Differences in Importance Attached to Drug Effects Between Patients With Type 2 Diabetes From the Netherlands and Turkey: A Preference Study.

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the importance that patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus from the Netherlands and Turkey attach to certain drug effects of oral anti-diabetic drugs. Methods: Data were collected through a cross-sectional survey containing demographic questions and a discrete choice experiment assessing preferences for oral anti-diabetic drugs. Adults from the Netherlands and Turkey were included if they had type 2 diabetes mellitus and had received a prescription of an oral anti-diabetic drug in the last 4 months. The oral anti-diabetic drugs in the discrete choice experiment were described in terms of six attributes: effects on HbA1c, cardiovascular diseases, weight change, gastrointestinal adverse drug events hypoglycemic events, and bladder cancer. Multinomial logit models with country as an interaction factor were fitted. Results: In total, 381 patients were included, 199 from the Netherlands and 182 from Turkey. Patients' preferences toward drug effects varied between the countries. Turkish patients attached the highest importance to reducing the risk of cardiovascular diseases (relative weight: 0.51, 95% CI 0.45-0.55), followed by reducing hypoglycemic events (relative weight: 0.16, 95% CI 0.11-0.22), and reducing gastrointestinal adverse drug events (relative weight: 0.11, 95% CI 0.07-0.18). Patients from the Netherlands attached the highest importance to gastrointestinal ADEs (relative weight: 0.22, 95% CI 0.14-0.39), followed by reducing hypoglycemic events (relative weight: 0.22, 95% CI 0.16-0.25), and reducing the risk of cardiovascular diseases (relative weight: 0.20, 95% CI 0.13-0.23). Conclusion: Patient preferences may differ across countries. Such differences should be acknowledged in regulatory decisions and clinical practice.

Understanding drug preferences, different perspectives.

AIMS: To compare the values regulators attach to different drug effects of oral antidiabetic drugs with those of doctors and patients. METHODS: We administered a 'discrete choice' survey to regulators, doctors and patients with type 2 diabetes in The Netherlands. Eighteen choice sets comparing two hypothetical oral antidiabetic drugs were constructed with varying drug effects on glycated haemoglobin, cardiovascular risk, bodyweight, duration of gastrointestinal complaints, frequency of hypoglycaemia and risk of bladder cancer. Responders were asked each time which drug they preferred. RESULTS: Fifty-two regulators, 175 doctors and 226 patients returned the survey. Multinomial conditional logit analyses showed that cardiovascular risk reduction was valued by regulators positively (odds ratio 1.98, 95% confidence interval 1.11-3.53), whereas drug choices were negatively affected by persistent gastrointestinal problems (odds ratio 0.24, 95% confidence interval 0.14-0.41) and cardiovascular risk increase (odds ratio 0.49, 95% confidence interval 0.27-0.87). Doctors and patients valued these effects in a similar manner to regulators. The values that doctors attached to large changes in glycated haemoglobin and that both doctors and patients attached to hypoglycaemia and weight gain also reached statistical significance. No group's drug choice was affected by a small absolute change in risk of bladder cancer when presented in the context of other drug effects. When comparing the groups, the value attached by regulators to less frequent hypoglycaemic episodes was significantly smaller than by patients (P = 0.044). CONCLUSIONS: Regulators may value major benefits and risks of drugs for an individual diabetes patient mostly in the same way as doctors and patients, but differences may exist regarding the value of minor or short-term drug effects.

Post-approval safety issues with innovative drugs: a European cohort study.

BACKGROUND: At time of approval, knowledge of the full benefit risk of any drug is limited, in particular with regards to safety. Post-approval surveillance of potential drug safety concerns is recognized as an important task of regulatory agencies. For innovative, often first-in-class drugs, safety knowledge at time of approval is often even less extensive and these may require tighter scrutiny post approval. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated whether more post-approval serious safety issues were identified for drugs with a higher level of innovation. METHODS: A cohort study was performed that included all new active substances approved under the European Centralized Procedure and for which serious safety issues were identified post-approval from 1 January 1999 to 1 January 2012. Serious safety issues were defined as issues requiring a Direct Healthcare Professional Communication to alert individual healthcare professionals of a new serious safety issue, or a safety-related drug withdrawal. Data were retrieved from publicly available websites of the Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board and the European Medicines Agency. The level of innovation was scored using a validated algorithm, grading drugs as important (A), moderate (B) or modest (C) innovations or as pharmacological or technological (pharm/tech) innovations. The data were analyzed using appropriate descriptive statistics and Kaplan-Meier analysis, with a Mantel-Cox log-rank test, and Cox-regression models correcting for follow-up duration, to identify a possible trend in serious safety issues with an increasing level of innovation. RESULTS: In Europe, 279 new drugs were approved between 1999 and 2011. Fifty-nine (21 %) were graded as important, 63 (23 %) moderate, or 34 (12 %) modest innovations and 123 (44 %) as non-innovative (pharm/tech), while 15 (25 %), 13 (21 %), 8 (24 %) and 17 (14 %) had post-approval safety issues, respectively (p = 0.06, linear-by-linear test). Five drugs were withdrawn from the market. The Kaplan-Meier-derived probability for having a first serious safety issue was statistically significant, log-rank (Mantel-Cox) p = 0.036. In the final adjusted Cox proportional hazard model there was no statistically significant difference in occurrence of a first serious safety issue for important, moderate and modest innovations versus non-innovative drugs; hazard ratios 1.76 (95 % CI 0.82-3.77), 1.61 (95 % CI 0.76-3.41)], and 1.25 (95 % CI 0.51-3.06), respectively. CONCLUSION: A higher level of innovation was not clearly related to an increased risk of serious safety issues identified after approval.

