Pharmacovigilance Basics
-
Upload
melvingeorge2003 -
Category
Documents
-
view
2.227 -
download
18
Transcript of Pharmacovigilance Basics
![Page 1: Pharmacovigilance Basics](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012302/5468d77cb4af9f3f3f8b5f49/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Data Assessment in Pharmacovigilance
R.H.B. Meyboom
![Page 2: Pharmacovigilance Basics](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012302/5468d77cb4af9f3f3f8b5f49/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Definition of pharmacovigilance(WHO, 2002)
The science and activities relating to the detection, assessment, understanding and prevention of adverse effects or any other drug-related problem
Pharmacovigilance is the same as ‘drug monitoring’
![Page 3: Pharmacovigilance Basics](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012302/5468d77cb4af9f3f3f8b5f49/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Why pharmacovigilance?
Limited value of animal experiments in predicting human safetyClinical trials are limited in time and number of patients; are ‘artificial’. Patients are selected (adults, no other drugs, no other diseases). Not representative of real-life use. Rare or delayed serious reactions are likely to remain unnoticed
![Page 4: Pharmacovigilance Basics](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012302/5468d77cb4af9f3f3f8b5f49/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Functions of pharmacovigilance(WHO Guidelines, 2000)
• Detection and study of adverse reactions• Measurement of risk• Measurement of effectiveness• Benefit & harm evaluation• Dissemination of information, education⇒Early warning⇒Rational and safe use of medicines
![Page 5: Pharmacovigilance Basics](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012302/5468d77cb4af9f3f3f8b5f49/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Methods in Pharmacovigilance
• Spontaneous Reporting• Prescription Event Monitoring• Case Control Surveillance• Record Linkage (automated
population databases; ‘data mining’)
![Page 6: Pharmacovigilance Basics](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012302/5468d77cb4af9f3f3f8b5f49/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Formal Studies Vigilance• Defined aim,
hypothesis testing (problem solving)
• Established methods (clinical trial, case control, cohort study)
• Limited as regards drugs, parameters, population (disease, number, region) and duration
• Open question, search-ing for the unexpected (‘problem raising’)
• Exploratory, controversial (SR, PEM, CCS)
• Ongoing, unrestricted (‘all’ drugs, ‘all’patients, including subgroups)
![Page 7: Pharmacovigilance Basics](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012302/5468d77cb4af9f3f3f8b5f49/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Spontaneous Reporting
Country-wide, structured system for the reporting of suspected adverse reactions to drug
![Page 8: Pharmacovigilance Basics](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012302/5468d77cb4af9f3f3f8b5f49/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Spontaneous Reporting
A ‘case report’ is a notification from a practitioner regarding a patient with a disorder that is suspected to be drug-relatedMedical secrecy, privacySuspicions, voluntary, confidential
![Page 9: Pharmacovigilance Basics](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012302/5468d77cb4af9f3f3f8b5f49/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Spontaneous Reporting
When different doctors independently report the same unknown and unexpected adverse experiences with a drug, this can be an important signal
![Page 10: Pharmacovigilance Basics](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012302/5468d77cb4af9f3f3f8b5f49/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
What should be reported?
• Unknown, unexpected • New drugs• Serious (also when known)
– Fatal, life-threatening– Hospitalisation– Persistent incapacity or disability– Dependence– Malformations
• Unexpected beneficial effects• Unexpected ineffectiveness
![Page 11: Pharmacovigilance Basics](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012302/5468d77cb4af9f3f3f8b5f49/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Data assessment in Pharmacovigilance
1. Individual case report assessment2. Aggregated assessment and
interpretation• Signal detection• Interactions and risk factors• Serial (clinicopathological) study• Frequency estimation
![Page 12: Pharmacovigilance Basics](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012302/5468d77cb4af9f3f3f8b5f49/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Individual case report assessment
• Relevance of observation• Coding • Quality of documentation• Case follow-up• Case causality assessment
![Page 13: Pharmacovigilance Basics](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012302/5468d77cb4af9f3f3f8b5f49/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Components of a case report
• Patient • Adverse event• Drug exposure (suspected and other)• Source
![Page 14: Pharmacovigilance Basics](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012302/5468d77cb4af9f3f3f8b5f49/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Patient
• Age• Sex• Medical history• Case identification
(confidential)
![Page 15: Pharmacovigilance Basics](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012302/5468d77cb4af9f3f3f8b5f49/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Adverse event
• Description: aspect, place, severity, diagnosis
• Outcome, course, time relationship (‘challenge, dechallenge, rechallenge’)
• Laboratory data
![Page 16: Pharmacovigilance Basics](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012302/5468d77cb4af9f3f3f8b5f49/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Suspected drug
• Name (product, generic, ingredients, batch no.)
