Key pharmacovigilance stakeholders' experiences of direct patient reporting of adverse drug reactions and their prospects of future development in the European Union

Safety and efficacy evaluation of Simo decoction and Arecae semen in herbal medicine practice

Objective

The traditional Chinese patent medicine (TCPM), Simo decoction (Simo decoction oral solution), with its primary ingredient Arecae semen (Binglang, Areca catechu L.), known for its potential carcinogenic effects, is the subject of this study. The research aims to analyze the effectiveness and potential risks of Simo decoction, particularly as a carcinogen, and to suggest a framework for evaluating the risks and benefits of other herbal medicines.

Methods

The study is based on post-marketing research of Simo decoction and Arecae semen. It utilized a wide range of sources, including ancient and modern literature, focusing on the efficacy and safety of Simo decoction. The research includes retrospective data on the sources, varieties, and toxicological studies of Arecae semen from databases such as Pubmed, Clinical Trials, Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, WHO-UMC Vigibase, and China National Center for ADR Monitoring.

Results

Common adverse drug reactions (ADRs) associated with Simo decoction include skin rash, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and diarrhea. However, no studies exist reporting the severe ADRs, such as carcinogenic effects. Arecae semen is distributed across approximately 60 varieties in tropical Asia and Australia. According to the WHO-UMC Vigibase and the National Adverse Drug Reaction Monitoring System databases, there are currently no reports of toxicity related to Arecae semen in the International System for Classification of ADRs (ISCR) or clinical studies.

Conclusion

Risk-benefit analysis in TCPM presents more challenges compared to conventional drugs. The development of a practical pharmacovigilance system and risk-benefit analysis framework is crucial for marketing authorization holders, researchers, and regulatory bodies. This approach is vital for scientific supervision and ensuring the safety and efficacy of drug applications, thus protecting public health.

The Importance of Direct Patient Reporting of Adverse Drug Reactions in the Safety Monitoring Process

All medicinal products authorized in the European Union are subjects of constant drug-safety monitoring processes. It is organized in a pharmacovigilance system that is designed to protect human health and life by the detection, analysis and prevention of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and other drug-related problems. The main role of the aforementioned system is to collect and analyze adverse drug reaction reports. Legislation introduced several years ago allowed patients, their legal representatives and caregivers to report adverse drug reactions, which caused them to be an additional source of safety data. This paper presents the analysis of EudraVigilance data related to adverse drug reactions provided by patients, their representatives, as well as those obtained from healthcare professionals related to medicines which belong to M01A anti-inflammatory and antirheumatic products, a non-steroid group. The objective of the study was to identify the changes in the number and structure of adverse reaction reporting after the introduction of pharmacovigilance (PV) obligations in EU. A review of scientific literature was also conducted to assess the differences in adverse reactions reported by patients or their representatives and by healthcare professionals. We also identified other factors which, according to literature review, influenced the number of adverse reaction reports provided by patients. Analysis of data collected from the EudraVigilance showed that from 2011 to 2013 the number of reports made by patients and their caregivers increased by approx. 24 percentage points, and then, from 2014, it constituted around 30% of the total of reported reactions every year, so patient reporting is an important part of pharmacovigilance system and a source of drugs’ safety information throughout their use in healthcare practice. Additionally, there was no interrelationship between the seriousness of reported adverse reactions and the overall number of patient reports when compared to reports form healthcare professionals.

Praziquantel and Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Hepatic Schistosomiasis: A Quasi-Experimental Study

Background

There is a general consensus that widespread use of praziquantel in populations where schistosomiasis is endemic prevents development of hepatic schistosomiasis and its complications. However, a few studies have reported discordant findings linking praziquantel to the occurrence of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) in some patients with hepatic schistosomiasis and varices.

Objective

We explored if there was any causal association between recent praziquantel use (rPZQ) and upper gastrointestinal bleeding in hepatic schistosomiasis in rural Africa.

Patients and Methods

A quasi-experimental, retrospective case-controlled study was performed. It involved adult patients with past or acute UGIB, varices, periportal fibrosis, and/or cirrhosis. Cases had acute variceal bleeding while controls did not. The outcome was the frequency of lifetime episodes of UGIB and exposure was rPZQ (received praziquantel in the last 11 months from the date of enrollment). The data analysis included 2 × 2 tables, logistic regression, and propensity-score matching. Odds ratios (ORs), average treatment effects (ATEs), and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used for inference.

