日本药品上市后全病例监测作为安全措施的有效性

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q2 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety Pub Date : 2021-12-16 eCollection Date: 2021-01-01 DOI:10.1177/20420986211065215
Hideyuki Kondo, Ken Masamune
{"title":"日本药品上市后全病例监测作为安全措施的有效性","authors":"Hideyuki Kondo,&nbsp;Ken Masamune","doi":"10.1177/20420986211065215","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The drug pharmacovigilance system in Japan is similar to those in the European Union (EU) and the United States. As a unique Japanese pharmacovigilance program, postmarketing all-case surveillance (PMACS) is required. PMACS plays a key role for postmarketing activities, but there are challenges that place much burden on PMACS conduct. This study investigates the impact of PMACS on postmarketing activities in Japan and proposes its potential improvement. This study also seeks the possibility to expand PMACS beyond Japan.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Reexamination reports issued from 2017 to 2019 were identified in September 2020 by searching 'reexamination report' and '201701' to '201912' on the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency website. The corresponding Package Insert (PI) change orders and premarketing review reports were also identified. Reviewing these regulatory documents allowed for investigation of the PMACS impact on postmarketing activities.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>More than half (57%) of the drugs with PMACS had 'Limited dosing experience in Japan' as a reason for the PMACS requirement. As a safety measure, no PI change orders were imposed on 33% and 28% of drugs with and without PMACS, respectively. The means of the number of PI change orders were 2.23 and 2.14 for drugs with and without PMACS, respectively. There were no reexamination reports mentioning any concerns related to efficacy.</p><p><strong>Discussion and conclusion: </strong>PMACS should not be imposed only because of limited dosing experience in Japan at the premarketing stage. Rather, PMACS should focus on (1) collection of safety data (not efficacy), (2) necessity of distribution control, and/or (3) collection of case details for drugs with a limited treated population. PMACS also has the potential to be utilized in the EU and the United States, as their regulatory frameworks are acceptable for PMACS. Naglazyme (galsulfase) is a case where the PMACS-like studies have been required in each region.</p><p><strong>Plain language summary: </strong><b>Effectiveness of data collection for all patients who receive a new drug as a safety measure in Japan:</b> <b>Introduction::</b> In Japan, a drug company is obligated to conduct data collection after a new drug launch as an approval condition. The obligation is a unique Japanese requirement where a company must collect data from all patients receiving the drug in Japan in cooperation with hospitals. This is expected to contribute to intensive data collection and better drug distribution control and could potentially be useful in countries beyond Japan. However, no clear criteria have been established for decision making, despite the significant burden for companies and hospitals. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the impact of the obligation on safety measures and efficacy data collection and propose a potentially improved drug scope to impose the obligation.<b>Materials and Methods::</b> Reexamination of reports issued by the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency between 2017-2019.<b>Results::</b> More than half (57%) of the included drugs had 'Limited dosing experience in Japan' as a reason for the obligation being required. However, regulatory order to change drug label, an action based on safety signal identification, was imposed on 33% and 28% of drugs with and without the obligation, respectively. The means of the number of the label change orders were 2.23 and 2.14 for drugs with and without obligation, respectively. Meanwhile, some drugs were highlighted as potential factors for better application of the obligation.<b>Conclusion::</b> According to these results, the obligation should be imposed on a limited number of drugs by focusing not on dosing experience in Japan but on safety (not efficacy) data collection, necessity of distribution control, and/or collection of case details for drugs with a limited treated population. The obligation also has the potential to be utilized in the EU and the United States, as their regulatory frameworks are acceptable for the obligation.</p>","PeriodicalId":23012,"journal":{"name":"Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/32/97/10.1177_20420986211065215.PMC8689626.pdf","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effectiveness of drug postmarketing all-case surveillance as a safety measure in Japan.\",\"authors\":\"Hideyuki Kondo,&nbsp;Ken Masamune\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/20420986211065215\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The drug pharmacovigilance system in Japan is similar to those in the European Union (EU) and the United States. As a unique Japanese pharmacovigilance program, postmarketing all-case surveillance (PMACS) is required. PMACS plays a key role for postmarketing activities, but there are challenges that place much burden on PMACS conduct. This study investigates the impact of PMACS on postmarketing activities in Japan and proposes its potential improvement. This study also seeks the possibility to expand PMACS beyond Japan.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Reexamination reports issued from 2017 to 2019 were identified in September 2020 by searching 'reexamination report' and '201701' to '201912' on the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency website. The corresponding Package Insert (PI) change orders and premarketing review reports were also identified. Reviewing these regulatory documents allowed for investigation of the PMACS impact on postmarketing activities.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>More than half (57%) of the drugs with PMACS had 'Limited dosing experience in Japan' as a reason for the PMACS requirement. As a safety measure, no PI change orders were imposed on 33% and 28% of drugs with and without PMACS, respectively. The means of the number of PI change orders were 2.23 and 2.14 for drugs with and without PMACS, respectively. There were no reexamination reports mentioning any concerns related to efficacy.</p><p><strong>Discussion and conclusion: </strong>PMACS should not be imposed only because of limited dosing experience in Japan at the premarketing stage. Rather, PMACS should focus on (1) collection of safety data (not efficacy), (2) necessity of distribution control, and/or (3) collection of case details for drugs with a limited treated population. PMACS also has the potential to be utilized in the EU and the United States, as their regulatory frameworks are acceptable for PMACS. Naglazyme (galsulfase) is a case where the PMACS-like studies have been required in each region.</p><p><strong>Plain language summary: </strong><b>Effectiveness of data collection for all patients who receive a new drug as a safety measure in Japan:</b> <b>Introduction::</b> In Japan, a drug company is obligated to conduct data collection after a new drug launch as an approval condition. The obligation is a unique Japanese requirement where a company must collect data from all patients receiving the drug in Japan in cooperation with hospitals. This is expected to contribute to intensive data collection and better drug distribution control and could potentially be useful in countries beyond Japan. However, no clear criteria have been established for decision making, despite the significant burden for companies and hospitals. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the impact of the obligation on safety measures and efficacy data collection and propose a potentially improved drug scope to impose the obligation.<b>Materials and Methods::</b> Reexamination of reports issued by the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency between 2017-2019.<b>Results::</b> More than half (57%) of the included drugs had 'Limited dosing experience in Japan' as a reason for the obligation being required. However, regulatory order to change drug label, an action based on safety signal identification, was imposed on 33% and 28% of drugs with and without the obligation, respectively. The means of the number of the label change orders were 2.23 and 2.14 for drugs with and without obligation, respectively. Meanwhile, some drugs were highlighted as potential factors for better application of the obligation.<b>Conclusion::</b> According to these results, the obligation should be imposed on a limited number of drugs by focusing not on dosing experience in Japan but on safety (not efficacy) data collection, necessity of distribution control, and/or collection of case details for drugs with a limited treated population. The obligation also has the potential to be utilized in the EU and the United States, as their regulatory frameworks are acceptable for the obligation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23012,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/32/97/10.1177_20420986211065215.PMC8689626.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/20420986211065215\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20420986211065215","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

