Back

An analysis of international strategies for monitoring and preventability described in medicinal product information: a study protocol

Sartori, D.; Aronson, J. K.; Noren, G. N.; Onakpoya, I. J.

2024-06-15 pharmacology and therapeutics
10.1101/2024.06.14.24308939 medRxiv
Show abstract

IntroductionProduct information is intended to be a reference for healthcare professionals to verify instructions for monitoring and preventability of adverse drug reactions (ADRs), among other things. International comparisons of these documents, using the Systematic Information for Monitoring (SIM) method, have highlighted discrepancies in the instructions for monitoring, but there has been no comparison of preventability instructions. ObjectivesTo quantify and compare, across different countries, the completeness of instructions for monitoring and preventability provided to healthcare professionals in medicinal product information. MethodsWe shall retrieve information included with medicinal products that have been involved in signals communicated by regulators, in 2014-2019 and based on clinical assessments of reports of ADRs, from the websites of 35 regulatory agencies. We shall evaluate the completeness of instructions for monitoring using a modified version of the SIM method; a score of 67% will qualify a monitoring instruction as sufficiently complete. To evaluate the completeness of instructions for preventability, we have derived a framework from the Dose-responsiveness-Temporality-Susceptibility (DoTS) classification of ADRs and related implications, comprising domains and items/implications. We shall iteratively develop a threshold to define the sufficiency of completeness of instructions based on data distribution across DoTS domains. We shall present descriptive statistics by country for each item of the framework and by total scores, using tables, or figures where necessary. OutcomesOur target audience is regulators, and the results should highlight gaps in the level of information available to healthcare professionals. This study may also provide some insights into how suspicions of causality that arise from clinical assessments of reports of ADRs translate into actionable recommendations in clinical practice.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Drug Safety
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
22.0%
2
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 16%
11.9%
3
BMJ Open
601 papers in training set
Top 3%
7.3%
4
Frontiers in Pharmacology
111 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
6.3%
5
Clinical and Translational Science
22 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.9%
50% of probability mass above
6
Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.0%
7
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.3%
8
Journal of Medical Internet Research
87 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
2.8%
9
Pharmaceutics
24 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.8%
10
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
242 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.6%
11
Pharmacology Research & Perspectives
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.4%
12
JMIRx Med
32 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
2.4%
13
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 48%
1.7%
14
Journal of Clinical Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
15
Systematic Reviews
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
16
The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
68 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.5%
17
Pharmaceuticals
34 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.4%
18
Frontiers in Medicine
120 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
19
Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety
18 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.1%
20
International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.1%
21
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
47 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.1%
22
Cureus
68 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.1%
23
BJGP Open
13 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.1%
24
JAMIA Open
42 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
25
BioData Mining
22 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.8%
26
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 74%
0.8%
27
BMJ Global Health
113 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.6%
28
Clinical Trials
11 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.6%