TY - JOUR
T1 - Challenges in the Implementation of EU Risk Minimisation Measures for Medicinal Products in Clinical Practice Guidelines
T2 - Mixed Methods Multi-Case Study
AU - Møllebæk, Mathias
AU - Gardarsdottir, Helga
AU - Bikou, Alexia-Georgia
AU - Kodrič, Ana
AU - Silva, Ana Marta
AU - Andersen, Armin
AU - Kontogiorgis, Christos
AU - Poplavska, Elita
AU - Ahmadizar, Fariba
AU - Dermiki-Gkana, Foteini
AU - Rutkovska, Ieva
AU - Vaz, Inês Ribeiro
AU - Kos, Mitja
AU - Barão, Paula
AU - Grupstra, Renske
AU - Alves, Teresa Leonardo
AU - Almarsdóttir, Anna Birna
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s) 2024.
PY - 2024/11/21
Y1 - 2024/11/21
N2 - INTRODUCTION: Risk minimisation measures (RMMs) aim to ensure safe use of medicines, but their implementation in clinical practice is complicated by the diversity of stakeholders whose clinical decision making they seek to inform. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are considered integral in clinical decision making.OBJECTIVES: To determine the extent to which RMMs are included in the relevant CPGs and to describe factors that determine RMM inclusion.METHODS: A multi-case study design using quantitative document analysis of CPGs combined with qualitative interviews with informants from organisations that issue CPGs. Cases from five therapeutic areas (TAs) with a regulatory requirement for further RMMs were studied individually in six EU member states (Denmark, Greece, Latvia, Netherlands, Portugal and Slovenia). Clinical practice guidelines were analysed using pre-defined coding frameworks. Interviewees were sampled purposively for experience and knowledge about CPG development and RMM inclusion. Verbatim interview transcripts were analysed inductively.RESULTS: In total, 136 CPGs were analysed, and RMM information about TAs was included in 25% of CPGs. Based on 71 interviews we found that factors that determine RMM inclusion in CPGs include clinicians' low awareness of RMMs despite awareness of RMMs' safety concern, low expectation of RMMs' clinical utility, and unfamiliarity with pharmacovigilance data supporting RMMs and perceived incompatibility of CPGs' scope and purpose and RMM information.CONCLUSIONS: The inclusion of RMM information in relevant CPGs is remarkably limited. It may be explained by characteristics of CPGs and of RMMs as well as lack of connection between national regulators and organisations and authors developing CPGs. More collaboration between stakeholders, national regulators and the EMA may advance implementation.
AB - INTRODUCTION: Risk minimisation measures (RMMs) aim to ensure safe use of medicines, but their implementation in clinical practice is complicated by the diversity of stakeholders whose clinical decision making they seek to inform. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are considered integral in clinical decision making.OBJECTIVES: To determine the extent to which RMMs are included in the relevant CPGs and to describe factors that determine RMM inclusion.METHODS: A multi-case study design using quantitative document analysis of CPGs combined with qualitative interviews with informants from organisations that issue CPGs. Cases from five therapeutic areas (TAs) with a regulatory requirement for further RMMs were studied individually in six EU member states (Denmark, Greece, Latvia, Netherlands, Portugal and Slovenia). Clinical practice guidelines were analysed using pre-defined coding frameworks. Interviewees were sampled purposively for experience and knowledge about CPG development and RMM inclusion. Verbatim interview transcripts were analysed inductively.RESULTS: In total, 136 CPGs were analysed, and RMM information about TAs was included in 25% of CPGs. Based on 71 interviews we found that factors that determine RMM inclusion in CPGs include clinicians' low awareness of RMMs despite awareness of RMMs' safety concern, low expectation of RMMs' clinical utility, and unfamiliarity with pharmacovigilance data supporting RMMs and perceived incompatibility of CPGs' scope and purpose and RMM information.CONCLUSIONS: The inclusion of RMM information in relevant CPGs is remarkably limited. It may be explained by characteristics of CPGs and of RMMs as well as lack of connection between national regulators and organisations and authors developing CPGs. More collaboration between stakeholders, national regulators and the EMA may advance implementation.
UR - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39570566/
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85209744702&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s40264-024-01487-5
DO - 10.1007/s40264-024-01487-5
M3 - Article
C2 - 39570566
SN - 0114-5916
JO - Drug Safety
JF - Drug Safety
ER -