[Dissemination and reporting bias of clinical and observational studies conducted in the Local health unit of Verona.] / Dissemination e reporting bias degli studi clinici e osservazionali condotti nell'ambito dell'Azienda unità locale socio sanitaria di Verona.

INTRODUCTION: Bias in dissemination and reporting of clinical research findings has an impact on the pooled summary utilised to produce clinical-therapeutic guidelines and recommendations. This analysis aims to evaluate the dissemination and reporting biases of interventional and observational studies conducted in the setting of the Local health authority of Verona (Aulss). The possible correlation between both biases and profit versus no-profit sponsors was also evaluated. METHODS: Verona's Aulss studies completed in the period 01.01.2014-31.01.2021 were extracted from the Clinical study register of the Veneto Region and any form of results' dissemination was identified and compared with the original protocol. Identified studies were stratified by profit or no-profit sponsor and results compared using the Chi-Square test. RESULTS: 67 studies (29 profit; 38 non-profit) were included in this analysis. 58.2% of the studies (n=39/67) reports at least one type of findings' dissemination, for 22.4% data-analysis or publication is in progress, while 19.4% has not been published. Regarding the evaluation on reporting bias, 36 of the 39 published studies were considered (n=19 profit; n=17 non-profit): 64% (23/36) showed inconsistencies between the results reported in the manuscript and the protocol. The number of non-compliant profit studies (n=15/19; 79%) was statistically higher than the compliant ones [n=8/17; 47%; (p=0.049; χ2=3.845)]. DISCUSSION: This study highlights that findings' dissemination occurs for the majority of the studies evaluated and that the odds of selective reporting are higher for industry funded studies than for publicly funded studies, affecting the quality of the research.

[Medicines: if their added value is not made explicit.] / Nuovi farmaci: è necessario conoscere il valore aggiunto.

Information on added therapeutic value of medicines should represent the basis for therapeutic decisions and ideally, before of that, for drug registration. A recent study assessed the availability and quality of such information provided by Medicines Regulatory Authorities and other national public health institutions in 8 European countries, and of tools facilitating the implementation of such information. This study highlighted for UK and Germany quite an advanced framework of evidence-based, comparative drug information for health professionals, decision-makers and for the general public. Other countries (including Italy) seem far behind. More efforts are warranted to make this information available and to develop sharp formats to make it easier to understand and put in context. Coordinated efforts at European level can help in the efficient production of evidence-based material. Specific plans would then be necessary to favor its local implementation.

Drug information by public health and regulatory institutions: Results of an 8-country survey in Europe.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the framework of drug information produced by public health and regulatory institutions in Europe. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We carried out a short survey asking editors of ISDB bulletins of the European region to indicate the main sources of drug information provided by public health and regulatory authorities in their countries, the specific kind of information produced and their opinions about strengths and weaknesses of such information. The availability of evaluations about the added therapeutic value of drugs and of tools facilitating the implementation of such information were particularly addressed and checked on the websites of those institutions. RESULTS: Answers pertaining to eight countries were available. Regulatory information and safety alerts are generally available, but just UK and Germany stand out by showing quite an advanced framework of evidence-based, comparative drug information for health professionals, decision-makers and for the general public. National plans to implement evidence-based drug information seem lacking. CONCLUSION: More efforts are warranted to develop sharp formats to make evidence-based drug information easier to access, understand and put in context, showing the place in therapy of medicines and their added therapeutic value. Harmonization of different sources, also at European level, would be important to favor their access and limit dispersion. Appropriate tools and specific plans are then necessary to favor implementation of information materials.

Risk Management Plans: are they a tool for improving drug safety?

PURPOSE: In 2005, new European legislation authorised Regulatory Agencies to require drug companies to submit a risk management plan (RMP) comprising detailed commitments for post-marketing pharmacovigilance. The aim of the study is to describe the characteristics of RMP for 15 drugs approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and their impact on post-marketing safety issues. METHODS: Of the 90 new Chemical Entities approved through a centralised procedure by the EMA during 2006 and 2007, 15 of them were selected and their safety aspects and relative RMPs analysed. All post-marketing communications released for safety reasons related to these drugs were also considered. RESULTS: A total of 157 safety specifications were established for the drugs assessed. Risk minimisation activities were foreseen for 5 drugs as training activities. Post-marketing safety issues emerged for 12 of them, leading to 39 type II variations in Summary of Product Characteristics (SPC). Nearly half of such variations, 19 (49%), concerned safety aspects not envisaged by the RMPs. Besides this, 9 Safety Communications were published for 6 out of 15 drugs assessed. CONCLUSION: The present study reveals several critical points on the way RMPs have been implemented. Several activities proposed by the RMPs do not appear to be adequate in dealing with the potential risks of drugs. Poor communication of risk to practitioners and to the public, and above all limited transparency for the total assessment of risk, seem to transform RMPs into a tool to reassure the public when inadequately evaluated drugs are granted premature marketing authorisation.