导言:日本的药物警戒制度与欧盟和美国相似。作为日本独特的药物警戒计划,上市后全病例监测(PMACS)是必需的。PMACS在上市后活动中发挥着关键作用,但PMACS的行为面临着许多挑战。本研究调查了PMACS对日本上市后活动的影响,并提出了其潜在的改进。该研究还寻求将PMACS扩展到日本以外的可能性。材料和方法:通过在药品和医疗器械管理局网站上搜索“复审报告”和“201701”至“2011912”,于2020年9月确定2017年至2019年发布的复审报告。相应的包装说明书变更单和上市前评审报告也被确认。审查这些规范性文件允许调查PMACS对上市后活动的影响。结果:超过一半(57%)具有PMACS的药物“在日本的给药经验有限”是PMACS要求的原因。作为安全措施,33%的有PMACS的药品和28%的无PMACS的药品均未下达PI变更单。有PMACS和无PMACS药品的PI变更单次均值分别为2.23和2.14。没有复查报告提及任何与疗效相关的问题。讨论和结论:PMACS不应该仅仅因为在日本上市前阶段有限的给药经验而强制实施。相反,PMACS应侧重于(1)收集安全性数据(而不是有效性),(2)分配控制的必要性,和/或(3)收集有限治疗人群药物的病例详细信息。PMACS也有可能在欧盟和美国使用,因为它们的监管框架对PMACS是可以接受的。Naglazyme (galsulase)是一种需要在每个区域进行pmacs样研究的案例。简单的语言总结:日本所有接受新药作为安全措施的患者数据收集的有效性:简介::在日本,作为批准条件,制药公司有义务在新药上市后进行数据收集。这项义务是日本的一项独特要求,公司必须与医院合作,收集在日本接受该药物治疗的所有患者的数据。预计这将有助于密集的数据收集和更好的药物分销控制,并可能对日本以外的国家有用。然而,尽管给公司和医院带来了沉重负担,但尚未制定明确的决策标准。因此,本研究旨在探讨该义务对安全措施和疗效数据收集的影响,并提出一个可能改进的药物范围来实施该义务。材料和方法:2017-2019年药品和医疗器械管理局发布的报告的复审。结果:超过一半(57%)的纳入药物因“在日本的给药经验有限”而被要求履行义务。而基于安全信号识别的药品标签变更监管令在有义务药品和无义务药品中分别占33%和28%。有义务药品和无义务药品的标签变更单数量均值分别为2.23和2.14。同时,一些药物被强调为更好地适用义务的潜在因素。结论:根据这些结果,应该对有限数量的药物施加义务,重点不应放在日本的给药经验上,而应放在安全性(而不是有效性)数据收集、分配控制的必要性和/或收集有限治疗人群中药物的病例详细信息上。这项义务也有可能在欧盟和美国被利用,因为它们的监管框架对于这项义务是可以接受的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Effectiveness of drug postmarketing all-case surveillance as a safety measure in Japan.

