Search

Background: Naproxen, ibuprofen and diclofenac are frequently used as comparators in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the safety and efficacy of cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 inhibitors. Different comparator doses may influence the results of RCTs. It has been hypothesized that RCTs of COX-2 inhibitors where different doses were administered resulted in different conclusions about the cardiovascular safety of COX-2 inhibitors. High comparator doses may let COX-2 inhibitors look better in terms of safety, while low comparator doses may result in the opposite.Objective: The aim of the study was to compare doses of COX-2 inhibitors and comparator drugs used in RCTs, and to investigate dose changes over time.Study Design and Methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, The Cochrane Library for published Cochrane reviews, Clinicaltrials.gov and PubMed, for RCTs between 1995 and 2009 in which celecoxib or rofecoxib were compared with naproxen, ibuprofen or diclofenac. All articles labelled as RCTs mentioning rofecoxib or celecoxib and one or more of the comparator drugs in the title and/or abstract were included. We extracted information on doses of both non-selective NSAIDs and selective COX-2 inhibitors used in the RCTs, and study year. The Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the difference in median dose in rofecoxib and celecoxib RCTs. Linear regression was performed to evaluate trends in dosage over time. For comparisons between COX-2-inhibitors, celecoxib trials after the 2004 market withdrawal of rofecoxib were excluded.Results: Median defined daily dose (DDD) of celecoxib (2.00) was higher than the median DDD of rofecoxib (1.00; p < 0.001), whereas non-selective NSAID doses were comparable in rofecoxib (2.00) and celecoxib (2.00; p = 0.988) studies. In both groups, the non-selective NSAID doses decreased over time (B [regression coefficient] = -0.07; p = 0.28, and B = -0.054; p = 0.09, respectively). In contrast, the DDDs of rofecoxib increased slightly over time (B = 0.037; p = 0.28), whereas the celecoxib DDDs decreased over time (B = -0.081; p = 0.09). In due course, the contrasts between DDDs of COX-2 inhibitors and non-selective NSAIDs converged, both in rofecoxib and celecoxib RCTs; therefore, doses have become more comparable in recent years because of differences in steepness of two decreasing dose trends in the case of celecoxib, and opposing dose trends in the case of rofecoxib.Conclusions: Although the dose trends over time differed for RCTs comparing rofecoxib and celecoxib with diclofenac, ibuprofen or naproxen, the results of our study do not support the hypothesis that dose trends influenced the decision to continue marketing celecoxib after the withdrawal of rofecoxib because the overall median DDD of celecoxib was substantially higher than the median DDD of rofecoxib, while non-selective NSAID DDDs were comparable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cardiac arrhythmia as an adverse effect of noncardiac drugs has been an issue of growing importance during the past few years. In this population-based study, we evaluated the risk for serious cardiac arrhythmias during the use of several noncardiac QTc-prolonging drugs in day-to-day practice, and subsequently focused on several specific groups of patients who could be extremely vulnerable for drug-induced arrhythmias. We performed a case-control study in which patients (cases), hospitalized for nonatrial cardiac arrhythmias from 1987 to 1998, were compared with their matched controls regarding current use of QTc-prolonging drugs. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using multivariate conditional logistic regression, adjusting for potential confounding factors. Data were obtained from the PHARMO record linkage system. We identified 501 cases, 39 of whom used QTc-prolonging drugs. A statistically nonsignificant increased risk for arrhythmias (OR 1.2, 95% CI 0.8 to 1.9) was observed in patients who received QTc-prolonging drugs. A clearly increased risk of arrhythmias was, however, found in patients with a history of asthma (OR 9.9, 95% CI 1.0 to 100) and in patients using potassium-lowering drugs (OR 5.3, 95% CI 1.1 to. 25.9). Our data do not suggest that there is a strong overall association between the use of QTc-prolonging drugs and hospitalization for cardiac arrhythmias in the population at large. However, there appears to be clinically relevant associations of patients with a history of asthma and patients taking potassium-lowering drugs. The use of QTc-prolonging drugs should therefore be either avoided or monitored closely in these specific patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Adverse events following immunization (AEFIs), especially if serious, may impact vaccine recipients' quality of life and financial well-being and fuel vaccine hesitancy. Nigeria rolled out COVID-19 vaccination in 2021 with little known about the impact of AEFIs on an individual's quality of life. No study in Africa has explored the health and financial impact of AEFIs. We explored patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of adverse events after COVID-19 vaccination and documented the lived experiences of those with serious AEFIs to understand the effect on their health, financial well-being, and attitude to future vaccinations., Methods: We conducted a convergent mixed-methods study using the RAND 36-item health survey and in-depth interviews to collect PROs on vaccine recipients in Nigeria. Eight health scale scores and two summary composite scores were used to measure the health-related quality of life outcomes from the survey and inductive analysis was used to identify themes from the interview scripts. The results of both studies were integrated in a joint display to highlight areas of concordance., Results: In total, 785 survey responses were analyzed (53% females, 68% aged 18-30 years). Responders reporting an AEFI were 58%, of whom 62% received the first dose only. Younger age and first vaccine dose (p < .001 respectively) were associated with experiencing an AEFI. Not reporting an AEFI was associated with better quality of life, measured as higher scores on all eight SF-36 Health scales and the physical and mental component summary scores. All six interviewees with serious AEFIs experienced physical, mental, and financial distress. Some expressed a strong negative attitude toward future COVID-19 vaccinations but not toward vaccines for routine immunization., Conclusion: AEFIs negatively impact the health and financial well-being of affected individuals and their attitude to future vaccinations, especially if serious. Understanding the impact of AEFIs on people is important and should inform future policies and interventions. The results of our study can inform policy and planning for future mass vaccination campaigns in LMICs., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no competing financial or personal interests that could have influenced the work., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: Methods for safety signal detection in electronic healthcare data analysing data sequentially are being developed to meet the limitations of spontaneous reporting systems., Objectives: This study aims to provide an overview of the literature on sequential analysis of electronic healthcare data and describe the development and testing of a novel epidemiological surveillance system., Methods: We searched Medline, Embase, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library applying similar in- and exclusion criteria as those of a previous systematic review. The proposed system consisted of repeated cohort studies and was tested in an emulated prospective setting. Two signal evaluations were performed with several sensitivity analyses and a target trial emulation., Findings: In the literature, 11 studies analysed the data sequentially of which two applied traditional epidemiological methods. Epidemiological surveillance of several exposures and outcomes can be successfully conducted with the newly proposed sequential analysis of electronic healthcare data. Signal evaluation studies confirmed the results of the system., Conclusions: Very few studies in the literature analysed data at multiple time points, although this seems to be a prerequisite for testing the methods in a realistic setting. We demonstrated the feasibility of a sequential surveillance system using electronic healthcare data., (© 2023 The Authors. Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Nordic Association for the Publication of BCPT (former Nordic Pharmacological Society).)

