Real-World Evidence to Support EU Regulatory Decision Making-Results From a Pilot of Regulatory Use Cases.

Studies using real-world data (RWD) can complement evidence from clinical trials and fill evidence gaps during different stages of a medicine's lifecycle. This review presents the experience resulting from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) pilot to generate RWE to support evaluations by EU regulators and down-stream decision makers from September 2021 to February 2023. A total of 61 research topics were identified for RWE generation during this period, covering a wide range of research questions, primarily generating evidence on medicines safety (22, 36%), followed by questions on the design and feasibility of clinical trials (11, 18%), drug utilization (10, 16%), clinical management (10, 16%), and disease epidemiology. A significant number of questions were related to the pediatric population and/or rare diseases. A total of 27 regulatory-led RWD studies have been conducted. Most studies were descriptive and aimed at estimating incidence and prevalence rates of clinical outcomes including adverse events or to evaluate medicines utilization. The review highlights key learnings to guide further efforts to enable the use and establish the value of real-world evidence (RWE) for regulatory decisions. For instance, there is a need to access additional fit-for-purpose and representative data, and to explore further means to provide timely evidence that meets regulatory timelines. The need for early interactions and close collaboration with study requesters, e.g., from the Agency's scientific Committees, to better understand the research question is equally important. Finally, the review provides our perspective on the way forward to maximize the potential of regulatory-led RWE generation.

Monoclonal antibody biosimilars for cancer treatment.

Monoclonal antibodies are important cancer medicines. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) approved 48 and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 56 anticancer monoclonal antibody-based therapies. Their high prices burden healthcare systems and hamper global drug access. Biosimilars could retain costs and expand the availability of monoclonal antibodies. In Europe, five rituximab biosimilars, six trastuzumab biosimilars, and eight bevacizumab biosimilars are available as anti-cancer drugs. To gain insight into the biosimilar landscape for cancer treatment, we performed a literature search and analysis. In this review, we summarize cancer monoclonal antibodies' properties crucial for the desired pharmacology and point out sources of variability. The analytical assessment of all EMA-approved bevacizumab biosimilars is highlighted to illustrate this variability. The global landscape of investigational and approved biosimilars is mapped, and the challenges for access to cancer biosimilars are identified.

Do efficacy results obtained from randomized controlled trials translate to effectiveness data from observational studies for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis?

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials are considered the gold standard in regulatory decision making, as observational studies are known to have important methodological limitations. However, real-world evidence may be helpful in specific situations. This review investigates how the effect estimates obtained from randomized controlled trials compare to those obtained from observational studies, using drug therapy for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis as an example. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials and observational studies was conducted. The primary outcome was the annualized relapse rate. Using (network) meta-analysis together with posterior predictive distributions, the drug-specific rate ratios from the network of randomized controlled trials were compared with those from the network of observational studies. RESULTS: Effect estimates from 26 observational studies showed greater magnitudes and were less precise compared to estimates obtained from 21 randomized controlled trials. Twenty of the 28 treatment comparisons between designs had similar rate ratios. Seven inconsistencies in observed rate ratios could be attributed to two specific disease-modifying therapies. CONCLUSION: In this case study, estimates from observational studies predominantly agreed with estimates from randomized controlled trials given their posterior predictive distributions. Multiple observational studies together may therefore supplement additional pivotal randomized controlled trials in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, for instance facilitating the extrapolation of trial results to the broader patient population.

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists use and associations with outcomes in heart failure and type 2 diabetes: data from the Swedish Heart Failure and Swedish National Diabetes Registries.

