Ability of primary care health databases to assess medicinal products discussed by the European Union Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee

Robert Flynn (Lead / Corresponding author), Karin Hedenmalm, Tarita Murray-Thomas, Alexandra Pacurariu, Peter Arlett, Hilary Shepherd, Puja Myles, Xavier Kurz

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    4 Citations (Scopus)
    330 Downloads (Pure)

    Abstract

    This study measured the exposure to different categories of medicinal products discussed by the EU Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee from September to November 2018 in 4 electronic primary care health databases: IQVIA Medical Research Data-UK, IQVIA Medical Research Data-France, IQVIA Medical Research Data-Germany, and Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum, in the entire lifespan of each database until 31 August 2018. The assessment of 83 centrally authorized products and 45 nationally authorized products showed that coverage was better for products marketed for longer duration and worse for orphan drugs. The ability to detect associations against hypothetical comparators was better for more common events and for larger effect sizes. Coverage of advanced therapies was worse for those typically administered in a specialised rather than primary care setting. This study shows that to enable better informed regulatory decisions there is a need to access complementary data sources, particularly capturing secondary care prescribing.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)957-965
    Number of pages9
    JournalClinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics
    Volume107
    Issue number4
    Early online date18 Jan 2020
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 12 Feb 2020

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Pharmacology
    • Pharmacology (medical)

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Ability of primary care health databases to assess medicinal products discussed by the European Union Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this