Public Perspectives of Using Social Media Data to Improve Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting: A Mixed-Methods Study

Patient-centered pharmacovigilance: priority actions from the inherited bleeding disorders community

Pharmacovigilance, the science and practice of monitoring the effects of medicinals and their safety, is the responsibility of all stakeholders involved in the development, manufacture, regulation, distribution, prescription, and use of drugs and devices. The patient is the stakeholder most impacted by and the greatest source of information on safety issues. It is rare, however, for the patient to take a central role and exert leadership in the design and execution of pharmacovigilance. Patient organizations in the inherited bleeding disorders community are among the most established and empowered, particularly in the rare disorders. In this review, two of the largest bleeding disorders patient organizations, Hemophilia Federation of America (HFA) and National Hemophilia Foundation (NHF), offer insights into the priority actions required of all stakeholders to improve pharmacovigilance. The recent and ongoing increase in incidents raising safety concerns and a therapeutic landscape on the cusp of unprecedented expansion heighten the urgency of a recommitment to the primacy of patient safety and well-being in drug development and distribution.

Plain Language Summary

Patients at the center of product safety Every medical device and therapeutic product has potential benefits and harms. The pharmaceutical and biomedical companies that develop them must demonstrate that they are effective, and the safety risks are limited or manageable, for regulators to approve them for use and sale. After the product has been approved and people are using it in their daily lives, it is important to continue to collect information about any negative side effects or adverse events; this is called pharmacovigilance. Regulators, like the United States (US) Food and Drug Administration, the companies that sell and distribute the products, and healthcare professionals who prescribe them are all required to participate in collecting, reporting, analyzing, and communicating this information. The people with the most firsthand knowledge of the benefits and harms of the drug or device are the patients who use them. They have an important responsibility to learn how to recognize adverse events, how to report them, and to stay informed of any news about the product from the other partners in the pharmacovigilance network. Those partners have a crucial responsibility to provide clear, easy-to-understand information to patients about any new safety concerns that come to light. The community of people with inherited bleeding disorders has recently encountered problems with poor communication of product safety issues, prompting two large US patient organizations, National Hemophilia Foundation and Hemophilia Federation of America, to hold a Safety Summit with all the pharmacovigilance network partners. Together they developed recommendations to improve the collection and communication of information about product safety so that patients can make well-informed, timely decisions about their use of drugs and devices. This article presents these recommendations in the context of how pharmacovigilance is supposed to work and some of the challenges encountered by the community.

Social Media Role and Its Impact on Public Health: A Narrative Review

Social media refers to online social networking sites and is a broad example of Web 2.0, such as Twitter, YouTube, TikTok, Facebook, Snapchat, Reddit, Instagram, WhatsApp, and blogs. It is a new and ever-changing field. Access to the internet, social media platforms and mobile communications are all tools that can be leveraged to make health information available and accessible. This research aimed to conduct an introductory study of the existing published literature on why to choose and how to use social media to obtain population health information and to gain knowledge about various health sectors like disease surveillance, health education, health research, health and behavioral modification, influence policy, enhance professional development and doctor-patient relation development. We searched for publications using databases like PubMed, NCBI, and Google Scholar, and combined 2022 social media usage statistics from PWC, Infographics Archive, and Statista online websites. The American Medical Association (AMA) policy about Professionalism in Social Media Use, American College of Physicians-Federations of State Medical Boards (ACP-FSMB) guidelines for Online Medical Professionalism, and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) social media violations were also briefly reviewed. Our findings reflect the benefits and drawbacks of using web platforms and how they impact public health ethically, professionally, and socially. During our research, we discovered that social media's impact on public health concerns is both positive and negative, and we attempted to explain how social networks are assisting people in achieving health, which is still a source of much debate.

Sample Bias in Web-Based Patient-Generated Health Data of Dutch Patients With Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor: Survey Study

BACKGROUND

Increasingly, social media is being recognized as a potential resource for patient-generated health data, for example, for pharmacovigilance. Although the representativeness of the web-based patient population is often noted as a concern, studies in this field are limited.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate the sample bias of patient-centered social media in Dutch patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST).

METHODS

A population-based survey was conducted in the Netherlands among 328 patients with GIST diagnosed 2-13 years ago to investigate their digital communication use with fellow patients. A logistic regression analysis was used to analyze clinical and demographic differences between forum users and nonusers.