Effect of safety issues with HIV drugs on the approval process of other drugs in the same class: an analysis of European Public Assessment Reports.

BACKGROUND: Knowledge on the safety of new medicines is limited at the time of market entry. Nearly half of all drugs used to treat HIV registered in the EU required ≥1 Direct Healthcare Professional Communication (DHPC) in the past 10 years for safety issues identified post-approval. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to evaluate the extent to which regulators and industry have addressed the risk of safety issues for HIV drugs based on prior experience with other drugs in the same class and whether doing so impacts development time of these drugs. METHODS: HIV drugs receiving ≥1 DHPC in the Netherlands between January 1999 and December 2008 were identified. Each drug with a DHPC ('index' drug) was paired with subsequently approved HIV drug(s) in the same class (Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical [ATC] 4th level) ['follow-on' drugs]. Characteristics of safety issues were extracted from the DHPCs of the 'index' drugs. European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs) were reviewed regarding whether the safety issues had been considered during development and approval. Consideration of previously identified safety issues in 'follow-on' drug applications was assessed regarding attention paid to adverse drug reaction (ADR) symptoms in pre-marketing studies, Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) and postmarketing commitments, and whether size of the safety population was in accordance with Regulatory guidelines. 'Index' drugs were also paired with drugs in the same class already on the market ('older' drugs). For 'older' drugs, we identified whether the safety issue led to appropriate changes in the current SmPC (January 2011) compared with the SmPC at the time of marketing authorization. Clinical development time was assessed using time from first patent application to market authorization as proxy, and comparison was made between 'index' and 'follow-on' drugs. RESULTS: For 9 (43%) of the 21 centrally authorized HIV drugs, 11 serious safety issues that required a DHPC were identified. Two drugs were excluded from our analysis (DHPCs related to contamination/medication error). Six 'index' drugs were paired, each with one to six 'follow-on' drugs. Three concerned drug-drug interactions (DDIs); the other three were intracranial haemorrhage, neuromuscular weakness and severe skin/hepatic reactions. All but one 'follow-on' drug had information in the EPAR on that specific ADR (i.e. attention was paid to the ADR). The DDIs were addressed in pre-marketing studies and/or the SmPC. Two of the other ADRs were addressed by postmarketing surveillance commitments; intracranial haemorrhage was not addressed. Three safety issues for two 'index' drugs could not be paired with a 'follow-on' drug as no drug in the same class was approved after the corresponding DHPCs were issued. Five of the nine safety issues were added to at least one of the current SmPCs for the 'older' drugs already on the market at the time of DHPC issue. Two safety issues were already in the SmPC of the 'older' drugs at time of market approval and two were not introduced into the SmPC of 'older' drugs. Population size to assess short-term safety complied with the guidelines for four 'index', seven 'follow-on' and three 'older' drugs; population size to assess long-term safety complied for one, three and two drugs, respectively. For five drugs, EPARs did not provide adequate information on population size. No statistically significant difference in development time between 'index' and 'follow-on' drugs was found. CONCLUSION: Generally, safety issues were taken into account in the approval process of other drugs in the class. The approaches were different and determined by the nature of the ADR. Taking safety issues into account in the approval process did not seem to impact on the time taken to perform the pre-approval clinical programme.

Additional safety risk to exceptionally approved drugs in Europe?

AIMS: Regulatory requirements for new drugs have increased. Special approval procedures with priority assessment are possible for drugs with clear 'unmet medical need'. We question whether these Exceptional Circumstances (EC) or Conditional Approval (CA) procedures have led to a higher probability of serious safety issues. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed of new drugs approved in Europe between 1999 and 2009. The determinant was EC/CA vs. standard procedure approval. Outcome variables were frequency and timing of a first Direct Healthcare Professional Communication (DHPC). An association between approval procedure and the time from market approval to DHPC was assessed using Kaplan-Meyer survival analysis and Cox-regression to correct for covariates. RESULTS: In total 289 new drugs were approved. Forty-six (16.4%) were approved under EC or CA, of which seven received a DHPC (15%). This was similar to the standard approval drugs (243), of which 33 received one or more DHPC (14%, P= 0.77). The probability of acquiring a DHPC for standard approval drugs vs. EC/CA drugs during 11-year follow-up is 22% (95% CI 14%, 29%) and 26% (95% CI 8%, 44%), respectively (log-rank P= 0.726). This difference remained not significant in the Cox-regression model: hazard ratio 0.94 (95% CI 0.40, 2.20). Only drug type was identified as a confounding covariate. CONCLUSION: The EC/CA procedure is not associated with a higher probability of DHPCs despite limited clinical development data. These data do not support the view that early drug approval increases the risk of serious safety issues emerging after market approval.