A Risk-Based Approach for Safety Case Follow-up of Adverse Event Reports in Pharmacovigilance.

This study presents an analysis of follow-up attempts for adverse event (AE) reports, shedding light on the characteristics of a risk-based approach to Individual Case Safety Report (ICSR) follow-up by Marketing Authorization Holders (MAH). The analysis primarily focuses on Spontaneous Reports (SR), reports from Patient Support Programs (PSPs), and literature, utilizing data from safety reports sourced from the European Economic Area (EEA) during the pre-pandemic period. Through descriptive statistics, we examine response rates spanning 1 year and compare various types of cases based on distinct ICSR features, including serious vs non-serious, listed vs unlisted, suspected vs not-suspected, SR vs PSP vs literature, as well as comparisons between different product categories (innovator, biological, generics, and combinations). The objective of this report is to stimulate further dialogue within the industry and regulatory authorities regarding the adoption of a risk-based approach to ICSR follow-up procedures.

Aggregate analysis of regulatory authority assessors' comments to improve the quality of periodic safety update reports.

PURPOSE: Marketing authorization holders (MAHs) are expected to provide high-quality periodic safety update reports (PSURs) on their pharmaceutical products to health authorities (HAs). We present a novel instrument aiming at improving quality of PSURs based on standardized analysis of PSUR assessment reports (ARs) received from the European Union HAs across products and therapeutic areas. METHODS: All HA comments were classified into one of three categories: "Request for regulatory actions," "Request for medical and scientific information," or "Data deficiencies." The comments were graded according to their impact on patients' safety, the drug's benefit-risk profile, and the MAH's pharmacovigilance system. RESULTS: A total of 476 comments were identified through the analysis of 63 PSUR HA ARs received in 2013 and 2014; 47 (10%) were classified as "Requests for regulatory actions," 309 (65%) as "Requests for medical and scientific information," and 118 (25%) comments were related to "Data deficiencies." The most frequent comments were requests for labeling changes (35 HA comments in 19 ARs). The aggregate analysis revealed commonly raised issues and prompted changes of the MAH's procedures related to the preparation of PSURs. CONCLUSION: The authors believe that this novel instrument based on the evaluation of PSUR HA ARs serves as a valuable mechanism to enhance the quality of PSURs and decisions about optimization of the use of the products and, therefore, contributes to improve further the MAH's pharmacovigilance system and patient safety.