Introduction: In studies evaluating the effectiveness of additional risk minimisation measures (aRMMs), the need for speed must be properly balanced with the quality of the study. We assessed the duration of aRMM effectiveness evaluations, using additional pharmacovigilance activities, for centrally authorised medicinal products in the European Union., Methods: We established a cohort of medicinal products with aRMMs at marketing authorisation (MA) that were centrally authorised from July 2012-December 2021 using the European Public Assessment Reports. Evaluation studies were identified from the Risk Management Plans at the time of MA. Subsequently, we retrieved protocols, final study reports, Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) assessment reports, and PRAC minutes. We calculated the probability of completing an effectiveness evaluation within 60 months after MA using time-to-event analyses. Besides, we compared the planned final report with the actual final report date., Results: We identified 134 medicinal products authorised with aRMMs, of which almost half (n = 63, 47.0%) had an effectiveness evaluation study. The probability of an evaluation for a medicinal product being completed within 60 months after MA was 20.7% (95% CI 6.8-32.6). Regarding study design, the probability of completing a study was higher for cross-sectional studies when compared to cohort studies (p = 0.002). Moreover, 81.0% of studies were delayed when compared to their planned final report date., Conclusion: The probability of completing an aRMM effectiveness evaluation at time for renewal of the MA was only one in five. Furthermore, estimates of the duration of studies around MA are too optimistic, with the majority being delayed., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Objective: Improving synergy among regulation, health technology assessment (HTA) and clinical guideline development is relevant as these independent processes are building on shared evidence-based grounds. The two objectives were first to assess how convergence of evidentiary needs among stakeholders may be achieved, and second, to determine to what extent convergence can be achieved., Design: Qualitative study using eight online dual-moderator focus groups., Setting: Discussions had a European focus and were contextualised in four case studies on head and neck cancer, diabetes mellitus, multiple sclerosis and myelodysplastic syndromes., Participants: Forty-two experienced (over 10 years) European regulators, HTA representatives and clinicians participated in the discussion., Interventions: Participants received information on the case study and research topic in advance. An introductory background presentation and interview guide for the moderators were used to steer the discussion., Results: Convergence may be achieved through improved communication institutionalised in multistakeholder early dialogues, shared definitions and shared methods. Required data sets should be inclusive rather than aligned. Deliberation and decision-making should remain independent. Alignment could be sought for pragmatic clinical trial designs and patient registries. Smaller and lower-income countries should be included in these efforts., Conclusion: Actors in the field expressed that improving synergy among stakeholders always involves trade-offs. A balance needs to be found between the convergence of processes and the institutional remits or geographical independence. A similar tension exists between the involvement of more actors, for example, patients or additional countries, and the level of collaboration that may be achieved. Communication is key to establishing this balance., Competing Interests: Competing interests: WG is employed by Utrecht University and conducts research under the umbrella of the Utrecht-WHO Collaborating Centre for Pharmaceutical Policy and Regulation. The Centre has received unrestricted research funding from public sources, eg, WHO, the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMW), the Dutch National Health Care Institute (ZIN), EC Horizon 2020, the Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board (MEB) and the Dutch Ministry of Health. None of the abovementioned public funding sources had any involvement in the current study. WG is also employed by the National Health Care Institute.At the time of the project, MLDB was employed by Copenhagen Centre for Regulatory Sciences (CORS). CORS is a cross-faculty university anchored institution involving various public (Danish Medicines Agency, Copenhagen University) and private (Novo Nordisk, Lundbeck, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, LEO Pharma) stakeholders as well as patient organisations (Rare Diseases Denmark). The Centre is purely devoted to the scientific aspects of the regulatory field and with a patient-oriented focus and the research is not company-specific product or directly company related. In the past 5 years, CORS has received funding from Novo Nordisk, Lundbeck, Ferring Pharmaceuticals and LEO Pharma for projects not related to this study. Currently, MLDB is employed by Utrecht University and conducts research under the umbrella of the Utrecht-WHO Collaborating Centre for Pharmaceutical Policy and Regulation. This Centre receives no direct funding or donations from private parties, including the pharmaceutical industry. Research funding from public–private partnerships, eg, IMI, and The Escher Project (http://escher.lygature.org/) is accepted under the condition that no company-specific product or company-related study is conducted. The Centre has received unrestricted research funding from public sources, e.g. World Health Organisation (WHO), the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMW), the Dutch National Health Care Institute (ZIN), EC Horizon 2020, the Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board (MEB) and the Dutch Ministry of Health. None of the abovementioned companies had any involvement in the current study.The other authors declare no competing interests., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Hypotonic intravenous (IV) fluids are associated with an increased risk of hospital-acquired hyponatraemia, eventually leading to brain injury and death. We evaluated the effectiveness of a treatment guide to improve prescribing practices of IV fluids. We conducted a before-and-after cross-sectional survey among physicians working at Danish emergency departments. The primary outcome was prescribing practices of IV fluids. Participants were asked which IV fluid they would select in four clinical scenarios. We applied multivariate logistic regression models to estimate the odds ratio of selecting hypotonic fluids. Secondary outcomes included knowledge about IV fluids and hyponatraemia, and the receipt, reading, and usefulness of the treatment guide. After the intervention, about a third (47/154) reported that they would use hypotonic fluids in patients with increased intracranial pressure, and a quarter (39/154) would use hypotonic maintenance fluids in children, both of which are against guideline recommendations. A total of 46% selected the correct fluid, a 3% hypertonic saline solution for a patient with hyponatraemia and severe neurological symptoms. None of the knowledge questions met the predefined criteria of success of 80% correct answers. Of the respondents, 22% had received the treatment guide. Since the implementation failed, we recommend improving distribution by applying methods from implementation science.

Use of Real-World Data (RWD) has gained the interest of different stakeholders in cancer care. The aim of this study was to identify and describe the use of RWD/RWE during the pre-authorization phase of products authorized by the EMA in 2018 and 2019 (n = 111), with the focus on oncology medicines (n = 24). Information was extracted from the European Public Assessment Report (EPAR) summaries and recorded for 5 stages (11 categories) of the drug development lifecycle (discovery, early development, clinical development, registration/market launch, lifecycle management). Specific chapters of full EPAR were reviewed to substantiate the findings on RWD/RWE use in clinical trial design, efficacy, safety, and effectiveness evaluation. RWD/RWE is present in all stages of the oncology drug development; 100.0 % in discovery, 37.5 % early development, 58.3 % in clinical development, 62.5 % in registration decision and 100.0 % in post-authorization lifecycle management. Examples showed that trial design supported by RWD/RWE included use of open label/single arm studies; efficacy was about using either comparison of results to historical controls, supplying survey data obtained outside the clinical trial or utilizing expert panel advice; safety about including literature findings in evidence; and effectiveness on comparison of trial results of the given product to historical data or existing standard of care. The findings of this study provide specific insights into how RWD/RWE is used in development of cancer therapeutics, how it contributes to regulatory decision making and can guide further policy developments in this field., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Sini M. Eskola conducts a part-time professional PhD at Utrecht Centre for Pharmaceutical Policy and Regulation. In her daily work, she holds a position as Director Regulatory Strategy and Team Leader at European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA). This research is independent and not funded by EFPIA. Andrew Bate is a full-time employee and stock and options holder in GlaxoSmithKline. The views expressed in this article represent the author’s own thoughts and are independent of their employers. This research is independent and not funded by GSK. Hubertus G.M Leufkens, Marie L. De Bruin, and Helga Gardarsdottir are employed by Utrecht University conducting research under the umbrella of the Centre for Pharmaceutical Policy and Regulation. This centre receives no direct funding or donations from private parties, including those in the pharmaceutical industry. Research funding from public–private partnerships (e.g., IMI, The Escher Project (http://escher.lygature.org/), is accepted under the condition that no company-specific product or company-related study is conducted). The centre has received unrestricted research funding from public sources, for example, the World Health Organization (WHO), Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMW), the Dutch National Health Care Institute (ZIN), EC Horizon 2020, the Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board (MEB), and the Dutch Ministry of Health., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

