[Risk minimalisation measures for medications; are they incorporated in Dutch clinical guidelines?] / Risicominimalisatiemaatregelen voor geneesmiddelen.

OBJECTIVE: Risk minimisation measures (RMM) are put in place to ensure safe and effective use of medicines. This study assessed whether RMM for five medicines are implemented in Dutch clinical guidelines. DESIGN: Descriptive study. METHOD: Dutch clinical guidelines where treatment with valproate, fluoroquinolones, methotrexate, metformin or fluorouracil was recommended were identified. In those guidelines that had been updated after publication of the RMM, we determined whether RMM-information was included in the guideline. RESULTS: Out of 50 identified guidelines recommending treatment with one of the five medicines, only 21 (42%) were revised after RMM-implementation. Of these 21 guidelines, 12 (n = 57%) included RMM-related information. CONCLUSION: Uptake of RMM information in Dutch clinical guidelines is limited and RMM-publication does not prompt guideline updates. This suggests that guidelines alone are not an optimal way to inform health care professionals of new safety warnings.

Review of Studies Evaluating Effectiveness of Risk Minimization Measures Assessed by the European Medicines Agency Between 2016 and 2021.

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) supervises medicines' safe and effective use throughout the product's life cycle by, for example, monitoring the implementation of risk minimization measures (RMMs). Limited information is available on factors associated with effectiveness of RMMs. This study reviews post-authorization safety studies (PASS) evaluating the effectiveness of RMMs assessed by the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) between 2016 and 2021. PASS assessment reports finalized by PRAC between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2021, were compiled from non-public EMA databases and PASS characteristics were extracted. Of the 93 PASS included, 62.4% aimed to measure healthcare professionals' awareness, knowledge, and behavior regarding RMMs. There were 67.7% of the 93 PASS that used primary data, 24.7% used secondary data sources, and 7.5% used both. A cross-sectional study design was most frequently applied (77.4%), followed by a cohort study design (29.0%). Nearly 40% of the included PASS did not render a conclusion on RMM effectiveness. Of the 60% that did render a conclusion, 82.1% were deemed effective. Only minor differences in characteristics were found when stratified by outcome (i.e., effective RMM, ineffective RMM, and no conclusion on RMM effectiveness). To conclude, 4 out of 10 PASS assessing impact of RMMs did not render a conclusion on RMM effectiveness. No clear differences in PASS characteristics were found in relation to their outcomes, indicating that additional research is needed to understand better the underlying reasons for PASS being inconclusive.

Direct-to-participant investigational medicinal product supply in clinical trials in Europe: Exploring the experiences of sponsors, site staff and couriers.

AIMS: Insights into the current practice of direct-to-participant (DtP) supply of investigational medicinal product (IMP) in the context of clinical trials conducted in Europe are needed, as regulations are unharmonized. This study is set out to explore how DtP IMP supply has been employed in Europe and what the advantages and disadvantages and barriers and facilitators of its implementation are. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with representatives from sponsor companies, courier services and site study staff involved in the IMP dispensing and delivery process in Europe. Interviews were conducted between May and November 2021, and data were analysed following thematic analysis. RESULTS: Sixteen respondents participated in one of the 12 interviews. Respondents had experience with different models of DtP IMP supply including shipment from the investigative site, a central pharmacy (a depot under the control of a pharmacist) and a local pharmacy-aiming to reduce trial participation burden. The respondents indicated that investigative site-to-participant shipment is not affected by regulatory barriers, but could burden site staff. Shipment from central locations was considered most efficient, but possible regulatory barriers related to maintaining participants' privacy and investigator oversight were identified. The respondents indicated that the involvement of local pharmacies to dispense IMP can be considered when the IMP is authorized. CONCLUSIONS: Several DtP IMP supply models are implemented in clinical trials conducted in Europe. In this study, three main DtP IMP models were identified, which can be referenced when describing these approaches for regulatory approval.

Which decentralised trial activities are reported in clinical trial protocols of drug trials initiated in 2019-2020? A cross-sectional study in ClinicalTrials.gov.

OBJECTIVES: Decentralised clinical trial activities-such as participant recruitment via social media, data collection through wearables and direct-to-participant investigational medicinal product (IMP) supply-have the potential to change the way clinical trials (CTs) are conducted and with that to reduce the participation burden and improve generalisability. In this study, we investigated the decentralised and on-site conduct of trial activities as reported in CT protocols with a trial start date in 2019 or 2020. DESIGN: We ascertained the decentralised and on-site conduct for the following operational trial activities: participant outreach, prescreening, screening, obtaining informed consent, asynchronous communication, participant training, IMP supply, IMP adherence monitoring, CT monitoring, staff training and data collection. Results were compared for the public versus private sponsors, regions involved, trial phases and four time periods (the first and second half of 2019 and 2020, respectively). SETTING: Phases 2, 3 and 4 clinical drug trial protocols with a trial start date in 2019 or 2020 available from ClinicalTrials.gov. OUTCOME MEASURES: The occurrence of decentralised and on-site conduct of the predefined trial activities reported in CT protocols. RESULTS: For all trial activities, on-site conduct was more frequently reported than decentralised conduct. Decentralised conduct of the individual trial activities was reported in less than 25.6% of the 254 included protocols, except for decentralised data collection, which was reported in 68.9% of the protocols. More specifically, 81.9% of the phase 3 protocols reported decentralised data collection, compared with 73.3% and 47.0% of the phase 2 and 4 protocols, respectively. For several activities, including prescreening, screening and consenting, upward trends in reporting decentralised conduct were visible over time. CONCLUSIONS: Decentralised methods are used in CTs, mainly for data collection, but less frequently for other activities. Sharing best practices and a detailed description in protocols can drive the adoption of decentralised methods.