Results

Over 6 weeks, we enrolled 19 cases with 92 lifetime episodes of UGIB, and 66 controls with 192 lifetime episodes of UGIB. Cases were more likely to experience UGIB than controls following rPZQ (92% vs. 62%; OR 7.6; 95% CI 3.4–17). Factors predictive of more lifetime episodes of UGIB at multivariable analysis included rPZQ (adjusted OR 13; 95% CI 2.9–53), relative leukocytosis (adjusted OR 26; 95% CI 7.6–89), large varices (adjusted OR 5.0; 95% CI 1.7–15), a family member with hepatosplenic schistosomiasis (adjusted OR 19; 95% CI 7.4–51), advanced periportal fibrosis (adjusted OR 8.0; 95% CI 2.6–22), ascites (adjusted OR 14; 95% CI 4.3–47), and jaundice (adjusted OR 32; 95% CI 7.8–128). While the ATE following rPZQ among the treated was 0.40 (95% CI 0.33–0.48).

Conclusions

Our findings suggest the presence of a plausible causal association between recent praziquantel use and increased frequency of UGIB in our study population.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40801-020-00222-7.

Patient Organizations' Barriers in Pharmacovigilance and Strategies to Stimulate Their Participation

INTRODUCTION

European drug regulations aim for a patient-centered approach, including involving patients in the pharmacovigilance (PV) systems. However many patient organizations have little experience on how they can participate in PV activities.

AIM

The aim of this study was to understand patient organizations' perceptions of PV, the barriers they face when implementing PV activities, and their interaction with other stakeholders and suggest methods for the stimulation of patient organizations as promoters of PV.

METHODS

A sequential qualitative method study was conducted and integrated with the quantitative study performed by Matos, Weits, and van Hunsel to complete a mixed method study.

RESULTS

The qualitative phase expands the understanding of the quantitative results from a previous study by broadening the knowledge on external barriers and internal barriers that patient organizations face when implementing PV activities. The strategies to stimulate patient-organization participation are the creation of more awareness campaigns, more research that creates awareness, education for patient organizations, communication of real PV examples, creation of a targeted PV system, creation of a PV communication network that provides feedback to patients, improvement of understanding of all stakeholders, and a more proactive approach from national competent authorities.

CONCLUSION

Both study phases show congruent results regarding patients' involvement and the activities patient organizations perform to promote drug safety. Patient organizations progressively position themselves as stakeholders in PV, carrying out many activities that stimulate awareness and participation of their members in drug safety, but still face internal and external barriers that can hamper their involvement.

Harmonization of Pharmacovigilance Regulation in Brazil: Opportunities to Improve Risk Communication

Brazilian pharmacovigilance regulations involve 3 spheres: health services, Marketing Authorization Holders (MAHs), and sanitary agency. Drug tolerability began to be effectively assessed in Brazil after the founding of the National Agency of Sanitary Surveillance, which developed the Sentinel Network Project. The objective of the Sentinel Network Project is to increase the adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting rate by health care professionals in the hospital setting. Pharmacovigilance practices became mandatory for MAHs, and patient tolerability issues were considered in drug policy in Brazil only as recently as 2000. However, despite recent events, the regulatory advancements in pharmacovigilance in Brazil are only equivalent to international practices (ie, those of the European Union). The pharmacovigilance system in the European Union integrates the national authorities, the European Commission, and the European Medicines Agency, which is responsible for the scientific evaluation, supervision, and safety monitoring of medicines for human and veterinary use in the European Union. Furthermore, ADR patient reporting is included in the new EU pharmacovigilance regulations. Numerous possible ways are available to improve the Brazilian pharmacovigilance system, mainly through regulations of biosimilar, nanotechnology, and veterinary medicines or by training health care professionals and patients to report nonserious cases and quality deviations. It is necessary to encourage and develop strategies for decentralizing pharmacovigilance actions in the whole country, as is common practice in several EU countries. Motivating and considering ADR reports by patients and improving feedback and audit practices in health care services and MAHs are also necessary measures. With the inclusion of Brazil as a member of the International Conference of Harmonization, significant changes in pharmacovigilance regulation are expected; these updates, which will consider international standards, will improve signal detection and risk communication.