• Dose, route, dates (interval, duration)• Indication
![Page 17: Pharmacovigilance Basics](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012302/5468d77cb4af9f3f3f8b5f49/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Coding of adverse events
• Drug – WHO Drug Dictionary
• Adverse event – WHOART– MedDRA– Snomed?
![Page 18: Pharmacovigilance Basics](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012302/5468d77cb4af9f3f3f8b5f49/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Coding of adverse events
‘Reporting adverse drug reactions. Definitions of terms and criteria for their use.’
Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences CIOMS. C/o World Health Organization, Avenue Appia, 1211 Geneva 27, 1999.
![Page 19: Pharmacovigilance Basics](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012302/5468d77cb4af9f3f3f8b5f49/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Case follow-up
• Missing data• Laboratory data, pathology• Outcome data (if not yet recovered)• Underlying disease• Verification of findings
![Page 20: Pharmacovigilance Basics](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012302/5468d77cb4af9f3f3f8b5f49/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Standardised causality assessment
• WHO system • French system
![Page 21: Pharmacovigilance Basics](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012302/5468d77cb4af9f3f3f8b5f49/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Relevance of observation
• Unknown, unexpected, unlabeled• Serious• New or important drug• Regulatory• Scientific• Educational
![Page 22: Pharmacovigilance Basics](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012302/5468d77cb4af9f3f3f8b5f49/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Data assessment in Pharmacovigilance
1. Individual case report assessment2. Aggregated assessment and
interpretation• Signal detection• Interactions and risk factors• Serial (clinicopathological) study• Frequency estimation
![Page 23: Pharmacovigilance Basics](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012302/5468d77cb4af9f3f3f8b5f49/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
WHO-UMC definition of a signal• Reported information on a possible
causal relationship between an adverse event and a drug, the relationship being unknown or incompletely documented previously. Usually more than a single report is required to generate a signal, depending upon the seriousness of the event and the quality of the information.Edwards IR, Biriell C. Drug Safety 1994;10:93-102
![Page 24: Pharmacovigilance Basics](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012302/5468d77cb4af9f3f3f8b5f49/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
A signal consists of
• Hypothesis• Data• Arguments, in favor or against
![Page 25: Pharmacovigilance Basics](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012302/5468d77cb4af9f3f3f8b5f49/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Data of a signal
• Qualitative (clinical)• Quantitative (epidemiological)• ‘Experimental’• Develops over time
![Page 26: Pharmacovigilance Basics](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012302/5468d77cb4af9f3f3f8b5f49/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Time
Kno
wle
dge
of a
dver
se e
ffect
(%)
signalstrengthening
signalfollow-up
signalgeneration
signal assessment
//
//
![Page 27: Pharmacovigilance Basics](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012302/5468d77cb4af9f3f3f8b5f49/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
1. Signal detection • Selection of a possibly relevant
association (hypothesis generation)• Preliminary assessment of the
available evidence (signal strengthening)
2. Signal follow-up
![Page 28: Pharmacovigilance Basics](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012302/5468d77cb4af9f3f3f8b5f49/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Criteria for selecting a signal+ -
• Unknown adverse reaction• Unexpected• Expected but ‘unlabelled’• Strong statistical connection• Low background frequency• Specific, characteristic• Objective (definitive) event• Typically drug-related event
or Critical Term• Serious• High potential relevance
• Known (and labelled)
• Weak statistical connection• High background frequency• Unspecific, trivial event• Subjective event• Common disorder, e.g.
infectious or ‘endogenous’• Not serious• Low relevance
![Page 29: Pharmacovigilance Basics](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012302/5468d77cb4af9f3f3f8b5f49/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
When is a signal likely to be relevant?