A cancer diagnosis is devastating for both patients and their caregivers. With high morbidity and mortality, cancer is a serious disease area with unmet medical needs. Thus, innovative anticancer drugs are in high demand worldwide but are unequally available. Our study focused on first-in-class (FIC) anticancer drugs and investigated their actual development situation in the United States (US), European Union (EU), and Japan over the last two decades to obtain fundamental information for understanding how the aforementioned demands are met, especially to eliminate drug lags among regions. We identified FIC anticancer drugs using pharmacological classes for the Japanese drug pricing system. Most FIC anticancer drugs were first approved in the US. The median approval time for anticancer drugs in new pharmacological classes during the last two decades in Japan (5072 d) was significantly different (p = 0.043) from that in the US (4253 d), though it was not significantly different from that in the EU (4655 d). Submission and approval lags between the US and Japan were more than 2.1 years, and those between the EU and Japan were more than 1.2 years. However, those between the US and the EU were less than 0.8 years. The development rate of FIC anticancer drugs in Japan is slower than in other regions. Even among developed countries, FIC anticancer drug lags exist. Considering the high impact of FIC anticancer drugs on society worldwide, we should work together to reduce drug lag among regions using an improved international cooperative framework.

Background: Multi-stakeholder interactions have evolved at product and policy levels. There is a need to assess the current and future landscape of interactions between companies, and regulatory and HTA agencies to address challenges and identify areas for improvement., Objectives: The aims of this study were to review the current interactions within and across regulatory and HTA agencies, and companies' experiences in engaging in these activities; to assess the added value of interactions as well as limitations; to explore the future ecosystem for stakeholder interactions., Method: Three separate questionnaires were developed for companies, regulators and HTA agencies, respectively, to assess their experiences and perceptions. The responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics and discussed at a multi-stakeholder workshop. Key outcomes from the surveys and workshop discussion were reported., Results: All seven regulators and seven HTA agencies in the survey indicated that they had stakeholder interactions. More formal collaboration occurred with regulators compared with HTA agencies. All nine companies have taken early advice but indicated the need for future prioritization. Success indicators can be built at the product and therapy levels, with the added value of faster patient access. Four principles were proposed for the future ecosystem: separate remit and functions between regulators and HTA; align processes; converge evidence requirements where possible; increase transparency., Conclusions: This research brought together regulators, HTA agencies, companies to examine how they interact with one another. We propose measures of value and make recommendations on future evolution to enable better evidence generation and improve regulatory and HTA decision-making.

Background: Magistral compounding has always been an integral part of pharmacy practice. The increasing demand worldwide for personalized drug treatments might be accommodated by an increase in magistral compounding. The new, flexible technology of 3D medicine printing could advance this process even further. However, the issue of how 3D medicine printing can be implemented within the existing magistral compounding infrastructure has not been explored., Aims: To investigate how 3D printing can be integrated into the existing compounding system by taking regulatory, economic, and profession-oriented aspects into account., Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with relevant Dutch stakeholders representing various health institutions, such as health ministries and boards, professional bodies, and different types of pharmacies. Participants were identified through purposeful sampling. Content analysis was applied to identify the main themes., Results: A total of 15 Dutch stakeholders were interviewed. It was found that the prevalence of compounding in community pharmacies in the Netherlands has decreased as a result of the practice shifting to specialized compounding pharmacies due to higher costs, lack of space, and the need to fulfill quality requirements. All interviewees considered 3D printing to be a promising compounding technique for community pharmacies, as it offers an automated approach with high digital flexibility and enables adapted formulations, including 'polypills.' Regulatory and quality assurance challenges were considered comparable to those of normal magistral products; however, there remain pending regulatory issues regarding quality control, particularly for Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients containing intermediate feedstock materials (e.g., prefilled cartridges) in 3D printing. 3D printing was believed to become cost effective over time., Conclusion: In the Netherlands, specialized compounding pharmacies have largely taken over compounding activities. 3D printing could be introduced within this system; however, challenges regarding how to regulate prefilled cartridges have yet to be addressed. Compounding using 3D printing in regular community pharmacies could enhance patients' individualized treatment; however, this activity would require incentives to stimulate the return of compounding to normal pharmacy practice., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: As part of the European Paediatric Regulation, the European Medicines Agency (former European Medicines Evaluation Agency) and the Paediatric Working Party (precursor for the Paediatric Committee) revised a priority list for studies on off-patent medicinal products in 2007 where a need for studies on paediatric medicinal products was emphasised., Objectives: We aimed to evaluate the status of guidance for paediatric use in the Summary of Product Characteristics for medicinal products on the priority list as well as the presence and status of Paediatric Investigation Plans for these medicinal products., Methods: We included active pharmaceutical ingredients on the priority list authorised through the centralised procedure and/or marketed in Denmark. The status of guidance for paediatric use (indication, posology and/or contraindication) was reviewed from the most recent Summary of Product Characteristics uploaded on the European Medicines Agency or the Danish Medicines Agency website as of November 2020. Information on Paediatric Investigation Plans status (Paediatric Committee opinion, completion and waivers granted) was retrieved from the European Medicines Agency website., Results: A total of 121 active pharmaceutical ingredients were included in this study. Seventy-one percent had guidance for paediatric use in the Summary of Product Characteristics for at least one paediatric subpopulation, more often concerning adolescents (70%) and children (70%) as compared with neonates (41%) and infants (49%). The guidance included a paediatric indication in 46% of the cases, but less often a contraindication (13%). Thirty-three active pharmaceutical ingredients had an agreed Paediatric Investigation Plan, six of these were completed., Conclusions: Most active pharmaceutical ingredients from the priority list had guidance for paediatric use in the Summary of Product Characteristics. However, there is still an unmet need in relation to guidance for use for the youngest paediatric subpopulation., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

Mandatory pediatric legislation has been implemented in the European Union (EU) and the United States (US) to increase research and the availability of drugs for the pediatric population. Differences in the legislative framework can cause different pediatric requirements for similar indications granted for similar drugs across jurisdictions. This cross-sectional study compares the pediatric requirements for therapeutic indications granted at the time of initial approval for novel drugs approved in the two regions from 2010 to 2018. We collected the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) decisions to grant a waiver and/or to agree on a pediatric development plan and deferrals hereof at marketing authorization (MA) from publicly available documents. An agreed pediatric development plan was required for 66% ( N = 188/285) and 63% ( N = 134/212) of the indications granted in the EU and the US at the time of approval, respectively. Almost all (EU; 98%, US; 89%) were deferred until after MA. Based on the broad scope of the EU Pediatric Regulation, an additional 36 PIPs originated from the indications granted at MA. In the subset of indications granted for drugs approved in both the EU and the US ( N = 232), significantly more indications resulted in an agreed pediatric development plan for one or more subsets of the pediatric population in the EU ( N = 185) as compared to the US ( N = 82). This was based on the exemption of orphan designated drugs in the US and the broader scope of the EU Pediatric Regulation. However, indications subject to the mandatory pediatric legislation in both regions ( N = 131) most often had similar regulatory requirements for the inclusion of the pediatric population from the EMA and the US FDA (83%, N = 109). In conclusion, when comparing mandatory pediatric requirements, more pediatric development plans were agreed upon in the EU than in the US, in line with the broader mandates of the EU Pediatric Regulation. However, authorities most often had similar regulatory requirements when an indication was subject to pediatric legislation in both regions., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Christiansen, De Bruin and Hallgreen.)

