Postmarket Surveillance

According to a commentary by former Institute of Medicine (IOM) committee members, published this week in the New England Journal of Medicine, increased “fast-tracking” of drug approvals (i.e., for medical conditions with no effective treatment) necessitates a counterbalance of enhanced postmarket surveillance and ethical governance throughout the lifecycle of a drug.  The authors of the report argue that the FDA, when requiring that a postmarked study be initiated, has a unique ethical obligation to research participants, which “cannot be handed off to contractors or the industry sponsor.”  Furthermore, “because some postmarked trials are required specifically to address mounting concerns that the drug’s risks may outweigh its benefits, there are heightened obligations to ensure that potential research participants understand the risks of enrollment.”  Because the volume of postmarked studies is increasing – due not only to FDA-mandated research, but also to increased emphasis on comparative-effectiveness – the benefit-risk balance for comparable study designs can vary depending upon the purpose for which a specific study is being conducted.  The challenges, therefore, for ensuring truly informed consent by study participants can vary widely.

Source:  Science Codex

Tags : , , , , | add comments

Linguamatics, the leader in natural language processing (NLP)-based text mining, announced that the Federal Drug Administration’s (FDA) Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) has licensed its 12E text mining platform as a discovery and decision support tool to supplement laboratory research efforts on drug safety.  The FDA will use the platform to review published literature and drug product labels to address key biomedical issues, including mechanisms of drug toxicity and disease processes.  In addition to document retrieval, the 12E platform can identify, extract, synthesize, and analyze relevant facts and relationships (e.g., between genes and diseases, drugs and side effects).  Customers include top tier commercial, academic, and governmental organizations, including 9 of the top 10 global pharmaceutical companies.  The 12E platform is available both as an in-house or cloud-based system.

Typical applications in pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and healthcare include:
•    Mapping gene-disease relationships and identifying potentially novel therapeutic targets
•    Biomarker discovery
•    Drug repurposing
•    Drug safety
•    Patent analysis
•    Clinical trial site selection and study design
•    Mining electronic medical records to improve prediction of health outcomes
•    Translational medicine
•    Competitive intelligence
•    Social media mining
•    Subjective data mining (sentiment analysis, key opinion mining)

SourcesBioSpace and Business Weekly

Tags : , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | add comments

Drug Safety: Tip of the Iceberg

Posted by cdavenport on Thursday Jun 7, 2012 Under Drug Safety, FDA, Post-market Surveillance, Risk Management, toxicity

The 10 drugs with the largest numbers of reports sent directly to the FDA by healthcare practitioners and consumers in 2011 in order of frequency are Pradaxa, Coumadin, Levaquin, Carboplatin, Zestril, Cisplatin, Zocor, Cymbalta, Cipro and Bactrim.  It is interesting to note that just two of these drugs were first introduced in the last decade (Pradaxa and Cymbalta), and only one in the previous year (Pradaxa), suggesting that major drug safety issues are not confined to recently approved drugs.  On one hand, this shows that FDA and manufacturer safety surveillance programs have identified these significant safety risks. On the other, it illustrates that placing warnings in product information only begins the process of managing drug safety risks.   Relative rates vs. report expectations are detailed.

These data come from QuarterWatch™ an Institute for Safe Medication Practices surveillance program that monitors all serious and fatal adverse drug events (ADEs) reported to the Food and Drug Administration through MedWatch, its adverse event reporting system.  The goal is to identify signals that may represent important new drug safety issues.

Source:  Philly.com/Health

Tags : , , , , , , , , , , , | add comments

An Institute of Medicine (IOM) committee report, recommends that the FDA take proactive steps to continue monitoring drug safety after initial approval and throughout the market lifecycle.   Post-market evidence is far greater than what the FDA has when deciding upon initial approval.  The IOM recommendation is that the initial approval is viewed as just one early step in a process that requires continuous, long-term monitoring (the “lifecycle approach”).  The report makes recommendations about how post-market research should be conducted.  The committee found that while randomized controlled trials remain the gold standard for studying drug effectiveness, observational studies have ethical and practical benefits over clinical trials post-approval.  Safety results can be obtained more quickly, therefore regulatory action can be initiated earlier.  One of the key report recommendations is that upon approval, each drug will have a single, publicly available Benefit and Risk Assessment Management Plan (BRAMP) to serve as a central, evolving repository of side effects and other information.  As a centralized comprehensive record, the BRAMP will include a description, a benefit/risk assessment of any safety questions that exist when a drug is approved as well as any that emerge over the course of its market lifecycle, and details on any regulatory actions taken and their results.  Furthermore, it was recommended that the FDA’s drug surveillance systems could be improved through use of various technological and methodological advances (e.g., use of natural language processing for review of electronic medical records).  The possibility was also raised that with a more robust post-approval monitoring process, the more flexible regulatory authorities could be in the pre-approval stage.

