Global safety monitoring of COVID-19 vaccines: how pharmacovigilance rose to the challenge.

Pharmacovigilance (PV) came suddenly into the spotlight when several new vaccines, developed as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic, received emergency authorisation and were rolled out on a large scale in late 2020. The vaccines underwent stringent clinical trials and evaluation from regulatory authorities, but with the use of novel technology and an anticipated rapid and vast deployment of the vaccines, the importance of a well-functioning international post marketing safety surveillance system was stressed. International PV stakeholders were faced with several challenges due to the extent of the global vaccination campaign. The unprecedented volume of reports of suspected adverse events following immunization has led to the development and use of new tools. Furthermore, the collaboration between various PV stakeholders was encouraged and strengthened. PV rose to the challenges posed by the currently ongoing global COVID-19 vaccination campaign and successful adaptations were made in a short period of time. However, the pandemic has not ended yet, the vaccination campaign is far from being completed, and further challenges are anticipated. Advances made during the pandemic will be important to strengthen PV in future and ensure to advance medicines' safety together. Plain Language Summary: Global safety monitoring of the COVID-19 vaccines: challenges, preparations, and outlooks Pharmacovigilance (PV) is the umbrella term for all sciences and activities relating to the detection, assessment, understanding, and prevention of adverse effects relating to medicines or vaccines. PV came into the spotlight when several new vaccines were authorised and rolled out as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic.The anticipated extent of the global vaccine rollout stressed the importance of a well-functioning safety surveillance system and international collaborations between patients, health care workers, vaccine producers, regulatory authorities, and PV centres.The identification and communication of potential safety concerns showed that adaptations to PV processes made in a short period of time as well as international collaborations were successful. However, it is important to learn from experiences made so far and to make sure the positive advances are maintained in the future to advance medicines' safety together.

Montelukast and Nightmares: Further Characterisation Using Data from VigiBase.

INTRODUCTION: Montelukast is a medicine indicated for use in asthma. Psychiatric disorders including nightmares have not been described in clinical trials but during recent years have been included in the product information as having been reported post-marketing, without further description of the events. Previous descriptions in the scientific literature were based on limited numbers of reports or lacked detailed case information. OBJECTIVE: The study aim was to further characterise post-marketing adverse drug reactions for nightmares, suspected to be induced by montelukast, to facilitate safer use of the medicine by providing additional information to patients and healthcare professionals. METHODS: We clinically reviewed reports of nightmares with montelukast present in VigiBase, World Health Organization's global database of suspected adverse reactions to medicinal products, developed and maintained by the Uppsala Monitoring Centre, until 3 May, 2020. RESULTS: There were 1118 reports of nightmares with montelukast in VigiBase, which provided valuable descriptions of the nightmares as well as information about the impact on the daily lives, with many cases describing a severe impact of the nightmares. About half of the reports were classified as serious. Two thirds concerned children, with the largest age group represented being children aged 5-10 years. In most cases, the nightmares disappeared upon discontinuation of the drug but for some patients it took a long time until the nightmares ceased. CONCLUSIONS: The nature and potential severity of this adverse drug reaction, as described in these reports, present important knowledge for patients and healthcare providers that could help reduce drug-induced harm. This study highlights the value of post-marketing reports for further characterisation of known adverse drug reactions. The benefit-risk balance should be continuously monitored while patients are taking montelukast.

Post-Marketing Safety Profile of Vortioxetine Using a Cluster Analysis and a Disproportionality Analysis of Global Adverse Event Reports.