Background: There is currently conflicting evidence of the association between the use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and acute pancreatitis. The SSRI fluoxetine has been suspected to be the driver of this serious outcome. Therefore, this study aims to investigate the potential association between fluoxetine use and the occurrence of acute pancreatitis., Methods: We conducted a nationwide cohort study using Danish register-based data from 1996 to 2016. The exposed group were new users of fluoxetine (1-year washout). The control subjects were new users of citalopram or SSRIs, excluding fluoxetine. The outcome was an incident diagnosis of acute pancreatitis with a 5-year washout. We used an intention-to-treat approach following patients for a maximum of 6 months. Cox regression analyses were performed, estimating hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for age/sex, comorbidities and co-medications, using propensity score adjustment and matching., Results: In the propensity score-matched analyses, 61 783 fluoxetine users were included. The incidence rates among users of fluoxetine and other SSRIs were 5.33 (3.05-8.66) and 5.36 (3.06-8.70) per 10 000 person-years, respectively. No increased risk of acute pancreatitis was identified following fluoxetine exposure compared with either citalopram [HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.50-2.00) or other SSRIs (0.76, 0.40-1.46)., Conclusions: Fluoxetine use was not associated with an increased risk of acute pancreatitis compared with citalopram or other SSRIs. The absolute risk of acute pancreatitis was low and did not vary between different SSRIs. Further research is needed to determine whether there is a class effect on the risk of acute pancreatitis., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Epidemiological Association.)

The selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) citalopram and escitalopram are associated with QT prolongation, which increases the risk of serious arrhythmia. Consequently, regulatory agencies issued safety warnings in 2011. This study aimed to investigate the risk of serious arrhythmia following initiation of citalopram or escitalopram compared to other SSRIs and the risk in the periods before and after the warnings were issued. We conducted a series of nationwide cohort studies emulating a target trial using Danish healthcare register data from January 1, 2002, to December 31, 2016. We included patients (aged ≥65 years) who filled an SSRI prescription with a 1-year washout period before the index date. The outcome was an event of serious arrhythmia. Individuals were followed for a maximum of 6 months using an intention-to-treat approach. Log-binomial regression analyses were performed, estimating risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusting for age and sex, comorbidities, and comedications with propensity scores. Dose-response effects were not investigated because dosage instructions were not available. We included 167,366 (146,014 individuals), 40,113 (37,069 individuals), and 50,281 (44,754 individuals) person-trials of citalopram, escitalopram, and other SSRIs, respectively. In total, there were 228 events of serious arrhythmia. No difference in risk was observed in the entire study period for either citalopram (0.87 [0.62-1.22]) or escitalopram (0.85 [0.53-1.40]). We identified lower point estimates after the safety warning, RR 0.54 (95% CI 0.31-0.93) for citalopram and 0.58 (0.20-1.63) for escitalopram. Initiation of citalopram and escitalopram was not associated with an increased risk of serious arrhythmia. However, lower point estimates were observed after the safety warning., (© 2022 The Authors. Clinical and Translational Science published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

Background: The target product profile (TPP) outlines the desired profile of a target product aimed at a particular disease and is used by companies to plan clinical development. Considering the increasing importance of health technology assessment (HTA) in informing reimbursement decisions, a robust TPP needs to be built to address HTA needs, to guide an integrated evidence generation plan that will support HTA submissions. This study assessed current practices and experiences of companies in building HTA considerations into TPP development. Methods: An opinion survey was designed and conducted in 2019, as a cross-sectional questionnaire consisting of multiple-choice questions. The questionnaire provided a qualitative assessment of companies' strategies and experiences in building HTA considerations into the TPP. Eligible survey participants were the senior management of Global HTA/Market Access Departments at 18 top international pharmaceutical companies. Results: 11 companies responded to the survey. All companies included HTA requirements in TPP development, but the timing and process varied. The key focus of HTA input related to health problems and treatment pathways, clinical efficacy/effectiveness, and safety. Variance of HTA methods and different value frameworks were identified as a challenge for development plans. Stakeholder engagement, such as HTA scientific advice, was used to pressure test the TPP. Conclusion: This research provides insight into current practice and potential opportunities for value-based drug development. It demonstrates the evolution of the TPP to encompass HTA requirements and suggests that the TPP could have a role as an iterative communication tool for use with HTA agencies to enhance an integrated evidence generation plan., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Wang, McAuslane, Goettsch, Leufkens and De Bruin.)

Introduction: Regulatory advisories on hydroxyzine and risk of QT prolongation and Torsade de pointes (TdP) were issued in the UK in April 2015 and Canada in June 2016. We hypothesized patients with risk factors for QT prolongation and TdP, compared with those without risk factors, would be less likely to initiate hydroxyzine in the UK and in British Columbia (BC), Canada, following advisories., Methods: We conducted a longitudinal study with repeated measures, and evaluated hydroxyzine initiation in a UK cohort and a concurrent BC control cohort (April 2013-March 2016) as well as in a BC advisory cohort (June 2014-May 2017)., Results: This study included 247,665 patients in the UK cohort, 297,147 patients in the BC control cohort, and 303,653 patients in the BC advisory cohort. Over a 12-month post-advisory period, hydroxyzine initiation decreased by 21% in the UK (rate ratio 0.79, 95% confidence interval 0.66-0.96) relative to the expected level of initiation based on the pre-advisory trend. Hydroxyzine initiation did not change in the BC control cohort or following the Canadian advisory in the BC advisory cohort. The decrease in hydroxyzine initiation in the UK in the 12 months after the advisories was not significantly different for patients with risk factors compared with those without risk factors., Conclusion: Hydroxyzine initiation decreased in the UK, but not in BC, in the 12 months following safety advisories. The decrease in hydroxyzine initiation in the UK was not significantly different for patients with versus without risk factors for QT prolongation and TdP., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Pediatric legislations in the European Union (EU) and the United States (US) have increased medicines approved for use in the pediatric population. Despite many similarities between these frameworks, the EU Paediatric Regulation more often provides regulators with a mandate to require pediatric drug development for novel medicinal products compared to US regulators. If used, this could give rise to differences in the guidance for pediatric use provided for clinicians in the two regions. However, the level of discordance in the guidance for pediatric use between the two regions is unknown. This cross-sectional study compares guidance for pediatric use in the EU Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) and the US Prescription Information (USPI) on the level of indications granted for novel medicinal products approved after the pediatric legislations came in to force in both regions. For all indications granted as of March 2020 for novel medicinal products approved in both regions between 2010 and 2018, we compared the guidance for pediatric use in the EU SmPC and the USPI. The guidance for pediatric use differed for 18% (61/348) of the listed indications covering 21% (45/217) of the products, but without the guidance being contradictory. Where guidance differed, an equal share was observed for indications with a higher level of information for pediatric use in one region over the other (49% (30/61) in the US; 51% (31/61) in the EU). The discrepancies in pediatric information could be explained by differences in regulations for 21% (13/61) of the indications. Only a few conditions and diseases (EU n = 4; US n = 1) were observed to cover potential pediatric use outside the approved adult indication. Although the EU Paediatric Regulation more often provides regulators a mandate for requiring pediatric drug development as compared to the US PREA, this was not reflected in the prescription information approved by the two regulatory authorities., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

This study aimed to evaluate the impact of the risk minimisation measures issued by the European Medicines Agency in 2014 to restrict the combined use of renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blocking agents in Denmark. Data from the Danish National Prescription Registry covering all medications dispensed during January 2008-December 2018 was used. The outcome was monthly prevalence of patients codispensed RAS blockers. Autoregressive integrated moving average interrupted time series regression was used to evaluate dispensing trends. The prevalence of patients codispensed RAS blockers decreased from 0.01 to 0.0003%. Preintervention trend was declining and further decreased with an additional -0.45 (95% confidence interval -0.66, -0.25) codispensing per million population after the intervention. Overall, the intervention had minimal impact on the combined use of RAS blockers. However, as the combined use of RAS blockers is low, further interventions to restrict the combined use of RAS blockers may not be required in Denmark at this point., (© 2021 The Authors. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Pharmacological Society.)

