在临床实践指南中实施欧盟医药产品风险最小化措施的挑战:混合方法多案例研究》。

IF 4 2区 医学 Q1 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Mathias Møllebæk, Helga Gardarsdottir, Alexia-Georgia Bikou, Ana Kodrič, Ana Marta Silva, Armin Andersen, Christos Kontogiorgis, Elita Poplavska, Fariba Ahmadizar, Foteini Dermiki-Gkana, Ieva Rutkovska, Inês Ribeiro Vaz, Mitja Kos, Paula Barão, Renske Grupstra, Teresa Leonardo Alves, Anna Birna Almarsdóttir
{"title":"在临床实践指南中实施欧盟医药产品风险最小化措施的挑战:混合方法多案例研究》。","authors":"Mathias Møllebæk, Helga Gardarsdottir, Alexia-Georgia Bikou, Ana Kodrič, Ana Marta Silva, Armin Andersen, Christos Kontogiorgis, Elita Poplavska, Fariba Ahmadizar, Foteini Dermiki-Gkana, Ieva Rutkovska, Inês Ribeiro Vaz, Mitja Kos, Paula Barão, Renske Grupstra, Teresa Leonardo Alves, Anna Birna Almarsdóttir","doi":"10.1007/s40264-024-01487-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Risk minimisation measures (RMMs) aim to ensure safe use of medicines, but their implementation in clinical practice is complicated by the diversity of stakeholders whose clinical decision making they seek to inform. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are considered integral in clinical decision making.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To determine the extent to which RMMs are included in the relevant CPGs and to describe factors that determine RMM inclusion.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A multi-case study design using quantitative document analysis of CPGs combined with qualitative interviews with informants from organisations that issue CPGs. Cases from five therapeutic areas (TAs) with a regulatory requirement for further RMMs were studied individually in six EU member states (Denmark, Greece, Latvia, Netherlands, Portugal and Slovenia). Clinical practice guidelines were analysed using pre-defined coding frameworks. Interviewees were sampled purposively for experience and knowledge about CPG development and RMM inclusion. Verbatim interview transcripts were analysed inductively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 136 CPGs were analysed, and RMM information about TAs was included in 25% of CPGs. Based on 71 interviews we found that factors that determine RMM inclusion in CPGs include clinicians' low awareness of RMMs despite awareness of RMMs' safety concern, low expectation of RMMs' clinical utility, and unfamiliarity with pharmacovigilance data supporting RMMs and perceived incompatibility of CPGs' scope and purpose and RMM information.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The inclusion of RMM information in relevant CPGs is remarkably limited. It may be explained by characteristics of CPGs and of RMMs as well as lack of connection between national regulators and organisations and authors developing CPGs. More collaboration between stakeholders, national regulators and the EMA may advance implementation.</p>","PeriodicalId":11382,"journal":{"name":"Drug Safety","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Challenges in the Implementation of EU Risk Minimisation Measures for Medicinal Products in Clinical Practice Guidelines: Mixed Methods Multi-Case Study.\",\"authors\":\"Mathias Møllebæk, Helga Gardarsdottir, Alexia-Georgia Bikou, Ana Kodrič, Ana Marta Silva, Armin Andersen, Christos Kontogiorgis, Elita Poplavska, Fariba Ahmadizar, Foteini Dermiki-Gkana, Ieva Rutkovska, Inês Ribeiro Vaz, Mitja Kos, Paula Barão, Renske Grupstra, Teresa Leonardo Alves, Anna Birna Almarsdóttir\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40264-024-01487-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Risk minimisation measures (RMMs) aim to ensure safe use of medicines, but their implementation in clinical practice is complicated by the diversity of stakeholders whose clinical decision making they seek to inform. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are considered integral in clinical decision making.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To determine the extent to which RMMs are included in the relevant CPGs and to describe factors that determine RMM inclusion.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A multi-case study design using quantitative document analysis of CPGs combined with qualitative interviews with informants from organisations that issue CPGs. Cases from five therapeutic areas (TAs) with a regulatory requirement for further RMMs were studied individually in six EU member states (Denmark, Greece, Latvia, Netherlands, Portugal and Slovenia). Clinical practice guidelines were analysed using pre-defined coding frameworks. Interviewees were sampled purposively for experience and knowledge about CPG development and RMM inclusion. Verbatim interview transcripts were analysed inductively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 136 CPGs were analysed, and RMM information about TAs was included in 25% of CPGs. Based on 71 interviews we found that factors that determine RMM inclusion in CPGs include clinicians' low awareness of RMMs despite awareness of RMMs' safety concern, low expectation of RMMs' clinical utility, and unfamiliarity with pharmacovigilance data supporting RMMs and perceived incompatibility of CPGs' scope and purpose and RMM information.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The inclusion of RMM information in relevant CPGs is remarkably limited. It may be explained by characteristics of CPGs and of RMMs as well as lack of connection between national regulators and organisations and authors developing CPGs. More collaboration between stakeholders, national regulators and the EMA may advance implementation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11382,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Drug Safety\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Drug Safety\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-024-01487-5\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Drug Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-024-01487-5","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:风险最小化措施(RMMs)旨在确保药物的安全使用,但在临床实践中,这些措施的实施却因利益相关者的多样性而变得复杂。临床实践指南(CPG)被认为是临床决策中不可或缺的一部分:确定相关 CPG 纳入 RMM 的程度,并描述决定纳入 RMM 的因素:方法:采用多病例研究设计,对 CPGs 文件进行定量分析,同时对发布 CPGs 的组织的信息提供者进行定性访谈。在六个欧盟成员国(丹麦、希腊、拉脱维亚、荷兰、葡萄牙和斯洛文尼亚)中,对五个治疗领域(TA)的案例进行了研究,这些治疗领域都有进一步纳入 RMM 的监管要求。使用预先确定的编码框架对临床实践指南进行了分析。对受访者进行了有目的的抽样调查,以了解他们在制定临床实践指南和纳入 RMM 方面的经验和知识。对逐字记录的访谈记录进行归纳分析:共分析了 136 份 CPG,其中 25% 的 CPG 包含了有关助教的 RMM 信息。根据 71 次访谈,我们发现决定将 RMM 纳入 CPG 的因素包括:临床医生对 RMM 的认知度较低,尽管他们意识到 RMM 的安全性问题;对 RMM 的临床效用期望较低;不熟悉支持 RMM 的药物警戒数据;认为 CPG 的范围和目的与 RMM 信息不相符:结论:将 RMM 信息纳入相关 CPG 的情况非常有限。这可能是由于 CPG 和 RMM 的特点以及国家监管机构和组织与制定 CPG 的作者之间缺乏联系造成的。利益相关者、国家监管机构和 EMA 之间的更多合作可能会推动实施工作。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Challenges in the Implementation of EU Risk Minimisation Measures for Medicinal Products in Clinical Practice Guidelines: Mixed Methods Multi-Case Study.