SourceMedical News Today, and HealthCanal.com

Tags : , , , , , , , | add comments

Adverse Preclinical Events – Now What?

Posted by cdavenport on Thursday Aug 4, 2011 Under Drug Safety, TigerU

Drug development is a complicated, often convoluted process.  The ability to predict drug toxicity in humans from nonclinical data remains a major challenge.  Since you can’t “erase” an adverse event, optimization of preclinical dose selection is essential.  This presentation outlines the process for dealing with adverse preclinical / nonclinical events in order to 1) optimize the chances of successful drug development, or 2) to create a scientific basis for early termination of drug development.  Conclusion: Experience counts!  There is no single answer for all problems.  Use of sound scientific and business judgement generally yields the best outcome.

Tags : , , , , , , , | add comments

In order to keep our competitive edge, the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) is placing increased emphasis on strengthening both the field and application of regulatory science relative to pharmaceutical research, development, review, and post-market surveillance.  The FDA also has a mandate to recognize areas of unmet public health need and try to galvanize action to move appropriate new products through the pipeline and into the market.  The FDA has the responsibility, therefore, not just to review and approve products if the data support that decision, but also to follow these products once marketed to answer critical questions about efficacy and safety.  Examination of products across their life cycle enables not only the identification and analysis of emerging safety signals, but also facilitates the continual balancing of risks and benefits.

Research studies, both preclinical and clinical, that form the basis for approval of medical products are increasingly being performed in other countries and often in networks of other countries.   For this reason, international recognition of both the scientific appropriateness and ethical conduct of those studies becomes increasingly important to global regulatory bodies.  A key understanding is that if a safety concern develops for an approved drug, it does not necessarily reflect that a mistake was made.  It may instead reflect new emerging knowledge about that drug in practical use.  Regulatory safety has to be a dynamic process.  The desire is to proactively ensure that the right studies are done so that the best possible decisions result.  However, there isn’t always an absolute, clear decision to be made; resolution, therefore, requires a dynamic balancing of risks and benefits.  Questions need to be asked about whether certain subpopulations of patients may benefit from targeted use of a drug, or whether the safety concerns are sufficient to mean a more active withdrawal of a product from the market.   Advances in science and technology need to be better incorporated into the regulatory process, with a key area being safety science.   To continue to strengthen the science of regulatory safety, the need is to broaden not only the kinds of preclinical and clinical studies that can be done to deepen our understanding of safety, but also to broaden our understanding of how to apply and weight that data to further the science of risk management.

Source: Interview between Dr. Eli Adashi, Professor of Medical Science at Brown University and host of Medscape One-on-One, and Dr. Margaret Hamburg, Commissioner of the US Food and Drug Administration.  MedScape Today.

Tags : , , , , , , , | add comments

All medical products pose risks and postmarketing surveillance is critical to expanding the limited evidence base that exists when new drug products are approved.  Through initiation of the Sentinel Initiative (May 2008), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is developing the capacity for actively monitoring the safety/toxicity of approved medical products using the electronic health information in claims systems, inpatient and outpatient medical records, and patient registries.   The pilot program, Mini-Sentinel, uses a distributed data network (rather than a centralized database) of health plans and other organizations to create data files in a standard format while maintaining physical and operational control over their own patient-level data, thus ensuring patient privacy.   Laying the groundwork for that system has required input from both public and private organizations.  These data partners can obtain full-text medical records, when necessary, to confirm diagnoses or exposures and to determine the existence or severity of risk factors.

The initial focus of Mini-Sentinel has been on developing the ability to use medical claims data.  Over the next year, laboratory-test results and vital signs will be added.  The FDA will soon begin to actively monitor the data, seeking answers to specific questions (e.g., frequency of myocardial infarction among users of oral hypoglycemic agents).  Using the Mini-Sentinel system, the FDA will also be able to obtain rapid responses to new questions about medical products and, eventually, to evaluate the health effects of its regulatory actions.

