1
|
Torre C, Cary M, Borges FC, Ferreira PS, Alarcão J, Leufkens HG, Costa J, Martins AP. Intensive Monitoring Studies for Assessing Medicines: A Systematic Review. Front Med (Lausanne) 2019; 6:147. [PMID: 31380375 PMCID: PMC6659411 DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2019.00147] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/20/2019] [Accepted: 06/12/2019] [Indexed: 01/01/2023] Open
Abstract
Introduction: Intensive monitoring (IM) is one of the methods of post-marketing active surveillance based upon event monitoring, which has received interest in the current medicines regulatory landscape. For a specific period of time, IM involves primary data collection and is actively focused on gathering longitudinal information, mainly safety, since the first day of drug use. Objectives: To describe IM systems and studies' data published over 11-years period (2006-2016). Specifically, we reviewed study population/event surveillance, methodological approaches, limitations, and its applications in the real-world evidence generation data. Methods: We completed a systematic search of MEDLINE and EMBASE to identify studies published from 2006 to 2016, that used IM methodology. We extracted data using a standardized form and results were analyzed descriptively. The methodological quality of selected studies was assessed using the modified Downs and Black checklist. Results: From 1,400 screened citations, we identified 86 papers, corresponding to 69 different studies. Seventy percent of reviewed studies corresponded to established IM systems, of which, more than half were prescription event monitoring (PEM) and modified-PEM. Among non-established IM systems, vaccines were the most common studied drugs (n = 14). The median cohort size ranged from 488 (hospitals) to 10,479 (PEM) patients. Patients and caregivers were the event data source in 39.1% of studies. The mean overall quality score was similar between established and non-established IM. Conclusions: Over the study period, IM studies were implemented in 26 countries with different maturity levels of post-marketing surveillance systems. We identified two major limitations: only 20% of studies were conducted at hospital-level, which is a matter of concern, insofar as healthcare systems are facing a lack of access to new medicines at ambulatory care level. Additionally, IM access to data of drug exposure cohorts, either at identification or at follow-up stages, could somehow constitute a barrier, given the complexity of managerial, linkable, and privacy data issues.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Carla Torre
- Centre for Health Evaluation and Research (CEFAR), National Association of Pharmacies, Lisbon, Portugal
- Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal
| | - Maria Cary
- Centre for Health Evaluation and Research (CEFAR), National Association of Pharmacies, Lisbon, Portugal
| | - Fábio Cardoso Borges
- Department of Epidemiology and National Cancer Registry (RON), Portuguese Institute of Oncology, Francisco Gentil, E.P.E., Lisbon, Portugal
| | - Paula S. Ferreira
- Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal
- Setubal and Santarem Regional Pharmacovigilance Unit, Lisbon, Portugal
| | - Joana Alarcão
- Faculty of Medicine, Center for Evidence-Based Medicine, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal
| | - Hubert G. Leufkens
- Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - João Costa
- Faculty of Medicine, Center for Evidence-Based Medicine, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal
- Faculty of Medicine, Institute of Molecular Medicine and Laboratory of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal
| | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Berrewaerts J, Delbecque L, Orban P, Desseilles M. Patient Participation and the Use of Ehealth Tools for Pharmacoviligance. Front Pharmacol 2016; 7:90. [PMID: 27148052 PMCID: PMC4827142 DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2016.00090] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/16/2016] [Accepted: 03/21/2016] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
In recent years, pharmacovigilance has undergone some major changes. First, the patient's active role in identifying and describing adverse drug reactions (ADRs) has gained recognition. Second, pharmacovigilance has increasingly incorporated information and communications technology (ICT). Patients can now upload their own reports of ADRs online. Data on intensive medication monitoring are now collected via the Internet and smartphones. Worldwide collection of AEs using smart phones might become the leading technique in Low and Middle Income Countries where broad mobile phone service can be managed cheaper than Internet communication. At the same time, researchers are exploring the potential for data sharing via online forums and Internet search engines. In particular we synthetize the Pros and cons of the various methods for gathering pharmacovigilance data (i.e., Web-based spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions; Intensive drug monitoring studies; Analysis of online forum postings; Use of mobile phone systems to monitor drug effects). This article describes these advances and highlights their respective contributions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Joëlle Berrewaerts
- Department of Psychology, University of Namur Medical School Namur, Belgium
| | - Laure Delbecque
- Department of Psychology, University of Namur Medical School Namur, Belgium
| | - Pierre Orban
- Department of Psychiatry, University of Montreal, Montreal QC, Canada
| | - Martin Desseilles
- Department of Psychology, University of Namur Medical School Namur, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Web-based intensive monitoring of adverse events following influenza vaccination in general practice. Vaccine 2015; 33:2283-2288. [DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.03.014] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/05/2014] [Revised: 02/11/2015] [Accepted: 03/05/2015] [Indexed: 11/21/2022]
|