Postmarket Safety Communication for Protection of Public Health: A Comparison of Regulatory Policy in Australia, Canada, the European Union, and the United States

被引:17
作者
Bhasale, Alice L. [1 ]
Sarpatwari, Ameet [2 ]
De Bruin, Marie L. [3 ,4 ]
Lexchin, Joel [5 ]
Lopert, Ruth [6 ]
Bahri, Priya [4 ,7 ]
Mintzes, Barbara J. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Sydney, Fac Med & Hlth, Sch Pharm, Sydney, NSW, Australia
[2] Harvard Med Sch, Brigham & Womens Hosp, Program Regulat Therapeut & Law PORTAL, Boston, MA 02115 USA
[3] Univ Copenhagen, Fac Hlth & Med Sci, Copenhagen Ctr Regulatory Sci, Copenhagen, Denmark
[4] Univ Utrecht, Utrecht Inst Pharmaceut Sci, Div Pharmacoepidemiol & Clin Pharmacol, Utrecht, Netherlands
[5] York Univ, Toronto, ON, Canada
[6] George Washington Univ, Washington, DC USA
[7] European Med Agcy, Amsterdam, Netherlands
基金
英国医学研究理事会; 加拿大健康研究院;
关键词
CARE PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATIONS; US FOOD; APPROVED DRUGS; FDA; RISK; PHARMACOVIGILANCE; IMPACT; TRANSPARENCY; INFORMATION; WARNINGS;
D O I
10.1002/cpt.2010
中图分类号
R9 [药学];
学科分类号
1007 ;
摘要
In the wake of the withdrawal of the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug rofecoxib, regulators worldwide reconsidered their approach to postmarket safety. Many have since adopted a "life cycle" approach to regulation of medicines, facilitating faster approval of new medicines while planning for potential postmarket safety issues. A crucial aspect of postmarket safety is the effective and timely communication of emerging risk information using postmarket safety advisories, commonly issued as letters to healthcare professionals, drug safety bulletins, media alerts, and website announcements. Yet regulators differ in their use of postmarket safety advisories. We examined the capacity of regulators in the United States, Europe, Canada, and Australia to warn about postmarket safety issues through safety advisories by assessing their governance, legislative authority, risk communication capabilities, and transparency.
引用
收藏
页码:1424 / 1442
页数:19
相关论文
共 138 条
[1]   Characteristics and Conflicts of Public Speakers at Meetings of the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee to the US Food and Drug Administration [J].
Abola, Matthew V. ;
Prasad, Vinay .
JAMA INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2016, 176 (03) :389-391
[2]  
Alqvist-Radstad J, 2016, SCOPE WORK PACKAGE 6
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2011, Communicating risks and benefits: An evidence-based user's guide
[4]  
[Anonymous], 2007, The Future of Drug Safety-Promoting and Protecting the Health of the Public: FDAs Response to the Institute of Medicines 2006 Report
[5]  
[Anonymous], 2012, ADV FDAS SAF PROGR M
[6]  
[Anonymous], 2016, SCHED DEL FIN DEC CO
[7]  
[Anonymous], 2006, FUT DRUG SAF PROM PR
[8]   Additional safety risk to exceptionally approved drugs in Europe? [J].
Arnardottir, Arna H. ;
Haaijer-Ruskamp, Flora M. ;
Straus, Sabine M. J. ;
Eichler, Hans-Georg ;
de Graeff, Pieter A. ;
Mol, Peter G. M. .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY, 2011, 72 (03) :490-499
[9]   Are risk minimization measures for approved drugs in Europe effective? A systematic review [J].
Artime, Esther ;
Qizilbash, Nawab ;
Garrido-Estepa, Macarena ;
Vora, Pareen ;
Soriano-Gabarro, Montse ;
Asiimwe, Alex ;
Pocock, Stuart .
EXPERT OPINION ON DRUG SAFETY, 2019, 18 (05) :443-454
[10]  
Auditor General of Canada, 2011, REG PHARM DRUGS HLTH