• Early Warning- New adverse reaction; new drug
• Public health perspective- Important drug (serious indication;
widely used)- Serious reaction- Large number of cases; rapid
increase in reporting- Regulatory intervention (prevention)
• Change in benefit/risk • Scientific or educational value
![Page 30: Pharmacovigilance Basics](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012302/5468d77cb4af9f3f3f8b5f49/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Retrospective analysis of 107 published pharmacovigilance topics in The Netherlands
Meyboom RHB et al. Clin Drug Invest 1996;4:207-19
10%13%10%16%13%62%
• Anaphylactic reactions• Hepatitis• Blood dyscrasias• Nervous system• Interactions
![Page 31: Pharmacovigilance Basics](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012302/5468d77cb4af9f3f3f8b5f49/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Signal follow-up (same database)
• Drug exposure• Development over time of the
quantitative data and the consistency of the pattern
• Signal strengthening– individual case report assessment– reporting distribution– ‘best case-worst case’ scenario– targeted comparisons– nested case control studies
![Page 32: Pharmacovigilance Basics](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012302/5468d77cb4af9f3f3f8b5f49/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Signal follow-up (other sources)
• Similar connection in other countries• WHO-UMC international database,• Additional observations (e.g. literature,
registration file, other databases)• Experimental data (e.g. pharmacological,
immunological)
![Page 33: Pharmacovigilance Basics](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012302/5468d77cb4af9f3f3f8b5f49/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
The balance of evidence in a signal • Quantitative strength of the association
– number of case reports– statistical disproportionality– drug exposure
• Consistency of the data (pattern)• Exposure-response relationship
– site, timing, dose, reversibility• Biological plausibility of hypothesis
– pharmacological, pathological• Experimental findings
– e.g. dechallenge, rechallenge, blood levels, metabolites, drugdependent antibodies
• Analogies• Nature and quality of the data
– objectivity, documentation, causality assessment
![Page 34: Pharmacovigilance Basics](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012302/5468d77cb4af9f3f3f8b5f49/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
From signal to action
• Internal communication (national centres, UMC, company, academia)
• Initiation of further study (signal testing)• Regulatory action (e.g. data sheet
change)• Extermal communication (drug
information centres, national drug bulletin, publications)
![Page 35: Pharmacovigilance Basics](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012302/5468d77cb4af9f3f3f8b5f49/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Advantages of Spontaneous Reporting
• Effective!• Wide coverage (‘all patients, all
drugs, all adverse reactions’)• Continuous• Rapid• Cheap
![Page 36: Pharmacovigilance Basics](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012302/5468d77cb4af9f3f3f8b5f49/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Limitations of Spontaneous Reporting
• Suspicions• Underreporting and bias• Insensitive to type C adverse effects• Drug consumption data available?
(denominator)• No quantitative assessment• Comparison of drugs difficult• No proof of causality
Often further study needed (hypothesis testing, evaluation)
![Page 37: Pharmacovigilance Basics](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012302/5468d77cb4af9f3f3f8b5f49/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Signal detection
• Searching for the unexpected; ongoing • A signal should be early and credible at
the same time • Signals may consist of only a few cases.
An important signal may not be statistically prominent
• Signal testing and explanation require further study
• Many signals remain unconfirmed– scientific limitations– no funding
![Page 38: Pharmacovigilance Basics](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012302/5468d77cb4af9f3f3f8b5f49/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Standardised Case Causality Assessment
Meyboom RHB, Hekster YA, Egberts ACG, GribnauFWJ, Edwards IR. Drug Safety 1997;17:374-89
![Page 39: Pharmacovigilance Basics](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012302/5468d77cb4af9f3f3f8b5f49/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Three key questions relating to uncertainty:
• Can the drug cause the adverse reaction?
• Has the drug caused the adverse reaction?
• Will the drug cause the adverse reaction?
