Randomised controlled trials and \u27unexpected\u27 adverse events associated with newly released drugs : improvements in pharmacovigilance systems are necessary for real-time identification of patient safety risks

Adverse drug events are one of the major causes of morbidity in developed countries, yet the drugs involved in these events have been trialled and approved on the basis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), regarded as the study design that will produce the best evidence. Though the focus on adverse drug events has been primarily on processes and outcomes associated with the use of these approved drugs, attention needs to be directed to the way in which the RCT study design is structured. The implementation of controls to achieve internal validity in RCTs may be the very controls that reduce external validity, and contribute to the levels of adverse drug events associated with the release of a new drug to the wider patient population. An examination of these controls, and the effects they can have on patient safety, underscore the importance of knowing about how the clinical trials of a drug are undertaken, rather than relying only on the recorded outcomes.As the majority of new drugs are likely to be prescribed to older patients who have one or more comorbidities in addition to that targeted by a new drug, and as the RCTs of those drugs typically under-represent the elderly and exclude patients with multiple comorbidities, timely assessment of drug safety signals is essential.It is unlikely that regulatory jurisdictions will undertake a reassessment of safety issues for drugs that are already approved. Instead, reliance has been placed on adverse drug event reporting systems. Such systems have a very low reporting rate, and most adverse drug events remain unreported, to the eventual cost to patients and healthcare systems.This makes it essential for near real-time systems that can pick up safety signals as they occur, so that modifications to the product information (or removal of the drug) can be implemented

Using clinical trial data and linked administrative health data to reduce the risk of adverse events associated with the uptake of newly released drugs by older Australians: a model process

BackgroundThe study was undertaken to evaluate the contribution of a process which uses clinical trial data plus linked de-identified administrative health data to forecast potential risk of adverse events associated with the use of newly released drugs by older Australian patients. MethodsThe study uses publicly available data from the clinical trials of a newly released drug to ascertain which patient age groups, gender, comorbidities and co-medications were excluded in the trials. It then uses linked de-identified hospital morbidity and medications dispensing data to investigate the comorbidities and co-medications of patients who suffer from the target morbidity of the new drug and who are the likely target population for the drug. The clinical trial information and the linked morbidity and medication data are compared to assess which patient groups could potentially be at risk of an adverse event associated with use of the new drug. ResultsApplying the model in a retrospective real-world scenario identified that the majority of the sample group of Australian patients aged 65 years and over with the target morbidity of the newly released COX-2-selective NSAID rofecoxib also suffered from a major morbidity excluded in the trials of that drug, indicating a substantial potential risk of adverse events amongst those patients. This risk was borne out in post-release morbidity and mortality associated with use of that drug. ConclusionsClinical trial data and linked administrative health data can together support a prospective assessment of patient groups who could be at risk of an adverse event if they are prescribed a newly released drug in the context of their age, gender, comorbidities and/or co-medications. Communication of this independent risk information to prescribers has the potential to reduce adverse events in the period after the release of the new drug, which is when the risk is greatest. Note: The terms \u27adverse drug reaction\u27 and \u27adverse drug event\u27 have come to be used interchangeably in the current literature. For consistency, the authors have chosen to use the wider term \u27adverse drug event\u27 (ADE). <br /

Pharmaceutical ecomonics and politics vs. patient safety : Lumiracoxib in Australia

Lumiracoxib (Prexige&copy;) 200 mg was listed in Australia&rsquo;s Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) schedules on 01 August 2006. The listing was intended as a cost-minimisation strategy, as lumiracoxib 200 mg was deemed equivalent in therapeutic effect to celecoxib (Celebrex&copy;) 200 mg, and was available at a lower cost. By the time of listing on the PBS, a safety re-evaluation of the recommended daily dose of lumiracoxib was being considered in other national regulatory jurisdictions. Within 3 months of listing, the manufacturer revised the recommended dosage to half that of the PBS-listed dosage. However, the PBS listing was neither revoked nor modified. At the time of listing on the PBS, lumiracoxib was known to be 17 times as biochemically selective in inhibiting the COX-2 isoform as celecoxib, and twice as selective as rofecoxib, already withdrawn for safety reasons. Safety concerns had already been raised about adverse hepatic outcomes on daily doses of lumiracoxib 200 mg. Communication of information about the risk potential of lumiracoxib was inadequate. Economic and political considerations were prioritised over patient safety, and lumiracoxib 200 mg remained available via the PBS until 10 August 2007, when it was withdrawn for safety reasons following cases of hepatic morbidity and mortality.<br /

