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}
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.
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.