Effectiveness of drug postmarketing all-case surveillance as a safety measure in Japan.

Effectiveness of drug postmarketing all-case surveillance as a safety measure in Japan.

Effectiveness of drug postmarketing all-case surveillance as a safety measure in Japan.

Introduction: The drug pharmacovigilance system in Japan is similar to those in the European Union (EU) and the United States. As a unique Japanese pharmacovigilance program, postmarketing all-case surveillance (PMACS) is required. PMACS plays a key role for postmarketing activities, but there are challenges that place much burden on PMACS conduct. This study investigates the impact of PMACS on postmarketing activities in Japan and proposes its potential improvement. This study also seeks the possibility to expand PMACS beyond Japan.

Materials and methods: Reexamination reports issued from 2017 to 2019 were identified in September 2020 by searching 'reexamination report' and '201701' to '201912' on the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency website. The corresponding Package Insert (PI) change orders and premarketing review reports were also identified. Reviewing these regulatory documents allowed for investigation of the PMACS impact on postmarketing activities.

Results: More than half (57%) of the drugs with PMACS had 'Limited dosing experience in Japan' as a reason for the PMACS requirement. As a safety measure, no PI change orders were imposed on 33% and 28% of drugs with and without PMACS, respectively. The means of the number of PI change orders were 2.23 and 2.14 for drugs with and without PMACS, respectively. There were no reexamination reports mentioning any concerns related to efficacy.

Discussion and conclusion: PMACS should not be imposed only because of limited dosing experience in Japan at the premarketing stage. Rather, PMACS should focus on (1) collection of safety data (not efficacy), (2) necessity of distribution control, and/or (3) collection of case details for drugs with a limited treated population. PMACS also has the potential to be utilized in the EU and the United States, as their regulatory frameworks are acceptable for PMACS. Naglazyme (galsulfase) is a case where the PMACS-like studies have been required in each region.

Plain language summary: Effectiveness of data collection for all patients who receive a new drug as a safety measure in Japan: Introduction:: In Japan, a drug company is obligated to conduct data collection after a new drug launch as an approval condition. The obligation is a unique Japanese requirement where a company must collect data from all patients receiving the drug in Japan in cooperation with hospitals. This is expected to contribute to intensive data collection and better drug distribution control and could potentially be useful in countries beyond Japan. However, no clear criteria have been established for decision making, despite the significant burden for companies and hospitals. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the impact of the obligation on safety measures and efficacy data collection and propose a potentially improved drug scope to impose the obligation.Materials and Methods:: Reexamination of reports issued by the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency between 2017-2019.Results:: More than half (57%) of the included drugs had 'Limited dosing experience in Japan' as a reason for the obligation being required. However, regulatory order to change drug label, an action based on safety signal identification, was imposed on 33% and 28% of drugs with and without the obligation, respectively. The means of the number of the label change orders were 2.23 and 2.14 for drugs with and without obligation, respectively. Meanwhile, some drugs were highlighted as potential factors for better application of the obligation.Conclusion:: According to these results, the obligation should be imposed on a limited number of drugs by focusing not on dosing experience in Japan but on safety (not efficacy) data collection, necessity of distribution control, and/or collection of case details for drugs with a limited treated population. The obligation also has the potential to be utilized in the EU and the United States, as their regulatory frameworks are acceptable for the obligation.

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
Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety
Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety Medicine-Pharmacology (medical)
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
4.50%
发文量
31
审稿时长
9 weeks
期刊介绍: Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety delivers the highest quality peer-reviewed articles, reviews, and scholarly comment on pioneering efforts and innovative studies pertaining to the safe use of drugs in patients. The journal has a strong clinical and pharmacological focus and is aimed at clinicians and researchers in drug safety, providing a forum in print and online for publishing the highest quality articles in this area. The editors welcome articles of current interest on research across all areas of drug safety, including therapeutic drug monitoring, pharmacoepidemiology, adverse drug reactions, drug interactions, pharmacokinetics, pharmacovigilance, medication/prescribing errors, risk management, ethics and regulation.
×
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