AIMS: To assess the use and associations with outcomes of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) in a real-world population with heart failure (HF) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHODS AND RESULTS: The Swedish HF Registry was linked with the National Diabetes Registry and other national registries. Independent predictors of GLP-1 RA use were assessed by multivariable logistic regressions and associations with outcomes were assessed by Cox regressions in a 1:1 propensity score-matched cohort. Of 8188 patients enrolled in 2017-21, 9% received a GLP-1 RA. Independent predictors of GLP-1 RA use were age <75 years, worse glycaemic control, impaired renal function, obesity, and reduced ejection fraction (EF). GLP-1 RA use was not significantly associated with a composite of HF hospitalization (HHF) or cardiovascular (CV) death regardless of EF, but was associated with a lower risk of major adverse CV events (CV death, non-fatal stroke/transient ischaemic attack, or myocardial infarction), and CV and all-cause death. In patients with body mass index ≥30 kg/m2, GLP-1 RA use was also associated with a lower risk of HHF/CV death and HHF alone. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with HF and T2DM, GLP-1 RA use was independently associated with more severe T2DM, reduced EF, and obesity and was not associated with a higher risk of HHF/CV death but with longer survival and less major CV adverse events. An association with lower HHF/CV death and HHF was observed in obese patients. Our findings provide new insights into GLP-1 RA use and its safety in HF and T2DM.

The Evolution of Drug Regulatory Sciences in the Netherlands: More than a Country Report.

In the Netherlands, drug regulatory science is a vibrant national and internationally oriented community. In this review, we present the factors that have contributed to this successful collaboration between relevant stakeholders and that led to a surge of activities around how regulatory science became embedded in the ecosystem of medicines research, clinical pharmacology, policymaking and regulation. We distinguished three pivotal episodes: (i) TI Pharma Escher-project, (ii) Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board as catalyst of the big jump, and (iii) Regulatory Science Network Netherlands and multistakeholder engagement. The research agenda has been influenced by the dynamic evolution of legal frameworks in Europe, such as the EU orphan medicines legislation of 2001 and the EU pharmacovigilance legislation of 2012. All these developments have inspired and have raised pertinent regulatory sciences questions. Furthermore, clinical pharmacology as a discipline has been very influential in shaping regulatory science, contributing to discussions on the level of clinical evidence that is necessary to justify marketing approval of a new medicine. With a growing interest of multiple parties such as academics, European Medicines Agency, national agencies, patient organizations and EFPIA, connecting regulatory science activities is key.

A full-document analysis of the semantic relation between European Public Assessment Reports and EMA guidelines using a BERT language model.

In the European Union, the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) develop guidelines to guide drug development, supporting development of efficacious and safe medicines. A European Public Assessment Report (EPAR) is published for every medicine application that has been granted or refused marketing authorisation within the EU. In this work, we study the use of text embeddings and similarity metrics to investigate the semantic similarity between EPARs and EMA guidelines. All 1024 EPARs for initial marketing authorisations from 2008 to 2022 was compared to the 669 current EMA scientific guidelines. Documents were converted to plain text and split into overlapping chunks, generating 265,757 EPAR and 27,649 guideline text chunks. Using a Sentence BERT language model, the chunks were transformed into embeddings and fed into an in-house piecewise matching algorithm to estimate the full-document semantic distance. In an analysis of the document distance scores and product characteristics using a linear regression model, EPARs of anti-virals for systemic use (ATC code J05) and antihemorrhagic medicines (B02) present with statistically significant lower overall semantic distance to guidelines compared to other therapeutic areas, also when adjusting for product age and EPAR length. In conclusion, we believe our approach provides meaningful insight into the interplay between EMA scientific guidelines and the assessment made during regulatory review, and could potentially be used to answer more specific questions such as which therapeutic areas could benefit from additional regulatory guidance.

Precision medicine in regulatory decision making: Biomarkers used for patient selection in European Public Assessment Reports from 2018 to 2020.

