A Descriptive Comparative Analysis of Safety Concerns Outlaid in the Risk Management Plans of the European Union and Japan.

IF 2.4 4区 医学 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Teruyuki Honda, Mamoru Narukawa
{"title":"A Descriptive Comparative Analysis of Safety Concerns Outlaid in the Risk Management Plans of the European Union and Japan.","authors":"Teruyuki Honda, Mamoru Narukawa","doi":"10.1002/pds.70097","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aimed to obtain a better understanding of the characteristics of the risk management plans (RMP) and the background regulatory policies governing them, in the European Union (EU) and Japan. This was done by descriptively comparing the safety concerns (SCs) listed in the RMP and examining their relationships with product labeling.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Information regarding SCs was collected from the published RMP of both the EU and Japan for the targeted products-all of which were commonly approved in both regions. The concordance rate of the SCs for each product between the EU- and Japan-RMP was calculated. The warning information for each product was collected from the product labeling, summary of product characteristics for the EU, and package insert for Japan, and compared with the SCs listed in the corresponding RMP.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 259 products that were approved for sale in both the EU and Japan (1998-2023), for which RMP were available in both regions, were analyzed. While 51.0% of the SCs labeled as important identified risks (IIRs) in the EU-RMP were concordant with those in the Japan-RMP, 20.4% of the SCs listed as IIRs in the Japan-RMP were concordant with those in the EU-RMP. The concordance rate between the SCs identified as IIRs and the warning information was 18.6% for the EU-RMP and 88.4% for the Japan-RMP.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The low SC concordance rate between the EU- and Japan-RMP indicates a different approach to selecting RMP SCs by the two regulatory authorities.</p>","PeriodicalId":19782,"journal":{"name":"Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety","volume":"34 1","pages":"e70097"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.70097","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to obtain a better understanding of the characteristics of the risk management plans (RMP) and the background regulatory policies governing them, in the European Union (EU) and Japan. This was done by descriptively comparing the safety concerns (SCs) listed in the RMP and examining their relationships with product labeling.

Methods: Information regarding SCs was collected from the published RMP of both the EU and Japan for the targeted products-all of which were commonly approved in both regions. The concordance rate of the SCs for each product between the EU- and Japan-RMP was calculated. The warning information for each product was collected from the product labeling, summary of product characteristics for the EU, and package insert for Japan, and compared with the SCs listed in the corresponding RMP.

Results: A total of 259 products that were approved for sale in both the EU and Japan (1998-2023), for which RMP were available in both regions, were analyzed. While 51.0% of the SCs labeled as important identified risks (IIRs) in the EU-RMP were concordant with those in the Japan-RMP, 20.4% of the SCs listed as IIRs in the Japan-RMP were concordant with those in the EU-RMP. The concordance rate between the SCs identified as IIRs and the warning information was 18.6% for the EU-RMP and 88.4% for the Japan-RMP.

Conclusions: The low SC concordance rate between the EU- and Japan-RMP indicates a different approach to selecting RMP SCs by the two regulatory authorities.

欧盟和日本风险管理计划中安全问题的描述性比较分析。
目的:本研究旨在更好地了解欧盟(EU)和日本风险管理计划(RMP)的特点和管理它们的背景监管政策。这是通过描述性地比较RMP中列出的安全问题(SCs)并检查它们与产品标签的关系来完成的。方法:从欧盟和日本公布的目标产品的RMP中收集SCs的信息,所有这些产品都在这两个地区获得了普遍批准。计算了欧盟和日本rmp之间每种产品的SCs的一致性率。每种产品的警告信息是从产品标签、欧盟产品特性摘要和日本包装说明书中收集的,并与相应RMP中列出的SCs进行比较。结果:我们分析了1998-2023年在欧盟和日本批准销售的总共259种产品,这些产品在这两个地区都有RMP。在欧盟- rmp中被标记为重要识别风险(iir)的SCs中,51.0%与日本- rmp中的一致,而在日本- rmp中被列为iir的SCs中,有20.4%与欧盟- rmp中的一致。识别为iir的SCs与预警信息的一致性率在EU-RMP中为18.6%,在Japan-RMP中为88.4%。结论:欧盟和日本RMP之间的低SC一致性表明两个监管机构选择RMP SC的方法不同。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
7.70%
发文量
173
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The aim of Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety is to provide an international forum for the communication and evaluation of data, methods and opinion in the discipline of pharmacoepidemiology. The Journal publishes peer-reviewed reports of original research, invited reviews and a variety of guest editorials and commentaries embracing scientific, medical, statistical, legal and economic aspects of pharmacoepidemiology and post-marketing surveillance of drug safety. Appropriate material in these categories may also be considered for publication as a Brief Report. Particular areas of interest include: design, analysis, results, and interpretation of studies looking at the benefit or safety of specific pharmaceuticals, biologics, or medical devices, including studies in pharmacovigilance, postmarketing surveillance, pharmacoeconomics, patient safety, molecular pharmacoepidemiology, or any other study within the broad field of pharmacoepidemiology; comparative effectiveness research relating to pharmaceuticals, biologics, and medical devices. Comparative effectiveness research is the generation and synthesis of evidence that compares the benefits and harms of alternative methods to prevent, diagnose, treat, and monitor a clinical condition, as these methods are truly used in the real world; methodologic contributions of relevance to pharmacoepidemiology, whether original contributions, reviews of existing methods, or tutorials for how to apply the methods of pharmacoepidemiology; assessments of harm versus benefit in drug therapy; patterns of drug utilization; relationships between pharmacoepidemiology and the formulation and interpretation of regulatory guidelines; evaluations of risk management plans and programmes relating to pharmaceuticals, biologics and medical devices.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信