INTRODUCTION: Vortioxetine, a multimodal serotonergic drug, is widely used as treatment for major depressive disorder. Although on the market since late 2013, the data of the relative safety of vortioxetine, especially compared to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, are still scarce. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore the adverse event reporting pattern of vortioxetine through a cluster analysis. Furthermore, to compare the adverse event reporting pattern for vortioxetine with that of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. METHODS: Individual case safety reports for vortioxetine in VigiBase up to 1 November, 2019 were subjected to consensus clustering, to identify and describe natural groupings of reports based on their reported adverse events. A vigiPoint exploratory analysis compared vortioxetine to the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in terms of relative frequencies for a wide range of covariates, including patient sex and age, reported drugs and adverse events, and reporting country. Important differences were identified using odds ratios with adaptive statistical shrinkage. RESULTS: Thirty-six clusters containing at least five reports were identified and analysed. The two largest clusters included 48% of the vortioxetine reports and appeared to represent gastrointestinal adverse events and hypersensitivity adverse events. Other distinct clusters were related to, respectively, fatigue, aggression/suicidality, convulsion, medication errors, arthralgia/myalgia, increased weight, paraesthesia and anticholinergic effects. Some of these clusters are not labelled for vortioxetine, such as arthralgia/myalgia and paraesthesia, but are known adverse events for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. A vigiPoint analysis revealed a higher proportion of reports from consumers and non-health professionals for vortioxetine as well as higher relative reporting rates of gastrointestinal symptoms, pruritus and mood-related symptoms, consistent with the cluster analysis. CONCLUSIONS: A pattern of co-reported adverse events that is consistent with labelled adverse events for vortioxetine and the safety profile for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in general was revealed. Clusters of unlabelled adverse events were identified that reflect clinical entities that might represent signals of previously unknown adverse events. More extensive analyses of spontaneous reports may help to further understand the reporting pattern of adverse events.

Interstitial Lung Disease as an Adverse Drug Reaction in Japan: Exploration of Regulatory Actions as a Basis for High Reporting.

INTRODUCTION: Increased post-marketing reports of interstitial lung disease in Japan have been recognized. An understanding of its regional groundings can be important for the global pharmacovigilance community. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to explore the correlation between high rates of interstitial lung disease reporting and regulatory actions in Japan. METHODS: Post-marketing interstitial lung disease-related label changes and interstitial lung disease reports were classified by the anatomical therapeutic chemical classification groups of the suspected drugs. Regulatory actions for the top interstitial lung disease-reporting drugs were compared. The interstitial lung disease reporting patterns of protein kinase inhibitors were compared to those of methotrexate. RESULTS: Interstitial lung disease-related label changes predominantly occurred for drugs in the anatomical therapeutic chemical classification groups L, J, C, and herbal medicines. Interstitial lung disease was reported most frequently for L group, especially for the protein kinase inhibitors. The regulatory actions for those drugs with the highest number of interstitial lung disease reports (methotrexate, protease kinase inhibitors, gemcitabine, docetaxel) plus monoclonal antibodies were analyzed. The ratio of interstitial lung disease reports to all reports over time was initially high in the re-examination period, while it was constantly low after the period expired. The increase in interstitial lung disease reporting was observed for the drugs for which interstitial lung disease was designated as a priority item in the use-results survey. Methotrexate had more interstitial lung disease reports with multiple suspected drugs and fewer reports with high completeness than the protease kinase inhibitors. CONCLUSIONS: The high rates of interstitial lung disease reporting derived from mainly the anatomical therapeutic chemical classification group L drugs. Interstitial lung disease is the targeted adverse drug reaction in the use-results survey mandated in the re-examination of those drugs. This system provides at least one explanation for the high reporting of interstitial lung disease in Japan.

Risk Factor Considerations in Statistical Signal Detection: Using Subgroup Disproportionality to Uncover Risk Groups for Adverse Drug Reactions in VigiBase.

INTRODUCTION: In the treatment of the individual patient, a vision is to achieve the best possible balance between benefit and harm. Such tailored therapy relies upon the identification and characterisation of risk factors for adverse drug reactions. Information relevant to risk factor considerations can be captured in adverse event reports and could be utilised in statistical signal detection. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore whether statistical screening of a broad range of risk factors within a global database of adverse event reports could uncover signals of risk groups for adverse drug reactions. METHODS: Subgroup disproportionality analysis was applied to 15.4 million reports entered in VigiBase, the World Health Organization (WHO) global database of individual case safety reports, up to August 2017. Disproportionality analyses for drug-adverse event pairs were performed (1) in the full database and (2) across a range of subgroups defined by the following covariates: patient age, sex, body mass index, pregnancy, underlying condition, reporting country, and geographical region. Drug-adverse event pairs disproportionately over-reported in such subgroups, but not in the full database, and with a substantial difference between the two observed-to-expected ratios, were highlighted as statistical signals. These were further prioritised, through filtering and sorting, for clinical assessment, whereafter clinically relevant signals were communicated to the pharmacovigilance community and the public. RESULTS: Assessments were performed for 354 prioritised statistical signals, resulting in seven communicated signals describing previously unrecognised potential risk groups related to age (elderly), sex (male and female), body mass index (underweight and obese), and geographical region (Asia), all except one for already established adverse drug reactions. Important aspects considered in the assessments included an evaluation of the disproportionate over-reporting in the subgroup by reviewing alternative explanations and reporting patterns for similar drugs/adverse events/subgroups, and a search for plausible mechanisms to support the risk hypothesis. CONCLUSIONS: This study reveals that it is possible to uncover signals of risk groups for adverse drug reactions through incorporation of broad risk factor screening into statistical signal detection in a global database of adverse event reports. Our findings suggest the potential to use such statistical methodologies for risk characterisation in subpopulations of concern.