Biomarkers can guide precision medicine in clinical trials and practice. They can increase clinical trials' efficiency through selection of study populations more likely to benefit from treatment, thus increasing statistical power and reducing sample size requirements or study duration. We performed a narrative synthesis to explore biomarker utilization for patient selection to guide precision medicine trials in marketing authorization dossiers of centrally approved medicines in Europe between 2018 and 2020 and analyzed in-depth those that eventually included biomarkers in the medicines' indications. From 119 eligible products, 26 included a biomarker in the indication, of which most were oncology products (n = 15). Included biomarkers were often known from literature or from previously approved products in the European Union or the United States. Additionally, 52 dossiers mentioned one or more biomarkers for patient selection in their clinical efficacy and safety information. Although these were not always included in the medicines' indication, they were often implicitly embedded in condition definitions adopted from clinical guidelines or practice. In 15 out of the 26 medicines with a biomarker-guided indication, only biomarker-positive populations were included in the main clinical studies supporting the marketing authorization. These studies were mostly randomized controlled trials or single-arm trials; only two products were studied for multiple indications in an innovative basket trial. Definitions of biomarkers could be subject of debate and needed adaptation after post hoc analyses requested by the assessment committee in four cases, stressing the importance of thorough justification of these definitions to include the right population for an optimal benefit-risk balance, enabling precise medicine.

Safety of continuing mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist treatment in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and severe kidney disease: Data from Swedish Heart Failure Registry.

AIMS: Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) improve outcomes in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) but remain underused and are often discontinued especially in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) due to concerns on renal safety. Therefore, in a real-world HFrEF population we investigated the safety of MRA use, in terms of risk of renal events, any mortality and any hospitalization, across the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) spectrum including severe CKD. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analysed patients with HFrEF (ejection fraction <40%), not on dialysis, from the Swedish Heart Failure Registry. We performed multivariable logistic regression models to investigate patient characteristics independently associated with MRA use, and univariable and multivariable Cox regression models to assess the associations between MRA use and outcomes. Of 33 942 patients, 17 489 (51%) received MRA, 32%, 45%, 54%, 54% with eGFR <30, 30-44, 45-59 or ≥60 ml/min/1.73 m2 , respectively. An eGFR ≥60 ml/min/1.73 m2 and patient characteristics linked with more severe HF were independently associated with more likely MRA use. In multivariable analyses, MRA use was consistently not associated with a higher risk of renal events (i.e. composite of dialysis/renal death/hospitalization for renal failure or hyperkalaemia) (hazard ratio [HR] 1.04, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.98-1.10), all-cause death (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.97-1.08) as well as of all-cause hospitalization (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.95-1.02) across the eGFR spectrum including also severe CKD. CONCLUSIONS: The use of MRAs in patients with HFrEF decreased with worse renal function; however their safety profile was demonstrated to be consistent across the entire eGFR spectrum.

Community Use of Repurposed Drugs Before and During COVID-19 Pandemic in the Netherlands: An Interrupted Time-Series Analysis.

Background: Repurposing registered drugs could reduce coronavirus disease (COVID-19) burden before novel drugs are authorized. Little is known about how the pandemic and imposed restrictions changed their dispensing. We aimed to investigate the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on repurposed drugs dispensing in the Netherlands. Methods: We performed interrupted time-series study using University of Groningen prescription database IADB.nl to evaluate dispensing trends of 24 repurposed drugs before (2017-February 2020) and after (March 2020-2021) the pandemic' start. Primary outcomes were monthly prevalence and incidence rates. An autoregressive integrated moving average model assessed the effect of pandemic and stringency index (measuring strictness of government's restriction policies). Results: Annual number of IADB.nl population ranged from 919,697 to 952,400. Generally, dispensing of common long-term-used drugs was not significantly affected by pandemic. The prevalence of antibacterials (-4.20 users per 1000 people), antivirals (-0.04), corticosteroids (-1.29), prednisolone (-1.32), calcium channel blocker (-0.41), and diuretics (-1.29) was lower than expected after the pandemic's start, while the prevalence of ivermectin (0.07), sulfonylureas (0.15), sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor (0.17), and anticoagulants (1.95) was higher than expected. The pandemic was associated with statistically significant decreases in the incidence of antibacterials (-1.21), corticosteroids (-0.60), prednisolone (-0.64) and anticoagulants (-0.02), and increases in ivermectin (0.02), aggregated antidiabetic drugs (0.13), and SGLT2 inhibitors (0.06). These trends were positively associated with pandemic and negatively associated with stringency index. Conclusion: Dispensing of most drugs was not significantly associated with pandemic and government's response. Despite some statistically significant disruptions, these were not necessarily clinically relevant due to small absolute differences observed.

