ArticleDrug safety2025
Systematic Evaluation of Australian Risk Management Plans for Biologic Medicines.
Article in Drug safety, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRisk management plans (RMPs) are a critical element of pharmacovigilance. However, few studies have examined the quality and type of information included in RMPs, and none has examined the RMPs in the Australian medicines regulatory context.
objectivesThis study aims to characterise safety concerns, particularly missing information listed in the current Australian RMPs for commonly used biologic medicines, and identify additional pharmacovigilance and risk minimisation activities proposed to address identified gaps.
methodsA descriptive review of RMPs included in the Australian Public Assessment Reports (2009-2024) was performed for 15 biologic medicines approved for use and universally funded in Australia for inflammatory arthropathies, inflammatory bowel diseases and inflammatory skin conditions. We extracted and quantified safety concerns (important identified risks, important potential risks and missing information) from the latest Australian Public Assessment Reports, and further categorised missing information by specific populations and conditions. We then qualitatively described the additional activities proposed.
resultsThere were 246 safety concerns listed for the 15 medicines of interest: 85 important identified risks (34.6%), 81 important potential risks (32.9%) and 80 instances of missing information (32.5%). More than half (n = 9, 60%) of the reviewed medicines listed children and adolescents as the most common populations with missing information. Pregnant women (n = 8, 53%) and those with hepatic and renal impairment (n = 7, 47%) were also commonly listed as having missing information. Additional pharmacovigilance activities were proposed for two thirds of the medicines (n = 10, 77%) where missing information was listed. Only one third of the reviewed medicines (n = 5, 33%) had specific proposals or protocols listed in the current Australian Public Assessment Reports to address missing information.
conclusionsOur study identified important gaps in RMPs for commonly used biologic medicines at the post-market phase. Despite some medicines having an extensive market history, these safety concerns remain unaddressed. Regular monitoring and critical review of RMPs are recommended to prioritise post-market studies and address outstanding safety concerns.
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.