![Page 40: Pharmacovigilance Basics](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012302/5468d77cb4af9f3f3f8b5f49/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
• F Karch, L Lasagna. Clin Pharm Ther1977;21:247-54
• MS Kramer, JM Leventhal, TA Hutchinson, et al. JAMA 1979;242:623-31
• A Emanueli, G Sacchetti. Agents Actions 1980;7:318-22
• C Naranjo, U Busto, EM Sellers, et al. ClinPharm Ther 1981;30:239-45
• Bégaud B, Evreux JC, Jouglard J, Lagier G. Thérapie 1985;40:111-8
• J Venulet, AG Ciucci, GC Bernecker. Int J Clin Pharmacol 1986;24:559-68
![Page 41: Pharmacovigilance Basics](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012302/5468d77cb4af9f3f3f8b5f49/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
General design of systems:
• Questions– Sub-questions– Scores
• Overall score• Causality category,
e.g. possible, probable, etc
![Page 42: Pharmacovigilance Basics](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012302/5468d77cb4af9f3f3f8b5f49/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
Four assessment criteria
• The association in time (and place) between drug administration and event
• Pharmacology (features, previous knowledge of side effects)
• Medical plausibility (characteristic signs and symptoms, laboratory tests, patho-logical findings)
• Likelihood or exclusion of other causes
![Page 43: Pharmacovigilance Basics](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012302/5468d77cb4af9f3f3f8b5f49/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
The importance of criteria may differ for different types of reactions
• Application site reactions• Immediate reactions• Pharmacological effects• Immunological reactions• Congenital malformations• Cancer
![Page 44: Pharmacovigilance Basics](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012302/5468d77cb4af9f3f3f8b5f49/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
None of the available systems has been validated, i.e. that they consistently and reproducibly give a reasonable approximation of the truth
• Validation = ‘proving that a procedure actually leads to the expected results’
• Causality category definitions• No gold standard
![Page 45: Pharmacovigilance Basics](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012302/5468d77cb4af9f3f3f8b5f49/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
• What causality assessment can do
Decrease disagree-ment between assessors Classify relationship likelihood (semi-quantitative) Mark individual case reports Education / improve-ment of scientific assessment
• What causality assessment cannot do– Exact quantitative
measurement of relationship likelihood
– Distinguish valid from invalid cases
– Prove the connection between drug and event
– Quantify the contribution of a drug to the development of an adverse event
– Change uncertainty into certainty
–
–
–
–
![Page 46: Pharmacovigilance Basics](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012302/5468d77cb4af9f3f3f8b5f49/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
WHO Causality Categories (All points should be reasonably complied with)
Certain• Event or laboratory test abnormality with
plausible time relationship to drug intake• Cannot be explained by disease or other drugs• Response to withdrawal plausible
(pharmacologically, pathologically)• Event definitive pharmacologically or
phenomenologically (An objective and specific medical disorder or recognised pharmacological phenomenon)
• Rechallenge (if necessary)Drug Safety 1994;10:93-102
![Page 47: Pharmacovigilance Basics](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012302/5468d77cb4af9f3f3f8b5f49/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
Probable• Event or laboratory test abnormality with
reasonable time relationship to drug intake• Unlikely to be attributed to disease or other drugs• Response to withdrawal clinically reasonable• Rechallenge not necessary
Possible• Event or laboratory test abnormality with
reasonable time relationship to drug intake• Could also be explained by disease or other
drugs• Information on drug withdrawal lacking or unclear
![Page 48: Pharmacovigilance Basics](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012302/5468d77cb4af9f3f3f8b5f49/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
Unlikely• Event or laboratory test abnormality with a
time relationship to drug intake that makes a connection improbable (but not impossible)
• Diseases or other drugs provide plausible explanations
Conditional / Unclassified• Event or laboratory test abnormality• More data for proper assessment needed• Or additional data under examination
![Page 49: Pharmacovigilance Basics](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012302/5468d77cb4af9f3f3f8b5f49/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
Specific etiologic-diagnostic systems
• Disease definition (including other forms)
• Clinical appearance and pathology• Signs of severity• Aetiology (various possible causes) and
diagnosis• Evidence implicating a drug• Chronological criteria • ManagementBénichou C. Adverse Drug Reactions. John Wiley, 1996
![Page 50: Pharmacovigilance Basics](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012302/5468d77cb4af9f3f3f8b5f49/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
Questions for the future
• Causality assessment as a routine of all reports, or only in selected cases?
• One general system, or special systems adapted to specific adverse reactions?
![Page 51: Pharmacovigilance Basics](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012302/5468d77cb4af9f3f3f8b5f49/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
Signal management (1)
• Selection of the relevant data (case reports) and delineation of the signal (hypothesis)
• Literature search• Survey of available data and identification of
missing data and unanswered questions• Gathering of missing data (follow-up of
cases; structured enquiry)• Consultation with the WHO Uppsala
Monitoring Centre• Contact between National Centre and
company; study of the data in the registration file
![Page 52: Pharmacovigilance Basics](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012302/5468d77cb4af9f3f3f8b5f49/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
Signal management (2)• (Re)assessment of all available data• Writing a report, containing:
– summary of the signal – presentation of original data– presentation of additional information– discussion, with reference to positive and
negative arguments– hypothesis (preliminary conclusion)– suggestions for further study
This report may serve as a basis for decision-making by the regulator and the pharmaceutical company, for communication between national centres, and for the preparation of information for practitioners and in the published literature
![Page 53: Pharmacovigilance Basics](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012302/5468d77cb4af9f3f3f8b5f49/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
Pharmacovigilance can only be effective through the active participation of practitioners!!