Eligibility for vericiguat in a real-world heart failure population according to trial, guideline and label criteria: Data from the Swedish Heart Failure Registry.

AIM: We investigated the eligibility for vericiguat in a real-world heart failure (HF) population based on trial, guideline and label criteria. METHODS AND RESULTS: From the Swedish HF registry, 23 573 patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) enrolled between 2000 and 2018, with a HF duration ≥6 months, were considered. Eligibility for vericiguat was calculated based on criteria from (i) the Vericiguat Global Study in Subjects with Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction (VICTORIA) trial; (ii) European and American guidelines on HF; (iii) product labelling according to the Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency. Estimated eligibility for vericiguat in the trial, guidelines, and label scenarios was 21.4%, 47.4%, and 47.4%, respectively. Prior HF hospitalization within 6 months was the criterion limiting eligibility the most in all scenarios (met by 49.1% of the population). In the trial scenario, other criteria meaningfully limiting eligibility were elevated N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels and nitrate use. In all scenarios, eligibility was higher among patients hospitalized for HF at baseline (44.3% vs. 21.4% [trial scenario] and 97.3% vs. 47.4% [guideline/label scenarios] for hospitalized vs. non-hospitalized patients). Overall, eligible patients were older, had more severe HF, more comorbidities, and consequently higher cardiovascular mortality and HF hospitalization rates compared with ineligible patients across all scenarios. CONCLUSION: In a large and contemporary real-world HFrEF cohort, we estimated that 21.4% of patients would be eligible for vericiguat according to the VICTORIA trial selection criteria, 47.4% based on guidelines and labelling. Eligibility for vericiguat translated into the selection of a population at high risk of morbidity/mortality.

The role of stakeholder involvement in the evolving EU HTA process: Insights generated through the European Access Academy's multi-stakeholder pre-convention questionnaire.

Involvement of all relevant stakeholders will be of utmost importance for the success of the developing EU HTA harmonization process. A multi-step procedure was applied to develop a survey across stakeholders/collaborators within the EU HTA framework to assess their current level of involvement, determine their suggested future role, identify challenges to contribution, and highlight efficient ways to fulfilling their role. The 'key' stakeholder groups identified and covered by this research included: patients', clinicians', regulatory, and Health Technology Developer representatives. The survey was circulated to a wide expert audience including all relevant stakeholder groups in order to determine self-perception by the 'key' stakeholders regarding involvement in the HTA process (self-rating), and in a second, slightly modified version of the questionnaire, to determine the perception of 'key' stakeholder involvement by HTA bodies, payers, and policymakers (external rating). Predefined analyses were conducted on the submitted responses. Fifty-four responses were received (patients 9; clinicians: 8; regulators: 4; HTDs 14; HTA bodies: 7; Payers: 5; policymakers 3; others 4). The mean self-perceived involvement score was consistently lower for each of the 'key' stakeholder groups than the respective external ratings. Based on the qualitative insights generated in the survey, a RACI Chart (Responsible/Accountable/Consulted/Informed) was developed for each of the stakeholder groups to determine their roles and involvement in the current EU HTA process. Our findings suggest extensive effort and a distinct research agenda are required to ensure adequate involvement of the key stakeholder groups in the evolving EU HTA process.

What Factors Make EU Regulators Want to Communicate Drug Safety Issues Related to SGLT2 Inhibitors? An Online Survey Study.

