Impact of EU risk assessment process and administrative regulations for manufacturers of combined hormonal contraceptive prescribing. An analysis of developments in Germany and the implications

[Instruments of official communication by regulatory authorities on risks of drug use]

Active communication of authorities, such as the Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (BfArM) and the Paul Ehrlich Institute (PEI), including maintenance of contacts with health care professionals, as well as press and public relations work, are essential prerequisites for ensuring that information on the risks of using medicinal products reaches both affected patients and healthcare professionals quickly and in a targeted manner. The various instruments of targeted communication describe possible risks and also contain recommendations that help to reduce the risk of using a medicinal product. The supplementary public relations work aims to make the tasks and objectives of the authority known to the public and to experts with the goal of creating and expanding trust in the actions of the authorities. To this end, appropriate communication platforms must be established and accepted so that they are used by both experts and the general public and the authority is perceived and appreciated as a reliable source of risk information. The currently available instruments of targeted risk communication, such as Dear Health Care Professional Communication (DHPC), risk management plans, and educational materials are described in this paper as well as broader communication on official websites or towards the media. Finally, PEI's risk communication is highlighted with particular reference to COVID-19 vaccines.

Trends and patterns in EU(7)-PIM prescribing to elderly patients in Germany

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to explore patterns and long-term development in prescribing potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) according to the EU(7)-PIM list to elderly patients in Germany.

METHODS

We analysed anonymized German claims data. The study population comprised 6.0 million insured individuals at least 65 years old, including all their prescriptions reimbursed in 2019. For the analysis of long-term development, we used data for the years 2009-2019. Factors associated with PIM prescribing were considered from two perspectives: patient-oriented analysis was performed with logistic regression and prescriber-oriented analysis was performed with multiple linear regression.

RESULTS

EU(7)-PIM prevalence was reduced from 56.9% in 2009 to 45.1% in 2019. Average annual volume (DDDs/insured) decreased from 145 in 2009 to 121 in 2019. These figures are substantially greater than those for the older PRISCUS list. The majority of investigated ATC level 2 groups with the highest EU(7)-PIM DDD volume exhibited substantial decreases; moderate increases were found for antihypertensive and urological drugs. Antithrombotics increased strongly with the introduction of direct oral anticoagulants. The most prevalent EU(7)-PIM medication was diclofenac; however, in the age group 85+ years, apixaban was twice as prevalent as diclofenac. Polypharmacy, female sex, age < 90 years, need for nursing care and living in Eastern regions were identified as risk factors. Prescriber specialty was the most marked factor in the prescriber-oriented analysis.

CONCLUSION

Although the use of EU(7)-PIMs has been declining, regional differences indicate considerable room for improvement. The comparison with PRISCUS highlights the necessity of regular updates of PIM lists.

Are risk minimization measures for approved drugs in Europe effective? A systematic review

Objectives: The effectiveness of risk minimization measures (RMMs) requires evaluation. This study aims to evaluate the results of cross-sectional surveys assessing the effectiveness of RMMs in Europe (EU RM Surveys) and review the regulatory consequences. Methods: The authors searched for study reports and manuscripts of completed EU RM surveys in the EU PAS Register, MEDLINE, and Google between 01/2011 and 01/2018. Regulatory responses were extracted from Assessment Reports. Random effects models to combine proportions were used. Results: Twenty-four EU RM surveys were identified. Twenty-three studies targeted health-care professionals (HCPs). The pre-specified sample size was reached in 52% of studies. HCP participation was 5% defined as completers/invited and 89% for completers/eligible. Receipt of materials was recalled by 60% of HCPs and 77% of items scored knowledge >60%. Eight studies targeted patients/caregivers. The pre-specified sample size was reached in only two. Participation was 93%, defined as completers/eligible. Materials were received by 50-80% of patients and read by over 90%. Patients only scored knowledge >60% in 38% of items. Further action was requested by regulators in 59% of studies. Conclusion: Surveys are necessary to evaluate many RMMs. Challenges remain in the design, conduct, and reporting of these studies which may benefit from the use of standard definitions and further guidance on reporting. EU PAS Register: http://www.encepp.eu/encepp/viewResource.htm?id=23435.