The first step in phase 4 research is pharmacovigilance, i.e. the detection, assessment, understanding, and prevention of adverse events and other medicine-related problems. “The problem with pharmacovigilance is that it mainly relies on spontaneous identification”, Prof. Sandra Vukusic (Lyon University Hospital, France) mentioned. “Usually, pharmacovigilance research is very time-consuming. Furthermore, it is limited by reporting bias.” These challenges led to the introduction of risk-management plans by the EMA, a second step in phase 4 research. These plans are designed to identify, characterise, and prevent or minimise risks related to medicinal products, including the assessment of effectiveness. The next step comprises the secondary use of registry data. The rationale is to increase in the number of post-approval safety studies. “This is very time consuming, but, investigators have limited time.” Secondary use of registry data mostly means the application of data collected in routine clinical practice for all patients. This could fill the requirements of each individual risk-management plan on safety, efficacy, good use, and risk/benefit balance. Furthermore, phase 4 research is useful to mutualise human, financial, methodological, and technical means. The protocols of these studies can be designed collaboratively with health authorities, academics, and industry. An important aspect of phase 4 research is to reassure the quality of the data.
Alignment of research worlds
Compared to traditional post-marketing studies, the number of patients is much higher in drug registries (see Table). “Furthermore, in post-marketing studies, patients are selected, but for example children are excluded because age <18 years is an exclusion criteria in such studies. However, we need information about those patients”, Prof. Vukusic emphasised. “That is the case in registry studies, which deliver long-term data.” A shortcoming of registries is that there might be more patients lost to follow-up and missing data. The regulators in Europe are very interested in using registry data. This led to the publication of a discussion paper regarding the use of patient disease registries for regulatory purposes in November 2018 [1].
Table. Characteristics of clinical trials, traditional post-marketing studies, and drug registries
![](/wp-content/uploads/imported/4FDQ8Fzi9l1xbMGRLGJekd/caf3311171fede6c2fe8635f2b60f1b9/Table._Characteristics_of_clinical_trials.png)
BigMSData registry
The BigMSData registry initiative started in 2011. “Between 2012 and 2016, we had a large pilot phase with 5 MS registries from Italy, Sweden, Denmark, France, and the international MSBase”, Prof. Vukusic added. In a feasibility phase, the differences and commonalities among the 5 registries were evaluated. Afterwards, it was decided to standardise the definitions and procedures, to ensure the possibility of merging data from different sources. Initially, 3 projects were proposed to validate the feasibility of pooling data:
- Impact of early treatment on long-term disability in relapsing-remitting MS patients [2];
- Treatment discontinuation in the BigMSData Network, a descriptive analysis, presented at ECTRIMS 2018 [3]; and
- Use of DMTs in the progressive phase (ongoing study by H. Butzkueven et al.).
“Because the quality of the data was good, it was possible to pool them”, Prof. Vukusic continued. “We can work together, so we can answer questions which we cannot answer using only our own data.” The next step was to create a core study protocol, aimed to assess and characterise the risk of certain safety events in MS patients who were exposed and unexposed to approved DMTs for the treatment of MS, by collecting serious adverse events in specific disease registries. An increasing number of DMTs are currently available, but, are yet to undergo post-approval safety studies. Several MS registries are currently mature, according to Prof. Vukusic. This includes the BigMSData network, which is open to other national registries in the future. There is a favourable context with an EMA initiative on disease registries and pharma agreeing to collaborate. “The direction is towards a more active, but less time-consuming participation of MS neurologists to the risk/benefit assessment of DMTs in the future.”
- EMA/763513/2018. 5 November 2018.
- Iaffaldano P, et al. ECTRIMS 2019, abstract 156.
- Spelman T, et al. ECTRIMS 2018, abstract P1195.
Posted on
Previous Article
« BMI and age do not influence survival/irAEs in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors Next Article
Older age and low neutrophilia inflammation predictor for osimertinib efficacy »
« BMI and age do not influence survival/irAEs in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors Next Article
Older age and low neutrophilia inflammation predictor for osimertinib efficacy »
Table of Contents: ECTRIMS 2019
Featured articles
Towards a Comprehensive Assessment of MS Course
Cognitive assessment in MS
Late-breaking: Role for CSF markers in autoimmune astrocytopathies
Targeted therapies for NMOSD in development
Monitoring and Treatment of Progressive MS
Challenges in diagnosing and treating progressive MS
Risk factors for conversion to secondary progressive MS
Transplantation of autologous mesenchymal stem cells
Sustained reduction in disability progression with ocrelizumab
Late-breaking: Myelin-peptide coupled red blood cells
Optimising Long-Term Benefit of MS Treatment
Induction therapy over treatment escalation
Treatment escalation over induction therapy
Influence of age on disease progression
Exposure to DMTs reduces disability progression
Predicting long-term sustained disability progression
Treatment response scoring systems to assess long term prognosis
Safety Assessment in the Post-Approval Phase
Use of clinical registries in phase 4 of DMT
Genes, environment, and safety monitoring in using registries
Risk of hypogammaglobulinemia and rituximab
Determinants of outcomes for natalizumab-associated PML
Serum immunoglobulin levels and risk of serious infections
EAN guideline on palliative care
Pregnancy in the Treatment Era
The maternal perspective: when to stop/resume treatment and risks for progression
Foetal/child perspective: risks related to drug exposure and breastfeeding
Patient awareness about family planning represents a major knowledge gap
Late-breaking: Continuation of natalizumab or interruption during pregnancy
Related Articles
![](https://conferences.medicom-publishers.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/mitragotri_photo-scaled-e1693832237262-1024x931.jpg)
September 4, 2023
Novel backpack delivery system treats MS via innate immune cells
December 9, 2021
Charcot Award 2021: Progressive MS, a personal perspective
November 25, 2020
Safety and efficacy of cladribine, glatiramer acetate, and more
© 2024 Medicom Medical Publishers. All rights reserved. Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy
HEAD OFFICE
Laarderhoogtweg 25
1101 EB Amsterdam
The Netherlands
T: +31 85 4012 560
E: publishers@medicom-publishers.com