INTRODUCTION: Previous studies have found differences in the communication of safety issues among medicines regulatory agencies. OBJECTIVES: To explore (1) to what extent regulators' opinions regarding the need to communicate safety issues related to sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors might be influenced by their concern about the safety issue, and (2) whether regulators' concerns might be influenced by certain characteristics of the safety issue or by the demographic and professional characteristics and attitudes of the regulators. METHODS: An online cross-sectional survey study with a rating-based conjoint analysis among clinical and pharmacovigilance assessors from the EU regulatory network was performed between April and June 2021. Regulators were invited by email, and participants were asked about their level of concern and their opinion regarding the need to communicate about 12 scenarios defined by four characteristics: adverse drug reaction, source of information, causality, and frequency. The outcomes for the first objective were to update the summary of product characteristics (SmPC; yes/no) and to send direct healthcare professional communications (DHPC; yes/no). The determinant was regulators' level of concern (range 0-100%). The outcome of the second objective was regulators' level of concern, and the determinants were the characteristics of the safety issue, demographic and professional characteristics, and attitudes of the regulators (beliefs about medicines and risk perception). RESULTS: A total of 222 regulators completed the survey (64% women; mean age 46 ± 10 years). Depending on the scenario, 54-94% and 25-74% of the participants would update the SmPC or send a DHPC, respectively. The participants' level of concern influenced their opinions regarding the need to update the SmPC and send a DHPC (odds ratio (OR) 13.0; 95% confidence interval (CI) 7.8-21.7 and OR 13.6; 95% CI 9.5-19.2, respectively, for every 10% increase in the level of concern). All characteristics of the safety issue influenced the level of concern. Younger participants, women, and those working for Eastern European agencies had a higher level of concern than older participants, men, and those working in other regions. Beliefs about medicines and general risk perception also influenced their concern. CONCLUSIONS: The opinion regarding the need to communicate safety issues was influenced by the concern of regulators. Regulators' concern was influenced by the characteristics of the safety issue, demographic characteristics, and attitudes. Diverse groups of experts regarding such factors would ensure that various views are incorporated in risk communication decisions.

Safety-Related Drug Label Changes Following Large Post-Marketing Cardiometabolic Trials: A Review of European Public Assessment Reports.

Selective safety data collection may simplify late-stage clinical trials and improve their feasibility. However, the impact on increasing overall drug safety knowledge is unknown. The aim of this study is to evaluate how much safety information is added to the drug label based on large trials after initial authorization. Changes made to the "undesirable effects" section of the drug label of cardiometabolic agents approved between 2000 and 2020 based on the results of large (> 1,000 patient) clinical trials submitted to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) were evaluated. The study focused on glucose lowering, antithrombotic, and lipid-modifying agents. The primary outcome was the number of changes in adverse drug reactions in the drug label. The EMA reviewed 55 large trials concerning 25 cardiometabolic agents after the initial marketing authorization, which included 402,444 patients. Ultimately, 38 trials (69%) resulted in a safety section update, whereas 17 trials (31%) did not. Changes in listed adverse drug reactions were made following 19 trials (35%) for 12 agents: 77 adverse drug reactions were added, 11 were deleted, and the frequencies of 43 were changed. Most changes in adverse drug reactions arose from trials with antithrombotic agents (88%) and trials performed in a new population (92%). Large trials for cardiometabolic agents reported after authorization add limited new safety information on adverse drug reactions, especially when performed in the population studied prior to approval. This suggests that selective safety data collection does not reduce learnings from late stage cardiometabolic trials in populations comprehensively studied before.

Eligibility for sotagliflozin in a real-world heart failure population based on the SOLOIST-WHF trial enrolment criteria: data from the Swedish heart failure registry.