RESULTS

Overall, 17.9% (59/328) of survey respondents reported having contact with fellow patients via social media. Moreover, 78% (46/59) of forum users made use of GIST patient forums. We found no statistically significant differences for age, sex, socioeconomic status, and time since diagnosis between forum users (n=46) and nonusers (n=273). Patient forum users did differ significantly in (self-reported) treatment phase from nonusers (P=.001). Of the 46 forum users, only 2 (4%) were cured and not being monitored; 3 (7%) were on adjuvant, curative treatment; 19 (41%) were being monitored after adjuvant treatment; and 22 (48%) were on palliative treatment. In contrast, of the 273 patients who did not use disease-specific forums to communicate with fellow patients, 56 (20.5%) were cured and not being monitored, 31 (11.3%) were on curative treatment, 139 (50.9%) were being monitored after treatment, and 42 (15.3%) were on palliative treatment. The odds of being on a patient forum were 2.8 times as high for a patient who is being monitored compared with a patient that is considered cured. The odds of being on a patient forum were 1.9 times as high for patients who were on curative (adjuvant) treatment and 10 times as high for patients who were in the palliative phase compared with patients who were considered cured. Forum users also reported a lower level of social functioning (84.8 out of 100) than nonusers (93.8 out of 100; P=.008).

CONCLUSIONS

Forum users showed no particular bias on the most important demographic variables of age, sex, socioeconomic status, and time since diagnosis. This may reflect the narrowing digital divide. Overrepresentation and underrepresentation of patients with GIST in different treatment phases on social media should be taken into account when sourcing patient forums for patient-generated health data. A further investigation of the sample bias in other web-based patient populations is warranted.

Engaging Patients via Online Healthcare Fora: Three Pharmacovigilance Use Cases

Increasingly, patient-generated safety insights are shared online, via general social media platforms or dedicated healthcare fora which give patients the opportunity to discuss their disease and treatment options. We evaluated three areas of potential interest for the use of social media in pharmacovigilance. To evaluate how social media may complement existing safety signal detection capabilities, we identified two use cases (drug/adverse event [AE] pairs) and then evaluated the frequency of AE discussions across a range of social media channels. Changes in frequency over time were noted in social media, then compared to frequency changes in Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) data over the same time period using a traditional disproportionality method. Although both data sources showed increasing frequencies of AE discussions over time, the increase in frequency was greater in the FAERS data as compared to social media. To demonstrate the robustness of medical/AE insights of linked posts we manually reviewed 2,817 threads containing 21,313 individual posts from 3,601 unique authors. Posts from the same authors were linked together. We used a quality scoring algorithm to determine the groups of linked posts with the highest quality and manually evaluated the top 16 groups of posts. Most linked posts (12/16; 75%) contained all seven relevant medical insights assessed compared to only one (of 1,672) individual post. To test the capability of actively engage patients via social media to obtain follow-up AE information we identified and sent consents for follow-up to 39 individuals (through a third party). We sent target follow-up questions (identified by pharmacovigilance experts as critical for causality assessment) to those who consented. The number of people consenting to follow-up was low (20%), but receipt of follow-up was high (75%). We observed completeness of responses (37 out of 37 questions answered) and short average time required to receive the follow-up (1.8 days). Our findings indicate a limited use of social media data for safety signal detection. However, our research highlights two areas of potential value to pharmacovigilance: obtaining more complete medical/AE insights via longitudinal post linking and actively obtaining rapid follow-up information on AEs.

Scientific Opinion on development needs for the allergenicity and protein safety assessment of food and feed products derived from biotechnology

This Scientific Opinion addresses the formulation of specific development needs, including research requirements for allergenicity assessment and protein safety, in general, which is urgently needed in a world that demands more sustainable food systems. Current allergenicity risk assessment strategies are based on the principles and guidelines of the Codex Alimentarius for the safety assessment of foods derived from 'modern' biotechnology initially published in 2003. The core approach for the safety assessment is based on a 'weight-of-evidence' approach because no single piece of information or experimental method provides sufficient evidence to predict allergenicity. Although the Codex Alimentarius and EFSA guidance documents successfully addressed allergenicity assessments of single/stacked event GM applications, experience gained and new developments in the field call for a modernisation of some key elements of the risk assessment. These should include the consideration of clinical relevance, route of exposure and potential threshold values of food allergens, the update of in silico tools used with more targeted databases and better integration and standardisation of test materials and in vitro/in vivo protocols. Furthermore, more complex future products will likely challenge the overall practical implementation of current guidelines, which were mainly targeted to assess a few newly expressed proteins. Therefore, it is timely to review and clarify the main purpose of the allergenicity risk assessment and the vital role it plays in protecting consumers' health. A roadmap to (re)define the allergenicity safety objectives and risk assessment needs will be required to inform a series of key questions for risk assessors and risk managers such as 'what is the purpose of the allergenicity risk assessment?' or 'what level of confidence is necessary for the predictions?'.