Data-Driven Identification of Adverse Event Reporting Patterns for Japan in VigiBase, the WHO Global Database of Individual Case Safety Reports.

INTRODUCTION: Adverse event reporting patterns vary between countries, reflecting differences in reporting culture, clinical practice and underlying patient populations. Japan collects about 60,000 domestic adverse event reports yearly and shares serious reports with the World Health Organization (WHO) Programme for International Drug Monitoring in VigiBase, the WHO global database of individual case safety reports. Understanding these reports in the global context can be helpful for regulators worldwide and can aid hypothesis-generation for Japanese-specific vulnerabilities to adverse drug reactions. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to explore differences in the reporting of adverse events between Japan and other countries. METHODS: vigiPoint is a method for data-driven exploration in pharmacovigilance. It outlines data subsets, pinpoints key features and facilitates expert review, using odds ratios subjected to statistical shrinkage to distinguish one data subset from another. Here, we compared 260,000 Japanese reports in E2B format classified as serious and received in VigiBase between 2013 and 2018 with 2.5 million reports from the rest of the world (of which 51% are from the USA). Reporting patterns for which the 99% credibility interval of the shrunk log-odds ratios were above 0.5 or below - 0.5 were flagged as key features. The shrinkage was set to the vigiPoint default corresponding to 1% of the size of the Japanese data subset. As a sensitivity analysis, additional vigiPoint comparisons were performed between Japan and, in turn, Africa, the Americas, the Americas except the USA and Canada, Asia and Europe. RESULTS: There were higher reporting rates in Japan from physicians (83% vs. 39%) and pharmacists (17% vs. 10%). It was also more common to see reports with more than five drugs per report (22% vs. 14%) and with a single adverse event (72% vs. 45%). More than half of the Japanese reports had a vigiGrade completeness score above 0.8 compared with about one in five from the rest of the world. There were more reports than expected for patients aged 70-89 years and fewer reports for adults aged 20-59 years. Adverse events reported more often in Japan included interstitial lung disease, abnormal hepatic function, decreased platelet count, decreased neutrophil count and drug eruption. Adverse events reported less often included death, fatigue, dyspnoea, pain and headache. Drugs reported more often in Japan included prednisolone, methotrexate and peginterferon alfa-2b. Drugs reported less often included rosiglitazone and adalimumab as well as blood substitutes and perfusion solutions. The findings were generally robust to the sensitivity analysis except for the less often reported drugs, many of which were rarely reported in most countries, except in the USA. CONCLUSION: Analysis of Japanese adverse event reporting patterns in a global context has revealed key features that may reflect possible pharmaco-ethnic vulnerabilities in the Japanese, as well as differences in adverse event reporting and clinical practice. This knowledge is essential in the global collaboration of signal detection afforded by the WHO Programme for International Drug Monitoring.

Characteristics, Quality and Contribution to Signal Detection of Spontaneous Reports of Adverse Drug Reactions Via the WEB-RADR Mobile Application: A Descriptive Cross-Sectional Study.