AIMS: The SOLOIST-WHF trial demonstrated efficacy of sotagliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and recent worsening heart failure (HF) regardless of ejection fraction (EF). Selection criteria in trials may limit their generalizability. Therefore, we aimed to investigate eligibility for sotagliflozin based on the SOLOIST-WHF criteria in a real-world HF population. METHODS AND RESULTS: SOLOIST-WHF criteria were applied to patients stabilized after HF hospitalization in the Swedish HF Registry according to (i) literal scenario (all inclusion/exclusion criteria) or (ii) pragmatic scenario (only criteria likely to influence treatment decisions). Of 5453 inpatients with T2DM and recent worsening HF, 51.4% had reduced EF (HFrEF), 19.1% mildly reduced (HFmrEF), and 29.5% preserved EF (HFpEF). Eligibility (literal) was: 27.2% (32.4% in HFrEF, 24.7% in HFmrEF, 19.7% in HFpEF) and eligibility (pragmatic) was 62.8% (69.1%, 60.3%, 53.4%, respectively). In the literal scenario, criteria limiting eligibility were HF duration <3 months, eGFR <30 ml/min/1.73 m2, age >85 years, acute coronary syndrome <3 months, and insufficiently high N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels. Eligible vs. non-eligible patients had more severe HF, higher cardiovascular (CV) comorbidity burden, higher use of HF treatments, and higher event rates (all-cause death 30.8 vs. 27.2 per 100 patient-years, CV death 19.1 vs. 16.6, and HF hospitalization 36.7 vs. 24.0). CONCLUSION: In this large, real-world HF cohort with T2DM, ∼1/3 of patients were eligible for sotagliflozin in the literal and ∼2/3 of patients in the pragmatic scenario. Eligible patients had more severe HF and higher event rates, in particular CV and HF events.

Contribution of Real-World Evidence in European Medicines Agency's Regulatory Decision Making.

Real-world data/evidence (RWD/RWE) may provide insightful information on medicines' clinical effects to guide regulatory decisions. While its contribution has been recognized for safety monitoring and disease epidemiology across medicines' life cycles, using RWD/RWE to demonstrate efficacy requires further evaluation. This study aimed to (i) characterize RWD/RWE presented by applicants to support claims on medicines' efficacy within initial marketing authorization applications (MAAs) and extension of indication applications (EoIs), and (ii) analyze the contribution of RWD/RWE to regulatory decisions on medicines' benefit-risk profile. RWD/RWE was included to support efficacy in 32 MAAs and 14 EoIs submitted 2018-2019. Of these, RWD/RWE was part of the preauthorization package of 16 MAAs and 10 EoIs, and was (i) considered supporting the regulatory decision in 10 applications (five MAAs, five EoIs), (ii) considered not supporting the regulatory decision in 11 (seven MAAs, four EoIs), and (iii) not addressed at all in the evaluation of 5 applications (four MAAs, one EoI). Common limitations of submitted RWD/RWE included missing data, lack of representativeness of populations, small sample size, absence of an adequate or prespecified analysis plan, and risk of several types of bias. The suitability of RWD/RWE in a given application still requires a case-by-case analysis considering its purpose of use, implying reflection on the data source, together with its assets and limitations, study objectives and designs, and the overall data package issued. Early interactions and continuous dialogues with regulators and relevant stakeholders is key to optimize fit-for-purpose RWE generation, enabling its broader use in medicines development.

Translating Academic Drug Discovery Into Clinical Development: A Survey of the Awareness of Regulatory Support and Requirements Among Stakeholders in Europe.

