Department of Non-Communicable Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
Department of Non-Communicable Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
BMJ Open. 2019 Oct 28;9(10):e028133. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028133.
To assess the use, and evaluate the usefulness, of non-interventional studies and routinely collected healthcare data in postmarketing assessments conducted by the European Medicines Agency (EMA).
We reviewed and systematically assessed all referrals to the EMA made due to safety or efficacy concerns that were evaluated between 1 January 2013 and 30 June 2017. We extracted information from the assessment report and the referral notification. Two reviewers independently assessed the contribution of non-interventional evidence to decision-making.
The preliminary evidence leading to the assessment in 52 eligible referrals was mostly from spontaneous reports (cited in 26 of 52 referrals) and randomised trials (22/52). In contrast, many evidence types were used for the full assessment. Non-interventional studies were frequently used in the full assessment for the evaluation of product safety (31/52) and product efficacy (18/52). In particular, non-interventional studies were relied on for the evaluation of safety and efficacy in subgroups, the evaluation of safety relating to a rare adverse event, understanding product usage and misuse and for evaluation of the effectiveness of risk minimisation measures. The most common recommendations were changes to product information (43/52) and marketing authorisation withdrawal or suspension (12/52). In the majority of referrals, non-interventional evidence was judged to contribute to the decision made (30/52) and in three referrals it was the primary source of evidence.
European regulatory decision-making relies on multiple evidence types, particularly randomised trials, spontaneous reports and non-interventional studies. Non-interventional studies had an important role particularly for the characterisation and quantification of adverse events, the evaluation of product usage and for evaluating the effectiveness of regulatory action to minimise risk.
评估欧洲药品管理局(EMA)进行的上市后评估中使用非干预性研究和常规收集的医疗保健数据的情况,并评估其有用性。
我们回顾并系统评估了 2013 年 1 月 1 日至 2017 年 6 月 30 日期间因安全性或疗效问题而向 EMA 提出的所有建议。我们从评估报告和建议通知中提取信息。两名评审员独立评估了非干预性证据对决策的贡献。
52 项符合条件的建议中,初步证据主要来自自发报告(26/52)和随机对照试验(22/52)。相比之下,许多证据类型用于全面评估。非干预性研究在全面评估中常用于产品安全性(31/52)和产品疗效(18/52)的评估。特别是,非干预性研究用于评估亚组的安全性和疗效、评估罕见不良事件相关的安全性、了解产品使用和误用情况以及评估风险最小化措施的有效性。最常见的建议是更改产品信息(43/52)和撤回或暂停上市许可(12/52)。在大多数建议中,非干预性证据被认为对决策有贡献(30/52),在三个建议中,它是主要的证据来源。
欧洲监管决策依赖于多种证据类型,特别是随机对照试验、自发报告和非干预性研究。非干预性研究在描述和量化不良事件、评估产品使用情况以及评估监管行动有效性以最小化风险方面发挥了重要作用。