Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Drug Safety 2/2015

Open Access 01-02-2015 | Review Article

Specialist Cohort Event Monitoring Studies: A New Study Method for Risk Management in Pharmacovigilance

Authors: Deborah Layton, Saad A. W. Shakir

Published in: Drug Safety | Issue 2/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

The evolving regulatory landscape has heightened the need for innovative, proactive, efficient and more meaningful solutions for ‘real-world’ post-authorization safety studies (PASS) that not only align with risk management objectives to gather additional safety monitoring information or assess a pattern of drug utilization, but also satisfy key regulatory requirements for marketing authorization holder risk management planning and execution needs. There is a need for data capture across the primary care and secondary care interface, or for exploring use of new medicines in secondary care to support conducting PASS. To fulfil this need, event monitoring has evolved. The Specialist Cohort Event Monitoring (SCEM) study is a new application that enables a cohort of patients prescribed a medicine in the hospital and secondary care settings to be monitored. The method also permits the inclusion of a comparator cohort of patients receiving standard care, or another counterfactual comparator group, to be monitored concurrently, depending on the study question. The approach has been developed in parallel with the new legislative requirement for pharmaceutical companies to undertake a risk management plan as part of post-authorization safety monitoring. SCEM studies recognize that the study population comprises those patients who may have treatment initiated under the care of specialist health care professionals and who are more complex in terms of underlying disease, co-morbidities and concomitant medications than the general disease population treated in primary care. The aims of this paper are to discuss the SCEM new-user study design, rationale and features that aim to address possible bias (such as selection bias) and current applications.
Footnotes
1
Evaluable patients exclude eligible consented patients who withdraw during the study or for whom insufficient clinical information is provided on the questionnaires. There is no means of evaluating events reported for patients who have withdrawn their consent.
 
