A cross-sectional survey to evaluate prescribers' knowledge and understanding of safety messages following Dengvaxia® product information update.

PURPOSE: We evaluated the effectiveness of additional risk minimisation measures (aRMMs; i.e., educational materials) distributed to prescribers to ensure that only individuals with evidence of prior dengue infection (PDI, i.e., dengue seropositive) would be vaccinated with the tetravalent dengue vaccine (CYD-TDV; Dengvaxia®). METHODS: A survey was conducted in 2020 among 300 CYD-TDV prescribers in Brazil and Thailand to ascertain three success criteria: prescribers' awareness of the materials (receiving and reading them); knowledge of the key messages; and whether their self-reported behaviour regarding practice-related scenarios was aligned with the updated guidance. RESULTS: The aRMMs were not generally effective as <80% of prescribers in both countries met two of the three predefined success criteria. In Brazil, 98.7% were aware of the aRMMs whereas in Thailand this criterion was fulfilled by 74.0%. Almost all prescribers knew that CYD-TDV was recommended only in individuals with PDI (98.7% and 96.7% in Brazil and Thailand, respectively). In Brazil, where vaccination was restricted to those with a documented history of PDI, 11.3% considered that confirmation should be done through a blood test. More than 75% in both countries considered additional signs of dengue, as early warning signs, and not only those regarded as such by the 2009 WHO guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: These results do not support that the aRMMs were effective as the predefined success criteria were not met. The use of reliable rapid diagnosis tests together with the revised prescribing information and educational materials will facilitate the implementation and compliance with pre-vaccination screening for CYD-TDV eligibility.

Overview of the European post-authorisation study register post-authorization studies performed in Europe from September 2010 to December 2018.

BACKGROUND: The European post-authorisation study (EU PAS) register is a repository launched in 2010 by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). All EMA-requested PAS, commonly observational studies, must be recorded in this register. Multi-database studies (MDS) leveraging secondary data have become an important strategy to conduct PAS in recent years, as reflected by the type of studies registered in the EU PAS register. OBJECTIVES: To analyse and describe PAS in the EU PAS register, with focus on MDS. METHODS: Studies in the EU PAS register from inception to 31st December 2018 were described concerning transparency, regulatory obligations, scope, study type (e.g., observational study, clinical trial, survey, systematic review/meta-analysis), study design, type of data collection and target population. MDS were defined as studies conducted through secondary use of >1 data source not linked at patient-level. Data extraction was carried out independently by 14 centres with expertise in pharmacoepidemiology, using publicly available information in the EU PAS register including study protocol, whenever available, using a standardised data collection form. For validation purposes, a second revision of key fields for a 15% random sample of studies was carried out by a different centre. The inter-rater reliability (IRR) was then calculated. Finally, to identify predictors of primary data collection-based studies/versus those based on secondary use of healthcare databases) or MDS (vs. non-MDS), odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated fitting univariate logistic regression models. RESULTS: Overall, 1426 studies were identified. Clinical trials (N = 30; 2%), systematic reviews/meta-analyses (N = 16; 1%) and miscellaneous study designs (N = 46; 3%) were much less common than observational studies (N = 1227; 86%). The protocol was available for 63% (N = 360) of 572 observational studies requested by a competent authority. Overall, 36% (N = 446) of observational studies were based fully or partially on primary data collection. Of 757 observational studies based on secondary use of data alone, 282 (37%) were MDS. Drug utilisation was significantly more common as a study scope in MDS compared to non-MDS studies. The overall percentage agreement among collaborating centres that collected the data concerning study variables was highest for study type (93.5%) and lowest for type of secondary data (67.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Observational studies were the most common type of studies in the EU PAS register, but 30% used primary data, which is more resource-intensive. Almost half of observational studies using secondary data were MDS. Data recording in the EU PAS register may be improved further, including more widespread availability of study protocols to improve transparency.

A review of the sampling methodology used in studies evaluating the effectiveness of risk minimisation measures in Europe.

