Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26992001›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2016

Characteristics and follow-up of postmarketing studies of conditionally authorized medicines in the EU.

Jarno Hoekman, Thea T Klamer, Aukje K Mantel-Teeuwisse, Hubert G M Leufkens, Marie L De Bruin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Getting the Right Evidence After Drug Approval.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2020
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Jarno HoekmanDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology & Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Thea T KlamerDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology & Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Aukje K Mantel-TeeuwisseDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology & Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Hubert G M LeufkensDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology & Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Marie L De BruinDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology & Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimThe aim of the present study was to provide an insight into the characteristics and follow-up of postmarketing studies of medicines that were conditionally authorized in the European Union (EU).

methodsWe compiled a list of all postmarketing studies attached as specific obligations to the licence of medicines that were granted conditional marketing authorization from January 2006 to April 2014. Studies were characterized based on their objective, design, status upon marketing authorization (MA) and due data set by authorities. They were linked to online study registrations (Clinicaltrials.gov, ENCePP) to determine completion date. We described and associated characteristics of studies and medicines, and determined whether studies were completed on time.

resultsA total of 59 postmarketing studies were requested for 21 conditionally authorized medicines. Most studies had an interventional study design (73%), were ongoing upon MA (61%) and aimed to provide additional data on efficacy (45%). Interventional studies were more often ongoing and providing efficacy data, while observational and other studies were more often new and providing safety data. Frequent grounds for requesting postmarketing studies were 'long-term follow-up' and 'increase data on subpopulations'. Of the 34 studies eligible for follow-up analysis, 26 (76%) were completed and 17 (50%) completed on time. Actual completion time took a median (interquartile range) of 274 (-121 to 556) days longer than expected.

conclusionsOur results indicated that most postmarketing studies attached to a conditional marketing authorization were eventually completed but that half were completed with a substantial delay. The observations suggest caution when broadening the use of postmarketing studies for resolving uncertainties about benefits and risks after MA.

Indexed as

Drug ApprovalDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsResearch DesignEuropean UnionHumansLegislation, DrugProduct Surveillance, PostmarketingTime FactorsBenefit-risk assessmentdrugdrug approvallegislationpostmarketingproduct surveillance

Identifiers

PMID26992001
PMCPMC4917806

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.