Introduction: Risk minimisation measures (RMMs) aim to ensure safe use of medicines, but their implementation in clinical practice is complicated by the diversity of stakeholders whose clinical decision making they seek to inform. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are considered integral in clinical decision making.

Objectives: To determine the extent to which RMMs are included in the relevant CPGs and to describe factors that determine RMM inclusion.

Methods: A multi-case study design using quantitative document analysis of CPGs combined with qualitative interviews with informants from organisations that issue CPGs. Cases from five therapeutic areas (TAs) with a regulatory requirement for further RMMs were studied individually in six EU member states (Denmark, Greece, Latvia, Netherlands, Portugal and Slovenia). Clinical practice guidelines were analysed using pre-defined coding frameworks. Interviewees were sampled purposively for experience and knowledge about CPG development and RMM inclusion. Verbatim interview transcripts were analysed inductively.

Results: In total, 136 CPGs were analysed, and RMM information about TAs was included in 25% of CPGs. Based on 71 interviews we found that factors that determine RMM inclusion in CPGs include clinicians' low awareness of RMMs despite awareness of RMMs' safety concern, low expectation of RMMs' clinical utility, and unfamiliarity with pharmacovigilance data supporting RMMs and perceived incompatibility of CPGs' scope and purpose and RMM information.

Conclusions: The inclusion of RMM information in relevant CPGs is remarkably limited. It may be explained by characteristics of CPGs and of RMMs as well as lack of connection between national regulators and organisations and authors developing CPGs. More collaboration between stakeholders, national regulators and the EMA may advance implementation.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Drug Safety
Drug Safety 医学-毒理学
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
7.10%
发文量
112
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Drug Safety is the official journal of the International Society of Pharmacovigilance. The journal includes: Overviews of contentious or emerging issues. Comprehensive narrative reviews that provide an authoritative source of information on epidemiology, clinical features, prevention and management of adverse effects of individual drugs and drug classes. In-depth benefit-risk assessment of adverse effect and efficacy data for a drug in a defined therapeutic area. Systematic reviews (with or without meta-analyses) that collate empirical evidence to answer a specific research question, using explicit, systematic methods as outlined by the PRISMA statement. Original research articles reporting the results of well-designed studies in disciplines such as pharmacoepidemiology, pharmacovigilance, pharmacology and toxicology, and pharmacogenomics. Editorials and commentaries on topical issues. Additional digital features (including animated abstracts, video abstracts, slide decks, audio slides, instructional videos, infographics, podcasts and animations) can be published with articles; these are designed to increase the visibility, readership and educational value of the journal’s content. In addition, articles published in Drug Safety Drugs may be accompanied by plain language summaries to assist readers who have some knowledge of, but not in-depth expertise in, the area to understand important medical advances.
×
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