INTRODUCTION: Spontaneous reporting of suspected adverse drug reactions is key for efficient post-marketing safety surveillance. To increase usability and accessibility of reporting tools, the Web-Recognising Adverse Drug Reactions (WEB-RADR) consortium developed a smartphone application (app) based on a simplified reporting form. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the characteristics, quality and contribution to signals of reports submitted via the WEB-RADR app. METHODS: The app was launched in the UK, the Netherlands and Croatia between July 2015 and May 2016. Spontaneous reports submitted until September 2016 with a single reporter were included. For each country, app reports and reports received through conventional means in the same time period were compared to identify characteristic features. A random subset of reports was assessed for clinical quality and completeness. The contribution to signal detection was assessed by a descriptive analysis. RESULTS: Higher proportions of app reports were submitted by patients in the UK (28 vs. 18%) and Croatia (32 vs. 7%); both p < 0.01. In the Netherlands, the difference was small (60 vs. 57%; p = 0.5). The proportion of female patients and the median patient ages in app reports submitted by patients were similar to the reference. The proportion of reports of at least moderate quality was high in both samples (app: 78-85%, reference: 78-98%), for all countries. App reports contributed to detecting eight potential safety signals at the national level, four of which were eventually signalled. CONCLUSION: The WEB-RADR app offers a new route of spontaneous reporting that shows promise in attracting reports from patients and that could become an important tool in the future. Patient demographics are similar to conventional routes, report quality is sufficient despite a simplified reporting form, and app reports show potential in contributing to signal detection.

Does patient reporting lead to earlier detection of drug safety signals? A retrospective comparison of time to reporting between patients and healthcare professionals in a global database.

AIMS: To explore if there is a difference between patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs) in time to reporting drug-adverse drug reaction (ADR) associations that led to drug safety signals. METHODS: This was a retrospective comparison of time to reporting selected drug-ADR associations which led to drug safety signals between patients and HCPs. ADR reports were selected from the World Health Organization Global database of individual case safety reports, VigiBase. Reports were selected based on drug-ADR associations of actual drug safety signals. Primary outcome was the difference in time to reporting between patients and HCPs. The date of the first report for each individual signal was used as time zero. The difference in time between the date of the reports and time zero was calculated. Statistical differences in timing were analysed on the corresponding survival curves using a Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: In total, 2822 reports were included, of which 52.7% were patient reports, with a median of 25% for all included signals. For all signals, median time to signal detection was 10.4 years. Overall, HCPs reported earlier than patients: median 7.0 vs. 8.3 years (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients contributed a large proportion of reports on drug-ADR pairs that eventually became signals. HCPs reported 1.3 year earlier than patients. These findings strengthen the evidence on the value of patient reporting in signal detection and highlight an opportunity to encourage patients to report suspected ADRs even earlier in the future.

Safety Concerns Reported by Patients Identified in a Collaborative Signal Detection Workshop using VigiBase: Results and Reflections from Lareb and Uppsala Monitoring Centre.

INTRODUCTION: Patient reporting in pharmacovigilance is important and contributes to signal detection. However, descriptions of methodologies for using patient reports in signal detection are scarce, and published experiences of how patient reports are used in pharmacovigilance are limited to a few individual countries. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to explore the contribution of patient reports to global signal detection in VigiBase. METHODS: Data were retrieved from VigiBase in September 2016. Drug-event-combination series were restricted to those with >50% patient reports, defined as reporter type "Consumer/non-health professional" per E2B reporting standard. vigiRank was applied to patient reports to prioritize combinations for assessment. Product information for healthcare professionals (HCPs) as well as patient information leaflets (PILs) were used as reference for information on adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Staff from the Uppsala Monitoring Centre and the Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb categorized the combinations. Potential signals proceeded to a more in-depth clinical review to determine whether the safety concern should be communicated as a "signal." RESULTS: Of the 212 combinations assessed, 20 (9%) resulted in eight signals communicated within the World Health Organization (WHO) programme for international drug monitoring. Review of PILs revealed insufficient ADR descriptions for patients and examples of poor consistency with product information for HCPs. Patient narratives provided details regarding the experience and impact of ADRs and evidence that patients make causality and personal risk assessments. CONCLUSIONS: Safety concerns described in patient reports can be identified in a global database including previously unknown ADRs as well as new aspects of known ADRs. Patient reports provide unique information valuable in signal assessment and should be included in signal detection. Novel approaches to highlighting patient reports in statistical signal detection can further improve the contribution of patient reports to pharmacovigilance.