Encorafenib, binimetinib, and cetuximab in BRAF V600E-mutated colorectal cancer: an early post-marketing phase vigilance study.

BACKGROUND: Triplet and doublet regimens of encorafenib plus cetuximab with and without binimetinib, respectively, were approved in Japan for unresectable, metastatic, BRAF V600E-mutated colorectal cancer (mCRC) that had progressed after 1-2 prior chemotherapies. This early post-marketing phase vigilance (EPPV) study collected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) from Japanese patients to ensure safety measures as appropriate. METHODS: Patients with BRAF V600E mCRC who received the triplet or doublet regimens in Japan were selected for this study. ADRs were collected as spontaneous reports between November 27, 2020 and May 26, 2021. Serious ADRs were evaluated according to guidelines of the International Council for Harmonisation and the EudraVigilance list of Important Medical Event Terms. RESULTS: An estimated 550 Japanese patients with mCRC received the triplet or doublet regimens during the 6-month EPPV period. Overall, 101 and 42 patients reported ADRs and serious ADRs, respectively. No ADRs leading to death were reported. The most frequently reported ADRs were nausea (17 patients), serous retinal detachment (16), decreased appetite (12), diarrhea (11), and vomiting (11). Among the important identified/potential risks that are defined in the risk management plans for encorafenib and binimetinib, eye disorder-related ADRs were observed in 32 patients, rhabdomyolysis-related ADRs in 12, hemorrhage-related ADRs in 7, and hepatic dysfunction-related ADRs in 7. Of 22 patients with serious eye disorders, 20 recovered or were recovering during the EPPV period. CONCLUSION: The safety profile in this EPPV study was similar to that from the phase III BEACON CRC study and no new safety concerns were identified.

Survey of the Description of “Medication Guides for Patients” and “Early Post-Marketing Phase Vigilance” on Additional Risk Minimization Activities of Risk Management Plans / 医薬品情報学

Objective: The risk management plan (RMP) is a useful information source for healthcare professionals, including pharmacists, to ensure drug safety. The “risk minimization activities” (RMA) of the RMP are especially important elements for healthcare professionals. It is known that “Medication Guides for Patients” (MGP) and “Early post-marketing phase vigilance” (EPPV) are items listed as part of the RMA. However, the creation of MGPs and the implementation of EPPVs are not performed for all medicines. In a previous study, it was difficult to evaluate this sufficiently with the safety specifications. The aim of this investigation was to evaluate RMAs, especially MGPs and EPPVs, not in terms of the safety specifications of RMP.Methods: The previously published RMPs of 177 drugs were obtained on February 22,2016, and used in the analysis. The relationship between the creation of the MGP and the description in the RMA and the relationship between the conduct described in the EPPV and the description in RMA was investigated for each medicine.Results: An MGP was created in 151 of the analyzed drugs. Of these, it was not listed in the RMA of 40 drugs. In contrast, EPPV was not listed in RMA in 2 out of 33 drugs when underway. EPPV was described in the RMA of 33 of the EPPV finished drugs. The time lag from the end of EPPV until the revision of the RMP was 4.5 month son average.Conclusion: MGPs and EPPVs are created especially for drugs requiring patient education, information provision, or safety monitoring. Therefore, for drugs for which MGPs or EPPVs are required, they should be listed in the RMA. In this study, the time lag of RMP revision was also highlighted as a problem. In order to promote the utilization of RMP by pharmacists, these issues should be resolved.

Evaluation of Adverse Drug Reaction Reports in Early Post-marketing Vigilance Phase / 医薬品情報学

<b>Objective: </b>The purpose of this study is to identify the problems in the adverse drug report (ADR) system in early post-marketing vigilance phase (EPM phase) in Japan.<br><b>Methods: </b>The incidence of all ADRs and the ratio of serious ADRs were compared between the new drug application phase (ND phase) and the EPM phase.  The target medicines were Moxifloxacin (Avelox®tablets, 400mg), Gatifloxacin (Gatiflo®tablets, 100mg) and Prulifloxacin (Sword®tablets, 100mg).<br><b>Results: </b>The average incidence of all ADRs in the ND phase was 100-fold greater than that in the EPM phase.  There were also 2-fold differences in the ratio of serious ADRs of individual medicines.<br><b>Conclusion: </b>There are several problems with the ADR system in the EPM phase in Japan.  It is currently possible that the implementation of EPM will vary between in individual medicines and companies.  This suggests that the present data cannot be applied universally.  Thus, there is an urgent need to standardize the implementation of EPM.