Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31933256›Full record

ArticlePharmaceutical medicine2019

Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Additional Risk Minimization Measures for Voriconazole in the EU: Findings and Lessons Learned from a Healthcare Professional Survey.

Joanna Lem, Muhammad Younus, Jalal A Aram, Shahrzad Moosavi, Klaus Freivogel, Anne Lewis, Rachel E Sobel

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Pharmaceutical medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Therapeutic drug monitoring andTranslational pediatrics · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Joanna LemEpidemiology, Worldwide Safety and Regulatory, Pfizer Inc, New York, NY, USA. JoannaAsia.Lem@pfizer.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0231-0657
Muhammad YounusEpidemiology, Worldwide Safety and Regulatory, Pfizer Inc, New York, NY, USA.
Jalal A AramGlobal Medical Affairs, Pfizer Inc, New York, NY, USA.
Shahrzad MoosaviSafety and Risk Management, Worldwide Safety and Regulatory, Pfizer Inc, New York, NY, USA.
Klaus FreivogelUnited BioSource GmbH, Munich, Germany.
Anne LewisClermont Consulting Group, LLC, Charleston, SC, USA.
Rachel E SobelEpidemiology, Worldwide Safety and Regulatory, Pfizer Inc, New York, NY, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4492-9562
Pfizer (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVoriconazole is an extended-spectrum antifungal agent approved for the treatment and prophylaxis of invasive aspergillosis and other serious fungal infections. In 2014, additional risk minimization measures (aRMM) consisting of a Healthcare Professional (HCP) Question and Answer (Q&A) Brochure, HCP Checklist, and Patient Alert Card were implemented on a rolling basis across the European Union (EU) to mitigate three key risks with voriconazole: phototoxicity, squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the skin, and hepatotoxicity. The risks of phototoxicity and hepatotoxicity have been documented in the Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) since voriconazole was first approved in the EU in 2002. However, the risk of SCC of the skin was a more recent addition to the SmPC (added in 2010).

objectivesWe evaluated the effectiveness of the aRMM, as per EU Good Pharmacovigilance Practices Module XVI, via a survey of HCPs.

methodsAn online survey was conducted among specialty care HCPs in 10 EU countries who had received by mail aRMM tools 12 months previously. Survey questions evaluated HCPs' receipt and utilization of aRMM tools, and knowledge of the three risks.

resultsOf 27,396 HCPs invited to participate, 332 eligible respondents completed the survey (response rate: 447/26,735; 1.7%). In total, 19.6% of respondents recalled receiving the HCP Q&A Brochure, 22.6% the HCP Checklist, and 25.9% the Patient Alert Card. HCPs had a high level of knowledge of phototoxicity and hepatotoxicity; however, knowledge of SCC was lower. Knowledge of the three risks and self-reported risk minimization behavior was slightly improved in those who had read the HCP Q&A Brochure compared with those who had not.

conclusionThe effectiveness of the voriconazole aRMM cannot be meaningfully inferred from the results due to the low survey response rate. The assessment indirectly points to the SmPC or other resources being the main source of risk information for HCPs. Engaging HCPs before designing and implementing an aRMM program is crucial to ensure an effective and focused program. (EU PAS registration number: EUPAS12624).

Indexed as

Antifungal AgentsCarcinoma, Squamous CellChecklistChemical and Drug Induced Liver InjuryCross-Sectional StudiesDermatitis, PhototoxicDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsEuropean UnionHealth Care SurveysHealth PersonnelHumansInvasive Pulmonary AspergillosisMycosesPamphletsPharmacovigilanceRisk Reduction BehaviorAntifungal AgentsVoriconazole

Identifiers

PMID31933256
OpenAlexW2934588591

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.