Objective: To evaluate the association between regulatory drug safety advisories and changes in drug utilisation., Design: We conducted controlled, interrupted times series analyses with administrative prescription claims data to estimate changes in drug utilisation following advisories. We used random-effects meta-analysis with inverse-variance weighting to estimate the average postadvisory change in drug utilisation across advisories., Study Population: We included advisories issued in Canada, Denmark, the UK and the USA during 2009-2015, mainly concerning drugs in common use in primary care. We excluded advisories related to over-the-counter drugs, drug-drug interactions, vaccines, drugs used primarily in hospital and advisories with co-interventions within ±6 months., Main Outcome Measures: Change in drug utilisation, defined as actual versus predicted percentage change in the number of prescriptions (for advisories without dose-related advice), or in the number of defined daily doses (for dose-related advisories), per 100 000 population., Results: Among advisories without dose-related advice (n=20), the average change in drug utilisation was -5.83% (95% CI -10.93 to -0.73; p=0.03). Advisories with dose-related advice (n=4) were not associated with a statistically significant change in drug utilisation (-1.93%; 95% CI -17.10 to 13.23; p=0.80). In a post hoc subgroup analysis of advisories without dose-related advice, we observed no statistically significant difference between the change in drug utilisation following advisories with explicit prescribing advice, such as a recommendation to consider the risk of a drug when prescribing, and the change in drug utilisation following advisories without such advice., Conclusions: Among safety advisories issued on a wide range of drugs during 2009-2015 in 4 countries (Canada, Denmark, the UK and the USA), the association of advisories with changes in drug utilisation was variable, and the average association was modest., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MLDB declares PhD grants from Novo Nordisk, Lundbeck, Ferring Pharmaceuticals and LEO Pharma to the Copenhagen Centre for Regulatory Science; CH declares grants or contracts from Novo Nordisk A/S and H. Lundbeck A/S paid to her institution; BM is acting as an expert witness for Health Canada on a legal case and anticipates future payment for doing so; S-AP declares the Centre for Big Data Research in Health received funding for postmarket surveillance research, unrelated to the current study; LP has received a Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research Reach Grant; AS declares grants or contracts from Arnold Ventures and the FDA paid to his institution, consulting fees from West Health and payment for expert testimony from the ACLU; IS has received a CIHR Canadian Network for Observational Drug Effect Studies grant and a Drug Evaluation Alliance of Nova Scotia grant, and payment for serving as a member of the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Healthcare systems have reached a critical point regarding the question of whether biosimilar substitution should become common practice. To move the discussion forward, the study objective was to investigate the views of experts from medicines agencies and the pharmaceutical industry on the science underpinning interchangeability of biosimilars. We conducted an empirical qualitative study using semi-structured interviews informed by a cross-disciplinary approach encompassing regulatory science, law, and pharmaceutical policy. In total 25 individuals with experience within biologics participated during September 2018-August 2019. Eight participants were EU national medicines authority regulators, and 17 had pharmaceutical industry background: five from two originator-only companies, four from two companies with both biosimilar and originator products, and eight from seven biosimilar-only companies. Two analysts independently conducted inductive content analysis, resulting in data-driven themes capturing the meaning of the data. The participants reported that interchangeability was more than a scientific question of likeness between biosimilar and reference products: it also pertained to regulatory practices and trust. Participants were overall confident in the science behind exchanging biosimilar products for the reference products via switching, i.e., with physician involvement. However, their opinions differed regarding the scientific risk associated with biosimilar substitution, i.e., without physician involvement. Almost all participants saw no need for additional scientific data to support substitution. Moreover, the participants did not believe that switching studies, as required in the US, were appropriate for obtaining scientific certainty due to their small size. It is unclear why biosimilar switching is viewed as scientifically safer than substitution; therefore, we expect greater policy debate on biosimilar substitution in the near future. We urge European and UK policymakers and regulators to clarify their visions for biosimilar substitution; the positions of these two frontrunners are likely to influence other jurisdictions on the future of biosimilar use., Competing Interests: I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: LCD was funded by a PhD fellowship grant to the University of Copenhagen from LEO Pharma A/S, but the company has no commercial interest in the research. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials. ” There are data restrictions which we have described in the data availability statement: “The minimal data set underlying the results has been supplied in the manuscript (the quotes are raw data), additional data cannot be shared publicly because this would compromise anonymity and confidentiality of the participants.

Real-world data/real-world evidence (RWD/RWE) are considered to have a great potential to complement, in some cases, replace the evidence generated through randomized controlled trials. By tradition, use of RWD/RWE in the postauthorization phase is well-known, whereas published evidence of use in the pre-authorization phase of medicines development is lacking. The primary aim of this study was to identify and quantify the role of potential use of RWD/RWE (RWE signatures) during the pre-authorization phase, as presented in the initial marketing authorization applications of new medicines centrally evaluated with a positive opinion in 2018-2019 (n = 111) by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). Data for the study was retrieved from the evaluation overviews of the European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs), which reflect the scientific conclusions of the assessment process and are accessible through the EMA website. RWE signatures were extracted into an RWE Data Matrix, including 11 categories divided over 5 stages of the drug development lifecycle. Nearly all EPARs included RWE signatures for the discovery (98.2%) and life-cycle management (100.0%). Half of them included RWE signatures for the full development phase (48.6%) and for supporting regulatory decisions at the registration (46.8%), whereas over a third (35.1%) included RWE signatures for the early development. RWE signatures were more often seen for orphan and conditionally approved medicines. Oncology, hematology, and anti-infectives stood out as therapeutic areas with most RWE signatures in their full development phase. The findings bring unprecedented insights about the vast use of RWD/RWE in drug development supporting the regulatory decision making., (© 2021 The Authors. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

Aims: To describe and compare the adherence to different direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in eight European databases representing six countries. Methods: Longitudinal drug utilization study of new users (≥18 years) of DOACs (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban) with a diagnosis of non-valvular atrial fibrillation (2008-2015). Adherence was examined by estimating persistence, switching, and discontinuation rates at 12 months. Primary non-adherence was estimated in BIFAP and SIDIAP databases. Results: The highest persistence rate was seen for apixaban in the CPRD database (81%) and the lowest for dabigatran in the Mondriaan database (22%). The switching rate for all DOACs ranged from 2.4 to 13.1% (Mondriaan and EGB databases, respectively). Dabigatran had the highest switching rate from 5.0 to 20.0% (Mondriaan and EGB databases, respectively). The discontinuation rate for all DOACs ranged from 16.0 to 63.9% (CPRD and Bavarian CD databases, respectively). Dabigatran had the highest rate of discontinuers, except in the Bavarian CD and AOK NORDWEST databases, ranging from 23.2 to 64.6% (CPRD and Mondriaan databases, respectively). Combined primary non-adherence for examined DOACs was 11.1% in BIFAP and 14.0% in SIDIAP. There were differences in population coverage and in the type of drug data source among the databases. Conclusion: Despite the differences in the characteristics of the databases and in demographic and baseline characteristics of the included population that could explain some of the observed discrepancies, we can observe a similar pattern throughout the databases. Apixaban was the DOAC with the highest persistence. Dabigatran had the highest proportion of discontinuers and switchers at 12 months in most databases (EMA/2015/27/PH)., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Sabaté, Vidal, Ballarin, Rottenkolber, Schmiedl, Grave, Huerta, Martin-Merino, Montero, Leon-Muñoz, Gasse, Moore, Droz, Lassalle, Aakjær, Andersen, De Bruin, Souverein, Klungel, Gardarsdottir and Ibáñez.)

