RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Monitoring for substandard medicines by regulatory agencies is a key post-market surveillance activity. It is important to prioritise critical product defects for review to ensure that prompt risk mitigation actions are taken. METHODS: A regulatory risk impact prioritisation model for product defects (RISMED) with 11 factors considering the seriousness and extent of impact of a defect was developed. The model generated an overall score that categorised cases into high, medium or low impact. The model was further developed into a statistical risk scoring model (stat-RISMED) using multivariate logistic regression that classified cases into high and non-high impact. Both models were evaluated against an expert-derived gold standard annotation corpus and tested on an independent dataset. RESULTS: Product defect cases received from January 2011 to June 2020 (n = 660) were used to train stat-RISMED and cases from July 2020 to June 2021 (n = 220) for validation. The stat-RISMED identified four factors associated with high impact cases, namely defect classification based on MedDRA-HSA terms, therapeutic indication of product, detectability of defect and whether any overseas regulatory actions were performed. Compared to RISMED, stat-RISMED achieved an improved sensitivity (94% vs 42%) and positive predictive value (47% vs 43%) for the identification of high impact cases, against the gold standard labels. CONCLUSIONS: This study reported characteristics that predicts cases with high impact, and the use of a statistical model to identify such cases. The model may potentially be applied to prioritise product defect issues and strengthen overall surveillance efforts of substandard medicines.
