Evidence mapPaperPMID 33169534Full record

ArticlePharmacology research & perspectives2020

Regulatory post-market drug safety advisories on cardiac harm: A comparison of four national regulatory agencies.

Ashleigh Hooimeyer, Alice Bhasale, Lucy Perry, Alice Fabbri, Annim Mohammad, Eliza McEwin, Barbara Mintzes

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Pharmacology research & perspectives, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Ashleigh HooimeyerCharles Perkins Centre and School of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8526-1837
Alice BhasaleCharles Perkins Centre and School of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5387-8760
Lucy PerryCharles Perkins Centre and School of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3337-1321
Alice FabbriCharles Perkins Centre and School of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8413-0440
Annim MohammadCharles Perkins Centre and School of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3744-2219
Eliza McEwinCharles Perkins Centre and School of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia.
Barbara MintzesCharles Perkins Centre and School of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8671-915X

Funding

CIHR CIHR PJT-153275
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Information on rare adverse effects is often limited when a medication is initially approved for marketing. Medicines regulators use safety advisories to warn health professionals and consumers about emerging harms. This study aimed to identify characteristics and advice provided in cardiac safety advisories released by regulators in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States. This was a retrospective study of safety advisories about cardiac-related adverse events issued by these four international medicines regulators between 2010 and 2016. A descriptive overview was followed by a more detailed content analysis, focusing on recommended actions for health professionals, including monitoring advice. For the latter, we applied the systematic information for monitoring (SIM) scale to assess adequacy. Over this period, 164 safety advisories about cardiac harms were issued by the four regulators. There were 61 drugs with advisories of cardiac risk, only 9 (14.7%) of which had advisories from all regulators in countries where the drug was approved. The most common adverse events were cardiac arrhythmias (n = 97, 59.1%) and coronary artery disorders (n = 39, 23.8%). The most frequent advice to prescribers was to monitor patients (n = 74, 45.1%), although only 41.2% of these advisories provided detailed advice on how monitoring should occur. We found many differences in the decision to warn and the advice provided. Patient monitoring was most often recommended, but key information such as frequency or thresholds for action was often lacking. Healthcare professionals and consumers need consistent information about rare serious harms so that they can make informed decisions.

Indexed as

Databases, FactualAustraliaCanadaCitalopramDrug and Narcotic ControlDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsHeart DiseasesHumansProduct Surveillance, PostmarketingRetrospective StudiesSelective Serotonin Reuptake InhibitorsUnited KingdomUnited StatesCitalopramSelective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitorscardiac harmdrug-related side effects and adverse reactionspharmaceutical policypharmaceutical regulatorsrisk communication

Identifiers

PMID33169534
PMCPMC7652786

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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 Socratic graph.