Registries in European post-marketing surveillance: a retrospective analysis of centrally approved products, 2005-2013

PURPOSE

Regulatory agencies and other stakeholders increasingly rely on data collected through registries to support their decision-making. Data from registries are a cornerstone of post-marketing surveillance for monitoring the use of medicines in clinical practice. This study was aimed at gaining further insight into the European Medicines Agency's (EMA) requests for new registries and registry studies using existing registries and to review the experience gained in their conduct.

METHODS

European Public Assessment Reports were consulted to identify products for which a request for a registry was made as a condition of the marketing authorisation. All centrally authorised products that received a positive opinion of the EMA Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use between 1 January 2005 and 31 December 2013 were included. Data regarding registry design and experiences were collected from EMA electronic record keeping systems.

RESULTS

Of 392 products that received a positive Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use opinion during 2005-2013, 31 registries were requested for 30 products in total. Sixty-five percent were product registries whereas 35% were disease registries and 71% of the registries had a primary safety objective. Most commonly reported issues with registries were delayed time to start and low patient accrual rates.

CONCLUSIONS

The delays found in getting new registries up and running support the need to improve the timeliness of data collection in the post-marketing setting. Methodological challenges met in conducting this study highlighted the need for a clarification of definitions and epidemiological concepts around patient registries. The results will inform the EMA Patient Registry initiative to support use of existing patient registries for the post-authorisation benefit-risk monitoring of medicinal products. © 2017 Commonwealth of Australia. Pharmacoepidemiology & Drug Safety © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Development of a Rheumatology-specific Patient Concerns Inventory and Its Use in the Rheumatology Outpatient Clinic Setting

Objective.

Successful management of rheumatic conditions involves increasing complexity of care. Delivering this in a holistic way is a growing challenge. The aim of our study was to develop a Patient Concerns Inventory (PCI) and assess it in the rheumatology clinic setting.

Methods.

This observational exploratory study occurred with 2 phases. In phase I, the PCI was developed after a systematic literature search, expert opinion, and 3 patient focus group discussions. In phase II, the PCI was piloted in a general rheumatology clinic.

Results.

Fifty-four patients were assessed in the pre-PCI group and 51 in the post-PCI group. Median (IQR) duration of consultation was 8 min (5–14) without PCI and 15 min (10–20) with PCI. The pre-PCI group raised 335 concerns from 50 patients, median (IQR) of 5 (3–10) per patient, rising post-PCI to 521 concerns, median (IQR) of 9 (5–16) from 51 patients, p = 0.002. Additional concerns predominantly arose from “physical and functional well-being” and “social care and well-being” domains. Most patients rated their experience with their doctor in the consultation as excellent or outstanding across all 11 questions in the questionnaire, both before and after the introduction of the PCI to the clinic setting.

Conclusion.

The PCI is a useful holistic needs assessment tool for rheumatology clinics. Although its use may initially prolong the consultation slightly, patients can raise a significantly higher number of concerns, which does not occur at the expense of patient satisfaction. This may help in identifying areas of unmet needs that previously went unnoticed.

Intraoperative findings and procedures in culturally and geographically different patient and surgeon populations: an anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction registry comparison between Norway and the USA

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Patient and implant registries are important clinical tools in monitoring and benchmarking quality of care. For comparisons amongst registries to be valid, a common data set with comparable definitions is necessary. In this study we compared the patients in the Norwegian Knee Ligament Registry (NKLR) and the Kaiser Permanente Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Registry (KP ACLRR) with regard to intraarticular findings, procedures, and graft fixation characteristics reported by the operating surgeon for both primary and revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions (ACLRs).

METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional comparison of the NKLR and KP ACLRR cohorts registered between 2005 and 2010. Aggregate-level data including patient characteristics (age, sex, and laterality), meniscal and cartilage injury patterns and corresponding treatment procedures, choice of graft, and fixation characteristics (type and component material) were shared between registries. Descriptive analyses were then conducted.

RESULTS

During the study period, 11,217 ACLRs were registered in the NKLR and 11,050 were registered in the KP ACLRR. In the NKLR, hamstring autograft was used more (68% vs. 30%) for primary ACLRs and allograft was used less (0.2% vs. 41%) than in the KP ACLRR. The KP ACLRR reports more meniscal tears among both primary and revision ACLRs (63% and 50% vs. 49% and 36%). The NKLR reports less use of biodegradable fixation devices.

CONCLUSIONS

Baseline findings between the NKLR and the KP ACLRR were congruent regarding patient characteristics and most injury patterns, adding to the evidence that comparisons and collaborations between these registries will provide generalizable information to the international orthopedic community. The variation in the treatment, including graft and implant selection and meniscus procedures, between the 2 registries provides opportunities to explore the impact of treatment choices on the outcomes of ACLRs.