Description of the Risk Management of Medication Errors for Centrally Authorised Products in the European Union

The Evolution of Drug Regulatory Sciences in the Netherlands: More than a Country Report

In the Netherlands, drug regulatory science is a vibrant national and internationally oriented community. In this review, we present the factors that have contributed to this successful collaboration between relevant stakeholders and that led to a surge of activities around how regulatory science became embedded in the ecosystem of medicines research, clinical pharmacology, policymaking and regulation. We distinguished three pivotal episodes: (i) TI Pharma Escher-project, (ii) Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board as catalyst of the big jump, and (iii) Regulatory Science Network Netherlands and multistakeholder engagement. The research agenda has been influenced by the dynamic evolution of legal frameworks in Europe, such as the EU orphan medicines legislation of 2001 and the EU pharmacovigilance legislation of 2012. All these developments have inspired and have raised pertinent regulatory sciences questions. Furthermore, clinical pharmacology as a discipline has been very influential in shaping regulatory science, contributing to discussions on the level of clinical evidence that is necessary to justify marketing approval of a new medicine. With a growing interest of multiple parties such as academics, European Medicines Agency, national agencies, patient organizations and EFPIA, connecting regulatory science activities is key.

Duration of Effectiveness Evaluation of Additional Risk Minimisation Measures for Centrally Authorised Medicinal Products in the EU Between 2012 and 2021

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.

Quality of MedDRA® Coding in a Sample of COVID-19 Vaccine Medication Error Data

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, there has been increasing interest from regulatory agencies and scientific organisations into the recording, coding and reporting of medication errors. Accuracy and consistency in the handling of medication error reports ensure the safety and effectiveness of medicines and provide reliable information to both healthcare professionals and patients.

OBJECTIVE

The authors have examined a sample of Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA®) coded reports that describe medication errors to assess the accuracy and consistency of MedDRA® coding, and to identify the main types of coding errors for the newly introduced COVID-19 vaccines.

METHODS

The sample of coded terms was assessed by two MedDRA® experts applying the Four Eyes Principle. It included 1500 reported terms drawn from the Uppsala Monitoring Centre database reported up to 25 August, 2021, describing medication errors for COVID-19 vaccines with their assigned MedDRA® terms.

RESULTS

One third of the records could not be assessed because of incomplete or unclear verbatims. In one third, MedDRA® term assignments were correct, but another third of the sample was not adequately coded. The most frequent coding errors corresponded to vague MedDRA® Preferred Term assignments despite more detailed information being available in the verbatim for a more precise coding. This observation is similar to findings in the EudraVigilance database, where some of the most frequently assigned MedDRA® terms for medication errors also represent vague concepts.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings indicate that understanding of medication error documentation and of the importance of accurate extraction of information from case narratives, as well as knowledge of MedDRA® content and coding guidelines need to be reinforced. The authors provide useful references to training opportunities and to the applicable International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use-Endorsed Guides for MedDRA® users.

Failure mode and effect analysis applied to improve the medication management process in a pharmacy of a teaching hospital and a proposal for a simplified rating system

BACKGROUND

Healthcare is not as safe as it should be and medication error remains a significant source of preventable morbidity and mortality among patients.

OBJECTIVES

To present a failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) of the medication management process in the pharmacy of the largest teaching hospital in Tunisia. Secondly, to examine the validity of a proposed simplified risk rating method by comparing the degree of concordance with the FMEA rating system in classifying failure modes related to the studied process.

METHODS

The FMEA method was applied to the medication management process in the pharmacy for 5 months from January 2020. For the traditional FMEA rating system, failure modes were prioritised according to the risk priority number, which considers severity, occurrence and non-detectability. Failure modes were classified for the traditional method considering three categories: accepted, requiring control and critical. The proposed rating system was based on two indices: the number of parts, which reflected severity, and the number of causes according to the 5M method (manpower, machines, material, methods and medium), which reflected occurrence. Failure modes were classified for the proposed method considering three categories: low, medium and high. Failure modes were independently analysed to determine the degree of agreement in ranking of risk between the two studied methods. Prioritised failure modes were targeted by decisions and solutions aiming to reduce risk and enhance safety.

RESULTS

Twenty-four failure modes were identified for the six-step process of medication management in a pharmacy (overall criticality=2607). The most critical failure modes were: data error in drugs reception (risk priority number (RPN)=432), break in the cold chain (RPN=320) and non-optimal pharmaceutical analysis (RPN=280). A good agreement was found between the classic FMEA and the proposed rating methods (κ=0.795). A high correlation was shown between the two scorings (r=0.785). Three failure modes were underestimated by the proposed rating method.

CONCLUSIONS

An FMEA study on the medication management process in a teaching pharmacy showed that FMEA is an effective, proactive risk assessment that enables a better understanding of the studied process. The proposed risk scoring permits a good concordance with the classic method, with the advantage of being fast. Targeting the identified risks will allow integration into a continuous process of improvement and increase patient safety.

Pharmacists' perception of educational material to improve patient safety: A cross-sectional study on practices and awareness in Germany

ABSTRACT

Educational material (EM) addresses particular safety information of medicinal products to healthcare professionals and patients. Since 2016, German national competent authorities label approved EM with a Blue Hand symbol. However, data is scarce regarding its usability as a safety communication tool in pharmacies to improve patient safety. The purpose of this study is to investigate for the first time pharmacists' awareness and perception of EM in the setting of community and hospital pharmacies in Germany.The Drug Commission of German Pharmacists surveyed its nationwide network of 677 community and 51 hospital reference pharmacies, to investigate their awareness and perception of EM. The survey was conducted between January 16 and February 10, 2020 using SurveyMonkey. Data were analyzed using Microsoft Excel.A total of 373 community and 32 hospital pharmacists participated; response rates were 55.1% and 62.8%, respectively. Overall, 320 (85.8%) community and all hospital pharmacists confirmed awareness of EM. Community and hospital pharmacists fully (n = 172, 46.9% and n = 9, 28.1%) or rather (n = 109, 29.7% and n = 10, 31.3%) agreed that EM for healthcare professionals is suitable to reduce risks of medicinal products. Moreover, 237 (64.7%) community and 17 (53.1%) hospital pharmacists confirmed to inform patients or care facilities about EM. Asking pharmacists on their personal perception of EM, the refinement of readability and accessibility was indicated.Pharmacists confirm awareness of EM and its suitability as a safety communication tool. However, from a pharmacists' perspective, the applicability and readability of EM still needs further adjustment to improve patient safety.