Source: New England Journal of Medicine

Tags : , , , , | add comments


In the FDA’s effort to make both its decisions and clinical trial data more transparent to the public, Agency decisions have become more available for public debate.  Sophisticated analyses (increasingly by third parties) of publically available data may present to the FDA a more complex picture of drug safety, as not all posted clinical trials fit standard regulatory paradigms, are sufficiently powered, have similar patient selection criteria,  or collect and analyze similar parameters. Changes made in the interest of public health, therefore, may further complicate regulatory assessment of potential changes to drug status.  For these reasons, among others, drug safety decisions are rarely “black and white.”  To its credit, the “new” FDA seems more open to try a middle path (e.g., the diabetes medicine Avandia will remain on the market under a restricted access program [risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, or REMS]).  Even more unusual, however, was public admission by the FDA of disagreement about Avandia within its own scientific ranks.  Furthermore, 3 top FDA officials co-authored a New England Journal of Medicine article explaining their rationale.  Interpretation of clinical trial data, however, is relatively easy compared to analyses of post-market safety data, where patient populations and indications are even more diverse.  It will be interesting to see how public access to evolving data (e.g., the anticipated FDA post-marketing drug safety (public) website) will affect Agency decisions, the timing of those decisions, and how much influence third-party analyses will have on regulatory outcomes.  The upside to the ensuing debate may be heightened public awareness of the importance of risk management, as all drugs have risk.  With the down-spiral of new drugs both coming to and remaining on the market, an outstanding question is whether the public and subsequently the regulatory environment will become more or less risk adverse as our perception of drug safety and risk management evolves.

Source: The New York Times

Tags : , , , , , , | add comments

Drug safety may be underestimated for chronic-use drugs.  The FDA has placed more resources and requirements in evaluating drugs premarket than it does in monitoring what happens to patients after years of taking a medication.  Drugs that have recently underscored the potential dangers of chronic use are Avandia (diabetes; enhanced cardiovascular risk) and bisphosphonates (e.g., Fosamax, Actonel, and Boniva;  enhanced bone fracture/degeneration risks).  Although one proposed solution is the development of a national database that would track drug use and complications, this does not necessarily address duration of use, presence/duration of concomitant medications/supplements, patient age and medical history, genetic predisposition, etc.   Predominant trends will likely be noted using the proposed methodology, but a more multifaceted analysis will still be necessary to optimize the risk/benefit for individual patients.

Source: FairWarning

Tags : , , | 2 comments

As of 15 June 2010, the new Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Postmarketing Drug Safety Evaluation website was launched.   The FDA posted postmarket safety evaluations for 26 drugs approved between September 2007 and January 2008 and is reviewing an additional 20 or 30 others. To date, no label changes have been recommended.

In accordance with the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (FDAAA), the FDA now summarizes information about ongoing and completed postmarketing safety evaluations of serious adverse events (SAE) submitted to the FDA for New Drug Applications (NDAs) and Biologic License Applications (BLAs) that have been approved since 27 September 2007.   These evaluations are completed to determine if there are any new SAE not previously identified during product development, known side effects reported in unusual number, or potential new safety concerns identified post approval.  These postmarketing evaluations will be performed no later than 18 months following approval (i.e., early in the product’s marketed life cycle) or after its use by 10,000 individuals, whichever is later.

To develop these postmarketing safety evaluations the FDA assesses several data sources including:
• The product’s pre-approval safety profile
• The product’s current FDA-approved label
• Reports made to FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System (AERS)
• Reports made to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)
• Manufacturer-submitted periodic safety reports
• Medical literature
• Drug utilization databases
• Data from post-approval clinical trials and other studies, when applicable

FDA analyses for the safety evaluations include:
• Data mining analysis of all adverse event reports in the AERS or VAERS databases
• Review serious adverse event reports
• Medication error analysis
• Product utilization analysis
• Risk management review
• Analysis of post-approval safety data from clinical trials and other studies, when applicable

Summaries of FDA safety analyses on recently approved products will now be prepared quarterly and posted on FDA’s website along with a brief discussion of the steps FDA is taking to address any identified safety issues.

Related posts:

New On-line Quarterly Drug Safety Summary and REMS are Complimentary Efforts
Postmarket Drug Safety: Institute of Medicine Recommendations to FDA

Sources:

FDA-1,   FDA-2,   Resource Shelf,   USA Today,   World Pharma News

To share this post easily, cut and paste:  New FDA Postmarketing Drug Safety Evaluation Website   http://bit.ly/b79Fqs

Tags : , , , , , | 1 comment