PURPOSE: This review aims to describe the sampling methodology used in studies assessing effectiveness of risk minimisation measures (RMMs) in the European Union. METHODS: The European Union electronic Register of Post-Authorization Studies (EU PAS Register) was searched to identify studies that assessed the effectiveness of RMMs and recruited a target population of healthcare professionals (HCPs), sites or patients. Studies with both protocol and report were included and data was extracted from these documents to describe study characteristics and variables involved in the sampling methodology. RESULTS: Out of 1092 studies finalised between June 2017 and May 2019, 17 studies were eligible for review. Thirteen were surveys, three chart reviews and one combined both methodologies. All the 17 studies recruited HCPs/sites and 8 of them also recruited patients. The most common rationale for country sampling was market uptake (10/17), while for HCP/site sampling, it was representativeness of the prescribing practices (14/17). Only a minority of the studies (4/17) provided supporting evidence to inform this theoretical framework. HCP/site sampling frames were mainly network of physicians (5/17) or HCP databases (5/17), with only one study providing a detailed description of the sampling frame. HCPs were selected mainly using probabilistic sampling (10/17) and patients using non-probabilistic sampling (6/8). Only a few studies compared participating with non-participating HCPs/sites (5/17) and patients (3/8). Eight studies reported that their results were generalisable. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the study documents provided insufficient details to understand the rationale behind the sampling decisions. More standardisation and guidance in reporting the sampling strategy and operational considerations applicable to these types of studies would support transparency and facilitate the evaluation of representativeness of the study results.

Determinants of shingles vaccine acceptance in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: The United Kingdom (UK) was the first European country to introduce a national immunisation program for shingles (2013-2014). That year, vaccination coverage ranged from 50 to 64% across the UK, but uptake has declined ever since. This study explored determinants of the acceptance of the shingles vaccine in the UK. METHODS: Vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, who were eligible for the last catch-up cohort of the 2014-2015 shingles vaccination campaign, were identified using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (the National Health Service data research service) and invited to participate by their general practitioner (GP). An anonymised self-administered questionnaire was developed using the Health Belief Model as a theoretical framework, to collect data on demographic and socio-economic characteristics, health status, knowledge, influences, experiences and attitudes to shingles and the shingles vaccine. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify the factors associated with vaccination. Physicians' views concerning perceived barriers to vaccination were also assessed. RESULTS: Of the 2,530 questionnaires distributed, 536 were returned (21.2%) from 69 general practices throughout the UK. The majority of responders were female (58%), lived in care homes (56%) and had completed secondary or higher education (88%). There were no differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated responders. Being offered the shingles vaccine by a GP/nurse (odds ratio (OR) = 2.3), and self-efficacy (OR = 1.2) were associated with being vaccinated (p<0.05). In contrast, previous shingles history (OR = 0.4), perceived barriers to vaccination (OR = 0.7) and perceived control of the disease (OR = 0.7) were associated with not being vaccinated against shingles (p<0.05). Less than half (44.0%) of GPs were aware of the local communication campaigns regarding shingles and the shingles vaccine. CONCLUSIONS: Socio-psychological factors largely influence shingles vaccination acceptance in this study. The results add to existing evidence that healthcare providers (HCPs) have a pivotal role against vaccine hesitancy. Campaigns focusing on GPs and accessible information offered to eligible members of the public can further enhance shingles vaccine uptake.

Lessons learned on the design and the conduct of Post-Authorization Safety Studies: review of 3 years of PRAC oversight.

AIMS: To describe and characterize the first cohort of Post-Authorization Safety Study (PASS) protocols reviewed under the recent European pharmacovigilance legislation. METHODS: A systematic approach was used to compile all publicly available information on PASS protocols and assessments submitted from July 2012 to July 2015 from Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) minutes, European Medicines Agency (EMA) and European Network of Pharmacovigilance and Pharmacoepidemiology (ENCePP) webpages. RESULTS: During the study period, 189 different PASS protocols were submitted to the PRAC, half of which were entered in the ENCePP electronic register of post-authorization studies (EU-PAS) by July 2015. Those protocols were assessed during 353 PRAC reviews. The EMA published only 31% of the PRAC feedback, of which the main concerns were study design (37%) and feasibility (30%). Among the 189 PASS, slightly more involved primary data capture (58%). PASS assessing drug utilization mainly leveraged secondary data sources (58%). The majority of the PASS did not include a comparator (65%) and 35% of PASS also evaluated clinical effectiveness endpoints. CONCLUSIONS: To the best of our knowledge this is the first comprehensive review of three years of PASS protocols submitted under the new pharmacovigilance legislation. Our results show that both EMA and PASS sponsors could respectively increase the availability of protocol assessments and documents in the EU-PAS. Protocol content review and the high number of PRAC comments related to methodological issues and feasibility concerns should raise awareness among PASS stakeholders to design more thoughtful studies according to pharmacoepidemiological principles and existing guidelines.