Actions in response to drug safety signals arising from a spontaneous reporting system: Retrospective study in The Netherlands

Signals from the Dutch national spontaneous reporting system: Characteristics and regulatory actions

PURPOSE

The aim of the study is to characterise safety signals based on the Dutch spontaneous reporting system (SRS) and to investigate the association between signal characteristics and Product Information (PI) update stratified by approval type: centrally authorised products (CAPs) versus nationally and decentralised authorised products (NAPs).

METHODS

This study evaluates the full cohort of signals disseminated from the Dutch SRS in the period from 2008 to 2017. Each retrieved signal was characterised on a number of aspects. The signal management process from signal generation to a potential PI update was analysed in four steps: (1) signal characterisation; (2) proposed actions by the Dutch national competent authority (NCA) for the signals; (3) presence of PI update (yes/no) and association with signal characteristics; (4) timing from the moment the signal was issued to PI update. For step 1-3 we stratified products in CAPs and NAPs.

RESULTS

Of all signals, 88.7% led to a proposed regulatory action by the NCA. Signals from the Dutch SRS for CAPs versus NAPs more often concerned biologicals, important medical events, class effects and shorter periods since marketing authorization. We detected PI updates for 26.2% of CAP signals and 61.3% of NAP signals.

CONCLUSIONS

The Dutch SRSs remains an important source of signals. There are some notable differences in the characteristics of signals for CAPs versus NAPs. Signals for NAPs more frequently led to PI updates.

Does patient reporting lead to earlier detection of drug safety signals? A retrospective comparison of time to reporting between patients and healthcare professionals in a global database

AIMS

To explore if there is a difference between patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs) in time to reporting drug-adverse drug reaction (ADR) associations that led to drug safety signals.

METHODS

This was a retrospective comparison of time to reporting selected drug-ADR associations which led to drug safety signals between patients and HCPs. ADR reports were selected from the World Health Organization Global database of individual case safety reports, VigiBase. Reports were selected based on drug-ADR associations of actual drug safety signals. Primary outcome was the difference in time to reporting between patients and HCPs. The date of the first report for each individual signal was used as time zero. The difference in time between the date of the reports and time zero was calculated. Statistical differences in timing were analysed on the corresponding survival curves using a Mann-Whitney U test.

RESULTS

In total, 2822 reports were included, of which 52.7% were patient reports, with a median of 25% for all included signals. For all signals, median time to signal detection was 10.4 years. Overall, HCPs reported earlier than patients: median 7.0 vs. 8.3 years (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients contributed a large proportion of reports on drug-ADR pairs that eventually became signals. HCPs reported 1.3 year earlier than patients. These findings strengthen the evidence on the value of patient reporting in signal detection and highlight an opportunity to encourage patients to report suspected ADRs even earlier in the future.