Introduction: The current process for generating evidence in pharmacovigilance has several limitations, which often lead to delays in the evaluation of drug-associated risks., Objectives: In this study, we proposed and tested a near real-time epidemiological surveillance system using sequential, cumulative analyses focusing on the detection and preliminary risk quantification of potential safety signals following initiation of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs)., Methods: We emulated an active surveillance system in an historical setting by conducting repeated annual cohort studies using nationwide Danish healthcare data (1996-2016). Outcomes were selected from the European Medicines Agency's Designated Medical Event list, summaries of product characteristics, and the literature. We followed patients for a maximum of 6 months from treatment initiation to the event of interest or censoring. We performed Cox regression analyses adjusted for standard sets of covariates. Potential safety signals were visualized using heat maps and cumulative hazard ratio (HR) plots over time., Results: In the total study population, 969,667 new users were included and followed for 461,506 person-years. We detected potential safety signals with incidence rates as low as 0.9 per 10,000 person-years. Having eight different exposure drugs and 51 medical events, we identified 31 unique combinations of potential safety signals with a positive association to the event of interest in the exposed group. We proposed that these signals were designated for further evaluation once they appeared in a prospective setting. In total, 21 (67.7%) of these were not present in the current summaries of product characteristics., Conclusion: The study demonstrated the feasibility of performing epidemiological surveillance using sequential, cumulative analyses. Larger populations are needed to evaluate rare events and infrequently used antidepressants., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Objective: To establish the risk of major bleeding in direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) users (overall and by class) versus vitamin K antagonist (VKA) users, using health care databases from four European countries and six provinces in Canada., Methods: A retrospective cohort study was performed according to a similar protocol. First-users of VKAs or DOACs with a diagnosis of non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) were included. The main outcome of interest was major bleeding and secondary outcomes included gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding and intracranial haemorrhage (ICH). Incidence rates of events per 1000 person years were calculated. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model. Exposure and confounders were measured and analysed in a time-dependant way. Risk estimates were pooled using a random effect model., Results: 421 523 patients were included. The risk of major bleeding for the group of DOACs compared to VKAs showed a pooled HR of 0.94 (95% CI: 0.87-1.02). Rivaroxaban showed a modestly increased risk (HR 1.11, 95% CI: 1.06-1.16). Apixaban and dabigatran showed a decreased risk of respectively HR 0.76 (95% CI: 0.69-0.84) and HR 0.85 (95% CI: 0.75-0.96)., Conclusions: This study confirms that the risk of major bleeding of DOACs compared to VKAs is not increased when combining all DOACs. However, we observed a modest higher risk of major bleeding for rivaroxaban, whereas for apixaban and dabigatran lower risks of major bleeding were observed compared to VKAs., (© 2021 The Authors. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

The continuous scientific, societal, and technological advancements have shifted drug development toward increasingly complex and ever more targeted treatments. This creates new and unprecedented challenges for global regulatory systems. To address the increased risks and uncertainties of increasingly complex medicine, we advocate for a more tailored and flexible regulatory approach, which is explained here with the concept of 'regulatory density'. In the context of this paper, 'regulatory density' describes the relative amount of obligatory standards, measures and procedures applied to certain medicinal products or product classes and the resources required to meet these requirements. Given that risk and uncertainty are dynamic variables that can change over time, with this paper, we want to stimulate (re)thinking of regulatory approaches for managing the challenges of future complex medicines., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: 3D printing is a promising new technology for medicines' production. It employs additive manufacturing techniques, and is ideal for producing personalized medicines (e.g., patient-tailored dose, dosage form, drug release kinetics)., Objective: To investigate how 3D printing technologies can be implemented in a European pharmaceutical system, by suggesting different scenarios and assessing aspects that could affect its implementation., Method: Qualitative, semi-structured interviews were conducted with key stakeholders (e.g., from ministry, authorities, research organizations, pharmacies) in the Netherlands to elicit perspectives on 3D printing of personalized medicines. The Netherlands were chosen since it has a strong tradition in compounding. Five general scenarios were investigated: placing the 3D printers in industry, community pharmacies, hospital pharmacies, compounding facilities, and in patients' homes. Content analysis was used, building on verbatim transcripts., Results: Fifteen stakeholders were interviewed. Regulatory, economic, ethical and organizational challenges were identified to varying degrees in the different scenarios. The industry and home scenarios were associated with the most challenges, hospital pharmacies and compounding facilities with the least. Other important aspects identified were the role of community pharmacies, and who should design the tablets to be printed., Conclusion: All potential scenarios for 3D printing of personalized medicines include challenges. These should be taken into account when pursuing the use of 3D printing of medicine., (© 2021 The Authors.)

Introduction: Inappropriate fluid therapy may induce or worsen existing hyponatraemia with potentially life-threatening consequences. Nurses have an important role in assisting physicians in IV fluid prescribing. However, research is lacking in Denmark about nurses' knowledge pertaining to IV fluid therapy and hyponatraemia., Methods: An explorative cross-sectional survey was performed among Danish emergency department nurses in Spring 2019. Knowledge about IV fluid therapy was assessed for three common clinical scenarios, and multiple-choice questions were used to measure knowledge about hyponatraemia., Results: 112 nurses responded to all scenario questions corresponding to 6.2% (112/1815) of the total population of nurses working at emergency departments in Denmark. In two of the three scenarios, a minority of nurses (8-10%) inappropriately selected hypotonic fluids. Nearly one third (31%) selected a hypotonic fluid for a patient with meningitis, which is against guideline recommendations. The study revealed limited knowledge about severe symptoms of hyponatraemia, patients at high risk, and hyperglycaemia-induced hyponatraemia., Conclusion: In accordance with guideline recommendation, the majority of nurses did not select hypotonic fluids in three clinical scenarios commonly encountered in the emergency department. However, when setting up an educational program, further awareness is needed regarding symptoms of hyponatraemia, high-risk patients, and hyperglycaemia-induced hyponatraemia., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

In the wake of the withdrawal of the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug rofecoxib, regulators worldwide reconsidered their approach to postmarket safety. Many have since adopted a "life cycle" approach to regulation of medicines, facilitating faster approval of new medicines while planning for potential postmarket safety issues. A crucial aspect of postmarket safety is the effective and timely communication of emerging risk information using postmarket safety advisories, commonly issued as letters to healthcare professionals, drug safety bulletins, media alerts, and website announcements. Yet regulators differ in their use of postmarket safety advisories. We examined the capacity of regulators in the United States, Europe, Canada, and Australia to warn about postmarket safety issues through safety advisories by assessing their governance, legislative authority, risk communication capabilities, and transparency., (© 2020 The Authors Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics © 2020 American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