Improving benefit-harm assessment of glucocorticoid therapy incorporating the patient perspective: The OMERACT glucocorticoid core domain set

Objective: Our primary objective was to develop an Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) core domain set to capture the impact of glucocorticoids (GC), both positive and negative, on patients with Rheumatic conditions. Methods: The OMERACT Filter 2.1 was used to guide core domain selection. Systematic literature reviews, qualitative studies and quantitative surveys were conducted by the OMERACT GC Impact working group to identify candidate domains for a core domain set. A summary of prior work and Delphi exercise were presented at the OMERACT 2020 virtual GC workshop. A proposed GC Impact core domain set derived from this work was presented for discussion in facilitated breakout groups. Participants voted on the proposed GC Impact core domain set. Results: 113 people, including 23 patient research partners, participated in two virtual workshops conducted at different times on the same day. The proposed mandatory domains to be evaluated in clinical trials involving GCs were: infection, bone fragility, hypertension, diabetes, weight, fatigue, mood disturbance and death. In addition, collection of disease specific outcomes was included in the core domain set as “mandatory in specific circumstances”. The proposed core domain set was endorsed by 100% (23/23) of the patient research partners and 92% (83/90) of the remaining participants, including clinicians, researchers and industry stakeholders. Conclusion: A GC Impact core domain set was endorsed at the OMERACT 2020 virtual workshop. The OMERACT GC Impact working group will now progress to identify, develop and validate measurement tools to best address these domains in clinical trials

Improving benefit-harm assessment of glucocorticoid therapy incorporating the patient perspective: The OMERACT glucocorticoid core domain set

Objective: Our primary objective was to develop an Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) core domain set to capture the impact of glucocorticoids (GC), both positive and negative, on patients with Rheumatic conditions. Methods: The OMERACT Filter 2.1 was used to guide core domain selection. Systematic literature reviews, qualitative studies and quantitative surveys were conducted by the OMERACT GC Impact working group to identify candidate domains for a core domain set. A summary of prior work and Delphi exercise were presented at the OMERACT 2020 virtual GC workshop. A proposed GC Impact core domain set derived from this work was presented for discussion in facilitated breakout groups. Participants voted on the proposed GC Impact core domain set. Results: 113 people, including 23 patient research partners, participated in two virtual workshops conducted at different times on the same day. The proposed mandatory domains to be evaluated in clinical trials involving GCs were: infection, bone fragility, hypertension, diabetes, weight, fatigue, mood disturbance and death. In addition, collection of disease specific outcomes was included in the core domain set as “mandatory in specific circumstances”. The proposed core domain set was endorsed by 100% (23/23) of the patient research partners and 92% (83/90) of the remaining participants, including clinicians, researchers and industry stakeholders. Conclusion: A GC Impact core domain set was endorsed at the OMERACT 2020 virtual workshop. The OMERACT GC Impact working group will now progress to identify, develop and validate measurement tools to best address these domains in clinical trials

Improving benefit-harm assessment of glucocorticoid therapy incorporating the patient perspective: The OMERACT glucocorticoid core domain set

Objective: Our primary objective was to develop an Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) core domain set to capture the impact of glucocorticoids (GC), both positive and negative, on patients with Rheumatic conditions. Methods: The OMERACT Filter 2.1 was used to guide core domain selection. Systematic literature reviews, qualitative studies and quantitative surveys were conducted by the OMERACT GC Impact working group to identify candidate domains for a core domain set. A summary of prior work and Delphi exercise were presented at the OMERACT 2020 virtual GC workshop. A proposed GC Impact core domain set derived from this work was presented for discussion in facilitated breakout groups. Participants voted on the proposed GC Impact core domain set. Results: 113 people, including 23 patient research partners, participated in two virtual workshops conducted at different times on the same day. The proposed mandatory domains to be evaluated in clinical trials involving GCs were: infection, bone fragility, hypertension, diabetes, weight, fatigue, mood disturbance and death. In addition, collection of disease specific outcomes was included in the core domain set as “mandatory in specific circumstances”. The proposed core domain set was endorsed by 100% (23/23) of the patient research partners and 92% (83/90) of the remaining participants, including clinicians, researchers and industry stakeholders. Conclusion: A GC Impact core domain set was endorsed at the OMERACT 2020 virtual workshop. The OMERACT GC Impact working group will now progress to identify, develop and validate measurement tools to best address these domains in clinical trials