ArticleClinical pharmacology and therapeutics2025
Duration of Time Intervals for Risk Minimization Measure Effectiveness Studies.
Article in Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Insights into the time needed for evaluation of risk minimization measures' (RMMs) effectiveness might identify areas for improvement. We assessed the duration of time intervals between regulatory milestones for RMM effectiveness studies assessed by the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) of the European Medicines Agency (EMA). We included completed RMM effectiveness post-authorization safety studies (PASSs) assessed by PRAC between 2016 and 2022. Regulatory documents submitted by marketing authorization holders and assessment reports were extracted from non-public EMA databases. To calculate the duration of time intervals, we collected the dates of study request, protocol assessment start, protocol approval, study start, final study report assessment start, and final study report PRAC outcome. We identified 98 PASSs. The median duration from study request to final study report PRAC outcome was 52 months (Q1-Q3: 40-70). The median duration from study request to study start was 21 months (Q1-Q3: 15-30; n = 95) and from study start to final study report assessment start was 21 months (Q1-Q3: 13-36; n = 95). The final study report assessment often comprised <6 months (median: 4; Q1-Q3: 1-6). For PASSs with a PRAC-approved protocol (n = 80, 81.6%), the median duration of protocol assessment was 7 months (Q1-Q3: 4-10). Concluding, the median duration from study request to RMM effectiveness PASS completion exceeded 4 years. Next to the study conduct duration, the period from study request until study start was the most time-consuming. The duration of this period might be minimized by improved guidance on RMM effectiveness PASSs and encouraging timely protocol submission.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.