Background: A biosimilar is a biological medicine highly similar to another already approved biological medicine (reference product). The availability of biosimilars promotes competition and subsequently lower prices. Changing the current biosimilar clinical comparability trial requirements may lead to lower biosimilar development costs that potentially could increase patients' access to biologics., Objective: The aim was to determine the perceptions of industry and medicines agency regulators regarding the value, necessity, and future developments of the European biosimilar clinical comparability trial requirements for establishing biosimilarity., Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with eight European national medicines agency regulators and 17 pharmaceutical company employees or consultants with experience in biologics between September 2018 and August 2019. Data were subjected to content analysis., Results: In general, the participants expected that clinical comparability trial requirements will continue to be reduced, in particular based on advancements in analytical testing and knowledge generated from prior biosimilar approvals. However, there are also competing issues at play, such as competition, physician's trust, and ethical considerations. Participants also reported that any new initiative to reduce or waive biosimilar clinical requirements needs to be scientifically sound and could potentially lower biosimilar development costs., Conclusion: The main findings are that biosimilar clinical comparability trial requirements are likely to change in the near future. Clarity is needed on how to ensure adequate correlation between physicochemical data, pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic studies, and the drugs' performance in the clinic, as well as how to continue sufficient immunogenicity assessment. Obtaining this clarity can facilitate regulatory assessment of the next biosimilars.

Aims: The introduction of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) has broadened the treatment arsenal for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, but observational studies on the benefit-risk balance of DOACs compared to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) are needed. The aim of this study was to characterize the risk of major bleeding in DOAC users using longitudinal data collected from electronic health care databases from 4 different EU-countries analysed with a common study protocol., Methods: A cohort study was conducted among new users (≥18 years) of DOACs or VKAs with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation using data from the UK, Spain, Germany and Denmark. The incidence of major bleeding events (overall and by bleeding site) was compared between current use of DOACs and VKAs. Cox regression analysis was used to calculate hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI) and adjust for confounders., Results/conclusion: Overall, 251 719 patients were included across the 4 study cohorts (mean age ~75 years, % females between 41.3 and 54.3%), with overall hazard ratios of major bleeding risk for DOACs vs VKAs ranging between 0.84 (95% CI: 0.79-0.90) in Denmark and 1.13 (95% CI 1.02-1.25) in the UK. When stratifying according to the bleeding site, risk of gastrointestinal bleeding was increased by 48-67% in dabigatran users and 30-50% for rivaroxaban users compared to VKA users in all data sources except Denmark. Compared to VKAs, apixaban was not associated with an increased risk of gastrointestinal bleeding in all data sources and seemed to be associated with the lowest risk of major bleeding events compared to dabigatran and rivaroxaban., (© 2020 The Authors. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Pharmacological Society.)

Despite a tremendous increase of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) prescriptions in recent years, only few data is available analysing prescribers' adherence to Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC). We aimed to assess adherence to registered indications, contraindications, special warnings/precautions, and potential drug-drug interactions for three DOAC compounds (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban) in six databases of five European countries (The Netherlands, United Kingdom, Spain, Denmark, and Germany). We included adult patients (≥18 years) initiating DOACs between 2008 and 2015. For several SmPC items, broad definitions were used due to ambiguous SmPC terms or lacking data in some databases. Within the study period, a DOAC was initiated in 407 576 patients (rivaroxaban: 240 985 (59.1%), dabigatran: 95 303 (23.4%), and apixaban: 71 288 (17.5%)). In 2015, non-valvular atrial fibrillation was the most common indication (>60% in most databases). For the whole study period, a substantial variation between the databases was found regarding the proportion of patients with at least one contraindication (inter-database range [IDR]: 8.2%-55.7%), with at least one special warning/precaution (IDR: 35.8%-75.2%) and with at least one potential drug-drug interaction (IDR: 22.4%-54.1%). In 2015, the most frequent contraindication was "malignant neoplasm" (IDR: 0.7%-21.3%) whereas the most frequent special warning/precaution was "prescribing to the elderly" (≥75 years; IDR: 25.0%-66.4%). The most common single compound class interaction was "concomitant use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs" (IDR: 3.0%-25.3%). Contraindications, special warnings/precautions, and potential drug-drug interactions were present in a relevant number of new DOAC users. Due to broad definitions used for some SmPC terms, overall proportions for contraindications are prone to overestimation. However, for unambiguous SmPC terms documented in the databases sufficiently, the respective estimates can be considered valid. Differences between databases might be related to "true" differences in prescription behaviour, but could also be partially due to differences in database characteristics., (© 2020 Nordic Association for the Publication of BCPT (former Nordic Pharmacological Society).)

Aims: Medication adherence and persistence are important determinants of treatment success in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the real-world adherence, persistence, and in-class switching among patients with T2DM prescribed dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitors., Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, PsychINFO, and CINAHL were searched for relevant observational studies published in the English language up to 20 December 2019. This was supplemented by manual screening of the references of included papers. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed., Results: Thirty-four cohort studies involving 594,138 patients with T2DM prescribed DPP4 inhibitors from ten countries were included. The pooled proportion adherent (proportion of days covered (PDC) or medication possession ratio (MPR) ≥ 0.80) was 56.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 49.3-64.4) at one year and 44.2% (95% CI 36.4-52.1) at two years. The proportion persistent with treatment decreased from 75.6% (95% CI 71.5-79.5) at six months to 52.8% (95% CI 51.6-59.8) at two years. No significant differences in adherence and persistence were observed between individual DPP4 inhibitors. At one year, just 3.2% (95% CI 3.1-3.3) of patients switched from one DPP4 inhibitor to another. Switching from saxagliptin and alogliptin to others was commonest., Conclusions: Adherence to and persistence with DPP4 inhibitors is suboptimal but similar across all medications within the class. While in-class switching is uncommon, saxagliptin and alogliptin are the DPP4 inhibitors most commonly switched. Interventions to improve treatment adherence and persistence among patients with T2DM prescribed DPP4 inhibitors may be warranted.

Aims: Despite increasing prescription of sodium glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, there is limited insight of the patterns of use among patients with diabetes prescribed these drugs. This study aimed to summarize available real-world data on the adherence and persistence to SGLT2 inhibitors., Materials and Methods: A systematic review for observational studies reporting the adherence and persistence to SGLT2 inhibitors was performed in Medline, Embase, and Web of Science from their inception to October 2019. Data were analysed via random-effects meta-analysis., Results: A total of 22 studies (31 cohorts) comprising 123 854 individuals prescribed SGLT2 inhibitors from eight countries were included. The pooled mean proportions of days covered [PDC] at six months and one year were 0.77 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.72-0.82) and 0.72 (95% CI 0.66-0.77), respectively. The pooled proportions adherent (PDC ≥0.80) at six months and one year were 59.5% (95% CI 52.9-65.9) and 49.0% (95% CI 42.3-55.8), respectively. The pooled proportions of people persistent at six months, one year, and two years were 80.1% (95% CI 75.8-84.0), 61.8% (95% CI 57.8-65.7), and 45.9% (95% CI 35.5-56.5), respectively. When persistence was defined as the absence of ≥90-days gap, the equivalent pooled proportions persistent were 81.5% (95% CI 73.1-88.6), 58.9% (95% CI 53.1-64.6), and 34.7% (95% CI 33.6-35.8). Adherence and persistence appeared to vary across different SGLT2 inhibitors., Conclusions: Real-world adherence and persistence to SGLT2 inhibitors is poor. Hence, targets for improving treatment adherence and persistence need to be identified and appropriate interventions implemented., (© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

