Portnoff Jamie Michelle, Lewis David John
1 Foresight Group International AG, Zug, Switzerland.
2 Drug Safety & Epidemiology, Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland.
Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2017 Jul;51(4):486-493. doi: 10.1177/2168479017696264. Epub 2017 Mar 3.
Pharmacovigilance of patient support programs (PSPs) has been the subject of debate, legislation, and guidance, and regulatory inspections over the last half-a-dozen years. PSPs often involve direct contact between patients or caregivers and health care professionals and are sponsored by marketing authorization holders (MAHs). PSPs have no scientific hypothesis under study, and are not governed by a protocol. Adverse events and suspected adverse reactions are expected to arise. Management of safety data is governed by a patchwork of incongruous guidelines worldwide, leaving room for varying interpretations.
A survey of MAHs was conducted to inquire about methods, techniques and scope of pharmacovigilance activities concerning PSPs and similar organized data collection systems. The survey was conducted over a 6-week period by contacting pharmacovigilance operations managers in a broad range of MAHs.
The survey was completed by 18 of 35 MAHs. The vast majority of MAHs (94%) conduct market research. Patient support programs were sponsored or supported by 89% of the respondents, with 67% of MAHs sponsoring or supporting disease management programs or social media resources.
Pharmaceutical industry responses to the challenge of pharmacovigilance of patient support programs are varied. In general there has been a consistent response to the European pharmacovigilance regulations and the accompanying guidance introduced in June 2012. As evidenced by the following survey results, many companies have adopted a risk-based approach first assessing each PSP for probability of AE generation, and then setting up a contract and processes to ensure appropriate collection, collation, and assessment of reports of suspected adverse reactions. At the same time, the survey results indicate that many companies are not as mature in their oversight of PSPs. The authors recommend collaboration within the industry to define and agree to industry standard approaches for oversight of PSPs and the adoption of evidence-based simplification of the current regulatory guidelines concerning safety monitoring and reporting, as the current burden is onerous, and over a period of several years has not yielded any information on medically important new risks. Specifically, the authors recommend the formation of a CIOMS Expert Working Group to spearhead this industry collaboration to find a better path forward.
在过去六年中,患者支持项目(PSP)的药物警戒一直是辩论、立法、指导以及监管检查的主题。PSP通常涉及患者或护理人员与医疗保健专业人员之间的直接接触,且由营销授权持有人(MAH)赞助。PSP没有正在研究的科学假设,也不受方案的约束。预计会出现不良事件和疑似不良反应。全球范围内,安全数据管理受一系列不协调的指南拼凑而成的体系所支配,这使得不同的解释有了空间。
对MAH进行了一项调查,以询问有关PSP及类似有组织的数据收集系统的药物警戒活动的方法、技术和范围。通过联系广泛的MAH中的药物警戒运营经理,在为期6周的时间内开展了该调查。
35家MAH中有18家完成了调查。绝大多数MAH(94%)开展市场研究。89%的受访者赞助或支持患者支持项目,67%的MAH赞助或支持疾病管理项目或社交媒体资源。
制药行业对患者支持项目药物警戒挑战的应对方式各不相同。总体而言,对2012年6月出台的欧洲药物警戒法规及相关指南一直有一致的回应。如下调查结果所示,许多公司采用了基于风险的方法,首先评估每个PSP产生不良事件的可能性,然后建立合同和流程,以确保对疑似不良反应报告进行适当的收集、整理和评估。同时,调查结果表明,许多公司在对PSP的监督方面并不成熟。作者建议行业内进行合作,以定义并商定PSP监督的行业标准方法,并采用基于证据的方式简化当前有关安全监测和报告的监管指南,因为目前的负担繁重,且在数年时间里并未产生任何有关具有医学重要性的新风险的信息。具体而言,作者建议成立一个国际医学科学组织委员会(CIOMS)专家工作组,带头开展这一行业合作,以找到更好的前进道路。