Important discoveries by academic drug developers hold the promise of bringing innovative treatments that address unmet medical needs to the market. However, the drug development process has proved to be challenging and demanding for academic researchers, and regulatory challenges are an important barrier to implementing academic findings in clinical practice. European regulators offer varying degrees of support services to help drug developers meet regulatory standards and requirements. "Strengthening Training of Academia in Regulatory Sciences and Supporting Regulatory Scientific Advice" (STARS) is a European Commission-funded consortium aiming to strengthen the training of academics in regulatory science and requirements. Here, we report the results of four surveys that investigated the awareness and utilization of support tools offered by European regulators and identified the regulatory challenges and support needs of researchers. The surveys targeted four main European stakeholders in academic medicines research: academic research groups (706 respondents), academic research centers (99), funding organizations (49), and regulators (22). The results show that while European regulators provide various regulatory support tools, less than half of the responding academic researchers were aware of these tools and many experienced challenges in reaching a sufficient level of regulatory knowledge. There was a general lack of understanding of the regulatory environment that was aggravated by poor communication between stakeholders. The results of this study form a foundation for an improved European medicines regulatory network, in which regulatory challenges faced by academia are tackled.

Factors Influencing Preferences and Responses Towards Drug Safety Communications: A Conjoint Experiment Among Hospital-Based Healthcare Professionals in the Netherlands.

INTRODUCTION: Healthcare professionals (HCPs) are informed about new drug safety issues through Direct Healthcare Professional Communications (DHPCs). The influence of DHPC content on the impact of the communication is unclear. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the effect of content elements 'frequency of the safety issue', 'seriousness of the safety issue', 'need to take action', 'life span of drug involved' and 'type of evidence supporting the safety issue' on hospital-based HCPs' preferences and responses towards DHPCs. METHODS: A survey study including a conjoint experiment was performed among hospital-based HCPs in the Netherlands. Hypothetical DHPCs varying on the five content elements were constructed. Each respondent received eight out of 16 hypothetical DHPCs and was asked about (1) importance to be informed (fixed-point scale), (2) preferred communication timing (multiple options) and (3) their stated actions (multiple options). Associations were tested using generalized linear mixed models. RESULTS: In total, 178 HCPs participated. DHPCs concerning more frequent or serious safety issues, or requiring action, were associated with a higher perceived importance to be informed and a preference for immediate communication. Periodic communication was preferred for DPHCs concerning less frequent or serious safety issues. The most commonly stated action was to discuss the DHPC with colleagues. Monitoring was common when this was recommended. High frequency and seriousness were associated with more prescribing-related actions. CONCLUSION: Frequency and seriousness of the safety issue and the recommended action are likely to influence the impact of DHPCs. The timing of communication could be tailored depending on the content, where less urgent safety issues might be communicated periodically.

Medication Adherence Measurement Methods in Registration Trials Supporting the Approval of New Medicines: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Centralized Procedures in the European Union 2010-2020.

Medication adherence is a key factor impacting efficacy and safety of medicines, yet how it is dealt with in European registration trials is unknown. A cross-sectional analysis of European Medicines Agency (EMA) marketing authorization dossiers for new medicines approved through centralized procedures in the European Union between 2010 and 2020 was performed. Data were extracted from European Public Assessment Reports and Clinical Study Reports. Clinical trials covering five therapeutic areas were included: diabetes, respiratory conditions, cardiovascular diseases, infectious diseases, and oncology. Outcomes included adherence assessment, measurement methods, and rates. Overall, 102 medicines studied in 253 clinical trials were reviewed. All but one study reported measuring adherence. Two hundred twenty trials (87%) measured adherence using quantitative methods, while 32 (13%) trials monitored adherence but did not further quantify. Reported adherence rates were high (> 90%) across trials yet marked disparities in measurement methods and definitions were found. The most frequently used adherence measurement method was pill/dose count (single method: 52.7%; in combination: 37.7%; with patient diary/report: 17.3%; electronic methods: 1.4%; bioanalytical methods: 4.1%). Patient diary/report (6.4%) and electronic methods (2.7%) were also used as single methods. Electronic methods were more often used in respiratory and anti-infective trials, while bioanalytical methods were more frequently used in diabetes. Overall, adherence is measured in EMA registration trials, yet the methods used and the way in which adherence rates are presented vary widely between trials and therapeutic areas. To better understand and compare efficacy of medicines, standardization of adherence definitions and measurement methods is needed.