Literature
1.
go back to reference European Medicines Agency (EMA). Guideline on good pharmacovigilance practices (GVP) module viii—post-authorisation safety studies (rev 1). EMA/813938/2011. London: EMA, 19 April 2013. European Medicines Agency (EMA). Guideline on good pharmacovigilance practices (GVP) module viii—post-authorisation safety studies (rev 1). EMA/813938/2011. London: EMA, 19 April 2013.
2.
go back to reference European Network of Centres of Excellence for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance (ENCEPP). Guide on methodological standards in pharmacoepidemiology (revision 2). EMA/95098/2010. London: ENCEPP, 18 June 2013. European Network of Centres of Excellence for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance (ENCEPP). Guide on methodological standards in pharmacoepidemiology (revision 2). EMA/95098/2010. London: ENCEPP, 18 June 2013.
3.
go back to reference Layton D, Hazell L, Shakir SA. Modified prescription-event monitoring studies: a tool for pharmacovigilance and risk management. Drug Saf. 2011. Layton D, Hazell L, Shakir SA. Modified prescription-event monitoring studies: a tool for pharmacovigilance and risk management. Drug Saf. 2011.
4.
go back to reference Layton D, Shakir SAW. Prescription-event monitoring. In: Strom BL, Kimmel SE, Hennessy S, editors. Pharmacoepidemiology, 5th edn. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 2011. p. 301–330. Layton D, Shakir SAW. Prescription-event monitoring. In: Strom BL, Kimmel SE, Hennessy S, editors. Pharmacoepidemiology, 5th edn. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 2011. p. 301–330.
5.
go back to reference Suissa S. Immortal time bias in observational studies of drug effects. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2007;16(3):241–9.CrossRefPubMed Suissa S. Immortal time bias in observational studies of drug effects. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2007;16(3):241–9.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Epstein M. Guidelines for good pharmacoepidemiology practices (GPP). Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2005;14(8):589–95.CrossRefPubMed Epstein M. Guidelines for good pharmacoepidemiology practices (GPP). Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2005;14(8):589–95.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference European Network of Centres of Excellence for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance (ENCEPP). E-register of studies. An observational post-authorisation safety specialist cohort monitoring study (SCEM) to monitor the safety and utilisation of asenapine (Sycrest) in the mental health trust setting in England. 2014. http://www.encepp.eu/encepp/viewResource.htm?id=5323. Accessed 30 Dec 2014. European Network of Centres of Excellence for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance (ENCEPP). E-register of studies. An observational post-authorisation safety specialist cohort monitoring study (SCEM) to monitor the safety and utilisation of asenapine (Sycrest) in the mental health trust setting in England. 2014. http://​www.​encepp.​eu/​encepp/​viewResource.​htm?​id=​5323. Accessed 30 Dec 2014.
14.
go back to reference European Network of Centres of Excellence for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance (ENCEPP). E-register of studies. An observational post-authorization safety specialist cohort event monitoring study (SCEM) to monitor the safety and utilization of rivaroxaban (Xarelto®) for the prevention of stroke in patients with AF, treatment of DVT and PE, and the prevention of recurrent DVT and PE in the secondary care hospital setting in England and Wales. 2014. http://www.encepp.eu/encepp/viewResource.htm?id=5320. Accessed 30 Dec 2014. European Network of Centres of Excellence for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance (ENCEPP). E-register of studies. An observational post-authorization safety specialist cohort event monitoring study (SCEM) to monitor the safety and utilization of rivaroxaban (Xarelto®) for the prevention of stroke in patients with AF, treatment of DVT and PE, and the prevention of recurrent DVT and PE in the secondary care hospital setting in England and Wales. 2014. http://​www.​encepp.​eu/​encepp/​viewResource.​htm?​id=​5320. Accessed 30 Dec 2014.
15.
go back to reference Establishing requirements for the use of terms for reporting adverse drug reactions (ADR). Consultant, Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS), World Health Organization. Mater Med Pol 1993;25(1):45–6. Establishing requirements for the use of terms for reporting adverse drug reactions (ADR). Consultant, Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS), World Health Organization. Mater Med Pol 1993;25(1):45–6.
16.
go back to reference Farrington CP. Control without separate controls: evaluation of vaccine safety using case-only methods. Vaccine 2004;22(15-16):2064–70.CrossRefPubMed Farrington CP. Control without separate controls: evaluation of vaccine safety using case-only methods. Vaccine 2004;22(15-16):2064–70.CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Groves R. Non response rates and non-response bias in household surveys. Public Opin Q Spec Issue. 2006;70(5):646–75.CrossRef Groves R. Non response rates and non-response bias in household surveys. Public Opin Q Spec Issue. 2006;70(5):646–75.CrossRef
19.
20.
go back to reference Schouten B, Cobben F, Bethlehem J. Indicators for the representativeness of survey response. Survey Methodol. 2009;35(1):101–13. Schouten B, Cobben F, Bethlehem J. Indicators for the representativeness of survey response. Survey Methodol. 2009;35(1):101–13.
21.
go back to reference Groves R, Peytcheva E. The impact of non-response rates on non-response bias: a meta-analysis. Public Opin Q. 2008;72(2):167–89.CrossRef Groves R, Peytcheva E. The impact of non-response rates on non-response bias: a meta-analysis. Public Opin Q. 2008;72(2):167–89.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Groenewegen PP, Leufkens HG, Spreeuwenberg P, Worm W. Neighbourhood characteristics and use of benzodiazepines in the Netherlands. Soc Sci Med. 1999;48(12):1701–11.CrossRefPubMed Groenewegen PP, Leufkens HG, Spreeuwenberg P, Worm W. Neighbourhood characteristics and use of benzodiazepines in the Netherlands. Soc Sci Med. 1999;48(12):1701–11.CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Schulman S, Kearon C. Definition of major bleeding in clinical investigations of antihemostatic medicinal products in non-surgical patients. J Thromb Haemost 2005;3(4):692-4.CrossRefPubMed Schulman S, Kearon C. Definition of major bleeding in clinical investigations of antihemostatic medicinal products in non-surgical patients. J Thromb Haemost 2005;3(4):692-4.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Specialist Cohort Event Monitoring Studies: A New Study Method for Risk Management in Pharmacovigilance
Authors
Deborah Layton
Saad A. W. Shakir
Publication date
01-02-2015
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Drug Safety / Issue 2/2015
Print ISSN: 0114-5916
Electronic ISSN: 1179-1942
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-014-0260-x

Other articles of this Issue 2/2015

Drug Safety 2/2015 Go to the issue