Drug Saf. 2024 Nov 21. doi: 10.1007/s40264-024-01487-5. Online ahead of print.
ABSTRACT
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.
PMID:39570566 | DOI:10.1007/s40264-024-01487-5