The need to optimize drug development and facilitate faster access for patients has ignited discussions around the importance of improving interactions between health technology assessment (HTA) bodies and regulatory agencies. In this study, we conducted a systematic review to examine processes, progress, outcomes, and challenges of harmonization/interaction initiatives between HTA bodies and regulatory agencies. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the International Pharmaceutical Abstracts database were searched up to 21 October 2019. Searches for gray literature (working papers, commissioned reports, policy documents, etc.) were performed via Google scholar and several institutional websites. An online cross-sectional survey was also conducted among HTA ( n = 22) and regulatory agencies ( n = 6) across Europe to supplement the systematic review. Overall, we found that while there are areas of divergence, there has been progress over time in narrowing the gap in evidentiary requirements for HTA bodies and regulatory agencies. Most regulatory agencies (4/6; 67%) and half (11/22, 50%) of the HTA bodies reported having a formal link for "collaborating" with the other. Several mechanisms such as early tripartite dialogues, parallel submissions (reviews), adaptive licensing pathways, and postauthorization data generation have been explored as avenues for improving collaboration. A number of pilot initiatives have shown positive effects of these models to reduce the time between regulatory and HTA decisions, which may translate into faster access for patients to life-saving therapies. Thus, future approaches aimed at improving harmonization/interaction between HTA bodies and regulatory agencies should build on these existing models/mechanisms while examining their long-term impacts. Several barriers including legal, organizational, and resource-related factors were also identified, and these need to be addressed to achieve greater alignment in the current regulatory and reimbursement landscape., (Copyright © 2020 Ofori-Asenso, Hallgreen and De Bruin.)

Background Aims: As part of the advanced therapy medicinal product (ATMP) regulation, the hospital exemption (HE) was enacted to accommodate manufacturing of custom-made ATMPs for treatment purposes in the European Union (EU). However, how the HE pathway has been used in practice is largely unknown., Methods: Using a survey and interviews, we provide the product characteristics, scale and motivation for ATMP manufacturing under HE and other, non-ATMP-specific exemption pathways in seven European countries., Results: Results show that ATMPs were manufactured under HE by public facilities located in Finland, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands, which enabled availability of a modest number of ATMPs (n = 12) between 2009 and 2017. These ATMPs were shown to have close proximity to clinical practice, and manufacturing was primarily motivated by clinical needs and clinical experience. Public facilities used HE when patients could not obtain treatment in ongoing or future trials. Regulatory aspects motivated (Finland, Italy, the Netherlands) or limited (Belgium, Germany) HE utilization, whereas financial resources generally limited HE utilization by public facilities. Public facilities manufactured other ATMPs (n = 11) under named patient use (NPU) between 2015 and 2017 and used NPU in a similar fashion as HE. The scale of manufacturing under HE over 9 years was shown to be rather limited in comparison to manufacturing under NPU over 3 years. In Germany, ATMPs were mainly manufactured by facilities of private companies under HE., Conclusions: The HE enables availability of ATMPs with close proximity to clinical practice. Yet in some countries, HE provisions limit utilization, whereas commercial developments could be undermined by private HE licenses in Germany. Transparency through a public EU-wide registry and guidance for distinguishing between ATMPs that are or are not commercially viable as well as public-private engagements are needed to optimize the use of the HE pathway and regulatory pathways for commercial development in a complementary fashion., (Copyright © 2020 International Society for Cell & Gene Therapy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Hyponatraemia is associated with increased morbidity, increased mortality and is frequently hospital-acquired due to inappropriate administration of hypotonic fluids. Despite several attempts to minimise the risk, knowledge is lacking as to whether inappropriate prescribing practice continues to be a concern., Methods: A cross-sectional survey was performed in Danish emergency department physicians in spring 2019. Prescribing practices were assessed by means of four clinical scenarios commonly encountered in the emergency department. Thirteen multiple-choice questions were used to measure knowledge., Results: 201 physicians responded corresponding to 55.4% of the total population of physicians working at emergency departments in Denmark. About a quarter reported that they would use hypotonic fluids in patients with increased intracranial pressure and 29.4% would use hypotonic maintenance fluids in children, both of which are against guideline recommendations. Also, 29.4% selected the correct fluid, a 3% hypertonic saline solution, for a patient with hyponatraemia and severe neurological symptoms, which is a medical emergency. Most physicians were unaware of the impact of hypotonic fluids on plasma sodium in acutely ill patients., Conclusion: Inappropriate prescribing practices and limited knowledge of a large number of physicians calls for further interventions to minimise the risk of hospital-acquired hyponatraemia.

This study aimed to determine to which extent data on potential pharmacogenetic-pharmacokinetic (PG-PK) interactions are provided to, and assessed by, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in novel drug marketing authorization applications (MAAs), and whether regulatory assessment of PG-PK interactions is adequate or could be optimized. For this purpose, we retrospectively analyzed MAAs of small molecule drugs assessed by the EMA between January 2014 and December 2017. As per two key requirements in the EMA's guideline, we analyzed cases where (i) a single functionally polymorphic drug metabolizing enzyme (DME) metabolizes > 25% of the drug, or (ii) the drug's PK shows high interindividual variability not explained by other factors than PG. Results showed that, of 113 drugs analyzed, 53 (47%) had ≥ 1 functionally polymorphic DME accounting for > 25% of the drug's metabolism, yielding 55 gene-drug pairs. For 36 of 53 (68%) of the products, CYP3A4 was the major DME. Compliance with European Union (EU) guidance on PG-PK issues in drug development was notably different for CYP3A4 substrates vs. non-CYP3A4 substrates. Adequate PG-PK data were provided during registration in 89% (16/18) of cases concerning non-CYP3A4 substrates, compared with 32% (12/37) of cases concerning CYP3A4 substrates. Concluding, PG-PK interactions related to non-CYP3A4 substrate drugs were, in general, addressed adequately in EU MAAs. PG-PK information on CYP3A4 substrates was available less frequently, despite some available evidence on the functional relevance of CYP3A4 polymorphisms. A more harmonized approach toward assessment of PG-PK issues in EU MAAs seems warranted, and a discussion on the relevance of CYP3A4 polymorphisms, such as CYP3A4*22, is recommended., (© 2020 Medicines Evaluation Board. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

Cancer patients are vulnerable to complications of respiratory viruses. This systematic review and meta-analysis sought to examine the prevalence of cancer and its association with disease severity in patients with novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Searches were performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE and ScienceDirect from their inception until 28 April 2020. Severe disease was considered to encompass cases resulting in death or as defined by the primary study authors. Meta-analysis was performed using random-effect models. We included 20 studies involving 32,404 patients from China, the United Kingdom, the United States, Italy, Singapore, Thailand, France, India and South Korea. The pooled prevalence of cancer was 3.50% (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.70 to 5.80). The pooled prevalence was not moderated by study mean age, proportion of females or whether the study was conducted in/outside of China. Patients with cancer were more likely to experience severe COVID-19 disease compared to patients without cancer (pooled risk ratio 1.76, 95% CI 1.39 to 2.23). Our findings reiterate the need for additional precautionary measures to ensure that patients with cancer are not exposed to COVID-19, and if they become infected, extra attention should be provided to minimise their risk of adverse outcomes., Competing Interests: None., (© the authors; licensee ecancermedicalscience.)