ReviewDrug safety2015
Specialist Cohort Event Monitoring studies: a new study method for risk management in pharmacovigilance.
Review in Drug safety, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Intensive Monitoring Studies for Assessing Medicines: A Systematic Review.Frontiers in medicine · 2019Pooled it
- Trial
- Cohort event monitoring of safety of COVID-19 vaccines: the Italian experience of the "ilmiovaccinoCOVID19 collaborating group".Frontiers in drug safety and regulation · 2024Article
- Perceptions, practices and barriers to reporting of adverse drug reactions among HIV infected patients and their doctors in 3 public sector hospitals of the Ethekwini Metropolitan, Kwa-Zulu Natal: a cross sectional and retrospective analysis.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Safety of prolonged treatment with bedaquiline in programmatic conditions.ERJ open research · 2022Article
- Smart Safety Surveillance (3S): Multi-Country Experience of Implementing the 3S Concepts and Principles.Drug safety · 2021Article
- The Role of the Contextual Cohort to Resolve Some Challenges and Limitations of Comparisons in Pharmacoepidemiology.Drug safety · 2021Article
- Observational
- Observational
- 'Engagement' of patients and healthcare professionals in regulatory pharmacovigilance: establishing a conceptual and methodological framework.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2019Review
- Active Safety Surveillance in Africa: Pragmatism and Agility.Drug safety · 2018Article
- Risk-Benefit Profile of Direct-Acting Oral Anticoagulants in Established Therapeutic Indications: An Overview of Systematic Reviews and Observational Studies.Drug safety · 2016Review
- Drug- and herb-induced liver injury: Progress, current challenges and emerging signals of post-marketing risk.World journal of hepatology · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The evolving regulatory landscape has heightened the need for innovative, proactive, efficient and more meaningful solutions for 'real-world' post-authorization safety studies (PASS) that not only align with risk management objectives to gather additional safety monitoring information or assess a pattern of drug utilization, but also satisfy key regulatory requirements for marketing authorization holder risk management planning and execution needs. There is a need for data capture across the primary care and secondary care interface, or for exploring use of new medicines in secondary care to support conducting PASS. To fulfil this need, event monitoring has evolved. The Specialist Cohort Event Monitoring (SCEM) study is a new application that enables a cohort of patients prescribed a medicine in the hospital and secondary care settings to be monitored. The method also permits the inclusion of a comparator cohort of patients receiving standard care, or another counterfactual comparator group, to be monitored concurrently, depending on the study question. The approach has been developed in parallel with the new legislative requirement for pharmaceutical companies to undertake a risk management plan as part of post-authorization safety monitoring. SCEM studies recognize that the study population comprises those patients who may have treatment initiated under the care of specialist health care professionals and who are more complex in terms of underlying disease, co-morbidities and concomitant medications than the general disease population treated in primary care. The aims of this paper are to discuss the SCEM new-user study design, rationale and features that aim to address possible bias (such as selection bias) and current applications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.