Chances and challenges of registry-based pharmacovigilance in multiple sclerosis: lessons learnt from the implementation of the multicenter REGIMS registry

The long-term and potential rare side effects of new immunomodulating drugs for the treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS) are often not well known. Spontaneous case report systems of adverse drug effects are a valuable source in pharmacovigilance, but have several limitations. Primary data collections within registries allow a comprehensive analysis of potential side effects, but face several challenges. This article will outline the chances and challenges of registry-based adverse event reporting, using the example of the German immunotherapeutic registry REGIMS. REGIMS is an observational, clinical multicenter registry that aims to assess the incidence, type, and consequences of side effects of MS immunotherapies. Patients treated with an approved MS medication are recruited by their physicians during routine visits in hospitals, outpatient clinics, and MS-specialized practices. REGIMS incorporates an electronic physician-based documentation in each center and a paper-based patient documentation, both at baseline and regular follow-up visits. By the end of 2019, 43 REGIMS centers were actively recruiting patients and performing follow-up documentations. The majority of the first 1000 REGIMS patients were female (69.3%), had relapse-remitting MS (89.8%), and were treated with a second-line therapy. During the implementation of REGIMS, several logistic and procedural challenges had to be overcome, which are outlined in this paper. Pharmacovigilance registries such as REGIMS provide high-quality primary data from a specific patient population in a real-world care setting and enable pharmacovigilance research that cannot be carried out using secondary data. Despite the logistic and procedural challenges in establishing a multicenter pharmacovigilance registry in Germany, the advantages outweigh the drawbacks

The impact of mammography screening programmes on incidence of advanced breast cancer in Europe: a literature review.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were madeBACKGROUND: Observational studies have reported conflicting results on the impact of mammography service screening programmes on the advanced breast cancer rate (ABCR), a correlation that was firmly established in randomized controlled trials. We reviewed and summarized studies of the effect of service screening programmes in the European Union on ABCR and discussed their limitations. METHODS: The PubMed database was searched for English language studies published between 01-01-2000 and 01-06-2018. After inspection of titles and abstracts, 220 of the 8644 potentially eligible papers were considered relevant. Their abstracts were reviewed by groups of two authors using predefined criteria. Fifty studies were selected for full paper review, and 22 of these were eligible. A theoretical framework for their review was developed. Review was performed using a ten-point checklist of the methodological caveats in the analysis of studies of ABCR and a standardised assessment form designed to extract quantitative and qualitative information. RESULTS: Most of the evaluable studies support a reduction in ABCR following the introduction of screening. However, all studies were challenged by issues of design and analysis which could at least potentially cause bias, and showed considerable variation in the estimated effect. Problems were observed in duration of follow-up time, availability of reliable reference ABCR, definition of advanced stage, temporal variation in the proportion of unknown-stage cancers, and statistical approach. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that much of the current controversy on the impact of service screening programmes on ABCR is due to observational data that were gathered and/or analysed with methodological approaches which could not capture stage effects in full. Future research on this important early indicator of screening effectiveness should focus on establishing consensus in the correct methodology

Drug-use patterns and severe adverse events with disease-modifying drugs in patients with multiple sclerosis: a cohort study based on German claims data

Alexandra Simbrich,1 Jasmine Thibaut,1 Laura Khil,1,2 Klaus Berger,1 Oliver Riedel,3 Niklas Schmedt3,41Institute of Epidemiology and Social Medicine, University of Münster, 48149 Münster, Germany; 2Cancer Registry North Rhine-Westphalia, 44801, Bochum, Germany; 3Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology – BIPS, 28359 Bremen, Germany; 4InGef – Institute for Applied Health Research Berlin GmbH, 10117 Berlin, GermanyPurpose: To describe drug-use patterns in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) using disease-modifying drugs (DMDs) and to estimate the incidence of severe adverse events (SAEs) of treatment.Methods: We conducted a cohort study within the German Pharmacoepidemiological Research Database between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2013. MS patients on DMDs were described in terms of clinical characteristics and drug-use patterns. Next, we assessed the incidence of AEs in new users of fingolimod, natalizumab, glatiramer acetate, and IFNβ1a.Results: Among approximately 11 million insured members of German Statutory Health Insurance, the DMD-user cohort comprised 15,377 patients with MS, with a mean age of 39.6 years and 68% females. Nearly half of all DMD users had a diagnosis of depression, with prevalence ranging from 40.1% for IFNβ1a to 62.3% for immunoglobulins. The overall rate of MS relapses per patient and year was 0.34 (95% CI 0.33–0.34). During an average follow-up of 1,650 days, the majority (42.4%) of MS patients were adherent to DMD treatment (“continuous single users”), followed by patients interrupting treatment (39.5%, “interrupters”). Switch of DMD treatment (11.9%) was less frequent, and only 5.6% discontinued treatment. Treatment discontinuation was most common in users of natalizumab (7.5%) and IFNβ1b (7.0%). The most frequent SAE was hospitalization for depression, followed by any infectious disease and any malignancy. The incidence rate of all adverse events did not significantly differ across different DMDs.Conclusion: Treatment discontinuation with DMDs and treatment switch were rare. Causes of rather frequent DMD-treatment interruption have to be evaluated in further studies based on primary data collection. Active safety monitoring of new DMDs based on claims data requires large data sets to detect rare AEs and availability of up-to-date data.Keywords: multiple sclerosis, drug-use patterns, adverse events, claims data, disease-modifying drug

Capturing Data in Rare Disease Registries to Support Regulatory Decision Making: A Survey Study Among Industry and Other Stakeholders

Introduction In rare diseases, registry-based studies can be used to provide natural history data pre-approval and complement drug efficacy and/or safety knowledge post-approval. Objective The objective of this study was to investigate the opinion of stakeholders about key aspects of rare disease registries that are used to support regulatory decision making and to compare the responses of employees from industry to other stakeholders. Methods A web-based survey was used to gauge the importance of (1) common data elements (including safety outcomes), (2) data quality and (3) governance aspects that are generic across different rare diseases. The survey included 47 questions. The data were collected in the period April-October 2019. Results Seventy-three respondents completed >= 80% of the survey. Most of the respondents were from the industry (n = 42, 57%). For safety data, 31 (42%) respondents were in favour of collecting all adverse events. For data quality, the respondents found a level of 30% reasonable for source data verification. For missing data, a level of 20% was considered acceptable. Compared to responders from industry, the other stakeholders found it less relevant to share data with industry and found it less acceptable if the registry is financed by industry. Conclusions This study showed that the opinion towards data and governance is well aligned across parties, and issues of data and governance on their own should not pose a barrier to collaboration. This finding is supportive of the European Medicines Agency's efforts to encourage stakeholders to work with existing registries when collecting data to support regulatory decision making