During drug development, the dose-adverse drug event (ADE) relationship is an important part of the evaluation, but a consideration for pediatric ADEs that are unrelated to drug dosage must be maintained. Examples of dose-related and non-dose-related ADEs are presented. The failure to label a product for pediatric use has been safety related for a number of development programs. The US Food and Drug Administration's Pediatric Advisory Committee is a primary source of the pediatric postmarketing safety review and has been associated with a number of labeling changes through its ongoing review process. Pediatric drug safety remains a critical part of the assessment of dose-effect relationship in the pediatric patient population during the drug development and postmarketing surveillance process.

The Impact of Variability in Patient Exposure During Premarket Clinical Development on Postmarket Safety Outcomes.

We characterized the size of the premarket safety population for 278 small-molecule new molecular entities (NMEs) and 61 new therapeutic biologics (NTBs) approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) between October 1, 2002, and December 31, 2014, evaluating the relationship of premarket safety population size to regulatory characteristics and postmarket safety outcomes. The median size of the safety population was 1,044, and was lower for NTBs than NMEs (median: 920 vs. 1,138, P = 0.04), orphan products than nonorphan products (393 vs. 1,606, P < 0.001), and for products with fast-track designation (617 vs. 1,455, P < 0.001), priority review (630 vs. 1,735, P < 0.001), and accelerated approval (475 vs. 1,164, P < 0.001), than products without that designation. The median number of postmarket safety label updates and issues added to the label were higher with larger premarket exposure among nonorphan products, but not among orphan products. Products with accelerated approval using a surrogate end point had a higher median number of safety issues added to the label than those with full approval, but this did not vary with the size of the safety population; fast-track and priority review were not associated with the number of safety issues added to the label. A smaller safety population size was associated with a longer time to first safety outcome for nonorphan products but not orphan products. For orphan and nonorphan products combined, smaller premarket safety population size is not associated with the number or timing of postmarket safety outcomes, regardless of expedited program participation.

A COVID-19-ready public health surveillance system: The Food and Drug Administration's Sentinel System.

The US Food and Drug Administration's Sentinel System was established in 2009 to use routinely collected electronic health data for improving the national capability to assess post-market medical product safety. Over more than a decade, Sentinel has become an integral part of FDA's surveillance capabilities and has been used to conduct analyses that have contributed to regulatory decisions. FDA's role in the COVID-19 pandemic response has necessitated an expansion and enhancement of Sentinel. Here we describe how the Sentinel System has supported FDA's response to the COVID-19 pandemic. We highlight new capabilities developed, key data generated to date, and lessons learned, particularly with respect to working with inpatient electronic health record data. Early in the pandemic, Sentinel developed a multi-pronged approach to support FDA's anticipated data and analytic needs. It incorporated new data sources, created a rapidly refreshed database, developed protocols to assess the natural history of COVID-19, validated a diagnosis-code based algorithm for identifying patients with COVID-19 in administrative claims data, and coordinated with other national and international initiatives. Sentinel is poised to answer important questions about the natural history of COVID-19 and is positioned to use this information to study the use, safety, and potentially the effectiveness of medical products used for COVID-19 prevention and treatment.

Maternal and neonatal data collection systems in low- and middle-income countries for maternal vaccines active safety surveillance systems: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Most post-licensure vaccine pharmacovigilance in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are passive reporting systems. These have limited utility for maternal immunization pharmacovigilance in LMIC settings and need to be supplemented with active surveillance. Our study's main objective was to identify existing perinatal data collection systems in LMICs that collect individual information on maternal and neonatal health outcomes and could be developed to inform active safety surveillance of novel vaccines for use during pregnancy. METHODS: A scoping review was performed following the Arksey and O'Malley six-stage approach. We included studies describing electronic or mixed paper-electronic data collection systems in LMICs, including research networks, electronic medical records, and custom software platforms for health information systems. Medline PubMed, EMBASE, Global Health, Cochrane Library, LILACS, Bibliography of Asian Studies (BAS), and CINAHL were searched through August 2019. We also searched grey literature including through Google and websites of existing relevant perinatal data collection systems, as well as contacted authors of key studies and experts in the field to validate the information and identify additional sources of relevant unpublished information. RESULTS: A total of 11,817 records were identified. The full texts of 264 records describing 96 data collection systems were assessed for eligibility. Eight perinatal data collection systems met our inclusion criteria: Global Network's Maternal Newborn Health Registry, International Network for the Demographic Evaluation of Populations and their Health; Perinatal Informatic System; Pregnancy Exposure Registry & Birth Defects Surveillance; SmartCare; Open Medical Record System; Open Smart Register Platform and District Health Information Software 2. These selected systems were qualitatively characterized according to seven different domains: governance; system design; system management; data management; data sources, outcomes and data quality. CONCLUSION: This review provides a list of active maternal and neonatal data collection systems in LMICs and their characteristics as well as their outreach, strengths, and limitations. Findings could potentially help further understand where to obtain population-based high-quality information on outcomes to inform the conduct of maternal immunization active vaccine safety surveillance activities and research in LMICs.

Estimating Baseline Incidence of Conditions Potentially Associated with Vaccine Adverse Events: a Call for Surveillance System Using the Korean National Health Insurance Claims Data.

BACKGROUND: Vaccines against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are raising concerns about vaccine safety, particularly in the context of large-scale immunization. To address public concerns, we measured the baseline incidence rates of major conditions potentially related to vaccine-related adverse events (VAEs). We aimed to provide a basis for evaluating VAEs and verifying causality. METHODS: Conditions of interest were selected from the US Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System Table of Reportable Events and a recent report from a European consortium on vaccine surveillance. We used the National Health Insurance Service database in Korea to identify the monthly numbers of cases with these conditions. Data from January 2006 to June 2020 were included. Prediction models were constructed from the observed incidences using an autoregressive integrated moving average. We predicted the incidences of the conditions and their respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for January through December 2021. In addition, subgroup analysis for the expected vaccination population was conducted. RESULTS: Mean values (95% CIs) of the predicted monthly incidence of vasovagal syncope, anaphylaxis, brachial neuritis, acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, Bell's palsy, Guillain-Barré syndrome, encephalopathy, optic neuritis, transverse myelitis, immune thrombocytopenic purpura, and systemic lupus erythematosus in 2021 were 23.89 (19.81-27.98), 4.72 (3.83-5.61), 57.62 (51.37-63.88), 0.03 (0.01-0.04), 8.58 (7.90-9.26), 0.26 (0.18-0.34), 2.13 (1.42-2.83), 1.65 (1.17-2.13), 0.19 (0.14-0.25), 0.75 (0.61-0.90), and 3.40 (2.79-4.01) cases per 100,000 respectively. The majority of the conditions showed an increasing trend with seasonal variations in their incidences. CONCLUSION: We measured the incidence of a total of 11 conditions that could potentially be associated with VAEs to predict the monthly incidence in 2021. In Korea, conditions that could potentially be related to VAEs occur on a regular basis, and an increasing trend is observed with seasonality.