IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Jorge Monteiro, Diogo Almeida, João Paulo Fernandes, Bruno Sepodes, Carla Torre
{"title":"Review of studies evaluating the effectiveness of risk minimization measures for oncology medicinal products registered in the European Medicines Agency (HMA-EMA) catalogue: findings and lessons learned.","authors":"Jorge Monteiro, Diogo Almeida, João Paulo Fernandes, Bruno Sepodes, Carla Torre","doi":"10.1080/14740338.2025.2471530","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Risk management in oncology is critical due to toxicity, narrow therapeutic windows, and strict dosing schedules. This study analyzed post-authorization studies from the HMA-EMA Real-World Data Catalogues evaluating the effectiveness of risk minimization measures (RMM) for oncology medicines.</p><p><strong>Research design and methods: </strong>We reviewed all RMM effectiveness studies registered in the HMA-EMA RWD Catalogues until February 2024, focusing on medicines classified under ATC codes 'L' and 'V10' for oncological conditions. Data from protocols and reports were analyzed, including study design, population, objectives, RMM types, process and outcomes indicators and reported effectiveness.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 1,280 records, 21 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies (81%) were cross-sectional surveys, 57% targeted healthcare professionals, and 86% used primary data. Additional RMMs were evaluated in 81% of studies. Process indicators were assessed in nearly all studies, but only 5% included outcome indicators. Of the 15 studies with available results, 60% were deemed effective, 27% inconclusive, and 13% ineffective by the sponsors.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Future studies should set success thresholds in advance, use a dual evidence approach to measure outcomes, and consider new methods to increase participant numbers. Feasibility assessments prior to conducting studies are essential for achieving meaningful objectives in oncology risk management.</p>","PeriodicalId":12232,"journal":{"name":"Expert Opinion on Drug Safety","volume":" ","pages":"1-12"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Opinion on Drug Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14740338.2025.2471530","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:由于毒性、狭窄的治疗窗口和严格的用药计划,肿瘤学风险管理至关重要。本研究分析了HMA-EMA真实世界数据目录中评估肿瘤药物风险最小化措施(RMM)有效性的授权后研究:我们审查了截至 2024 年 2 月在 HMA-EMA 真实世界数据目录中登记的所有 RMM 有效性研究,重点关注 ATC 代码为 "L "和 "V10 "的肿瘤药物。我们分析了协议和报告中的数据,包括研究设计、人群、目标、RMM 类型、过程和结果指标以及报告的有效性:在 1280 条记录中,有 21 项研究符合纳入标准。大多数研究(81%)为横断面调查,57%的研究对象为医护人员,86%的研究使用了原始数据。81%的研究对其他 RMM 进行了评估。几乎所有研究都对过程指标进行了评估,但只有 5%的研究纳入了结果指标。在 15 项有结果的研究中,60% 被发起人认为有效,27% 没有结论,13% 无效:结论:未来的研究应提前设定成功阈值,使用双重证据方法来衡量结果,并考虑采用新方法来增加参与人数。开展研究前的可行性评估对于实现肿瘤风险管理的有意义目标至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Review of studies evaluating the effectiveness of risk minimization measures for oncology medicinal products registered in the European Medicines Agency (HMA-EMA) catalogue: findings and lessons learned.

Background: Risk management in oncology is critical due to toxicity, narrow therapeutic windows, and strict dosing schedules. This study analyzed post-authorization studies from the HMA-EMA Real-World Data Catalogues evaluating the effectiveness of risk minimization measures (RMM) for oncology medicines.

Research design and methods: We reviewed all RMM effectiveness studies registered in the HMA-EMA RWD Catalogues until February 2024, focusing on medicines classified under ATC codes 'L' and 'V10' for oncological conditions. Data from protocols and reports were analyzed, including study design, population, objectives, RMM types, process and outcomes indicators and reported effectiveness.

Results: Out of 1,280 records, 21 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies (81%) were cross-sectional surveys, 57% targeted healthcare professionals, and 86% used primary data. Additional RMMs were evaluated in 81% of studies. Process indicators were assessed in nearly all studies, but only 5% included outcome indicators. Of the 15 studies with available results, 60% were deemed effective, 27% inconclusive, and 13% ineffective by the sponsors.

Conclusions: Future studies should set success thresholds in advance, use a dual evidence approach to measure outcomes, and consider new methods to increase participant numbers. Feasibility assessments prior to conducting studies are essential for achieving meaningful objectives in oncology risk management.

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
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
3.20%
发文量
97
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Expert Opinion on Drug Safety ranks #62 of 216 in the Pharmacology & Pharmacy category in the 2008 ISI Journal Citation Reports. Expert Opinion on Drug Safety (ISSN 1474-0338 [print], 1744-764X [electronic]) is a MEDLINE-indexed, peer-reviewed, international journal publishing review articles on all aspects of drug safety and original papers on the clinical implications of drug treatment safety issues, providing expert opinion on the scope for future development.
×
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