Arthur Lee

Evaluation of patient reporting of adverse drug reactions to the UK 'Yellow Card Scheme': literature review, descriptive and qualitative analyses, and questionnaire surveys

BACKGROUNDnThe monitoring of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) through pharmacovigilance is vital to patient safety. Spontaneous reporting of ADRs is one method of pharmacovigilance, and in the UK this is undertaken through the Yellow Card Scheme (YCS). Yellow Card reports are submitted to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) by post, telephone or via the internet. The MHRA electronically records and reviews information submitted so that important safety issues can be detected. While previous studies have shown differences between patient and health-care professional (HCP) reports for the types of drugs and reactions reported, relatively little is known about the pharmacovigilance impact of patient reports. There have also been few studies on the views and experiences of patients/consumers on the reporting of suspected ADRs.nnnOBJECTIVESnTo evaluate the pharmacovigilance impact of patient reporting of ADRs by analysing reports of suspected ADRs from the UK YCS and comparing reports from patients and HCPs. To elicit the views and experiences of patients and the public about patient reporting of ADRs.nnnDESIGNn(1) Literature review and survey of international experiences of consumer reporting of ADRs; (2) descriptive analysis of Yellow Card reports; (3) signal generation analysis of Yellow Card reports; (4) qualitative analysis of Yellow Card reports; (5) questionnaire survey of patients reporting on Yellow Cards; (6) qualitative analysis of telephone interviews with patient reporters to the scheme; (7) qualitative analysis of focus groups and usability testing of the patient YCS; and (8) national omnibus telephone survey of public awareness of the YCS.nnnPARTICIPANTSnPatients (n = 5180) and HCPs (n = 20,949) submitting Yellow Card reports from October 2005 to September 2007. Respondents to questionnaire survey (n = 1362). Participants at focus groups and usability testing sessions (n = 40). National omnibus telephone survey (n = 2028).nnnSETTINGnThe literature review included studies in English from across the world. All other components included populations from the UK; the omnibus survey was restricted to Great Britain.nnnINTERVENTIONSnNone.nnnMAIN OUTCOME MEASURESnCharacteristics of patient reports: types of drug and suspected ADR reported; seriousness of reports; and content of reports. The relative contributions of patient reports and of HCP reports to signal generation. Views and experiences of patient reporters. Views of members of the public about the YCS, including user-friendliness and usability of different ways of patient reporting. Public awareness of the YCS. Suggestions for improving patient reporting to the YCS.nnnRESULTSnCompared with HCPs, patient reports to the YCS contained a higher median number of suspected ADRs per report, and described reactions in more detail. The proportions of reports categorised as serious were similar; the patterns of drugs and reactions reported differed. Patient reports were richer in their descriptions of reactions than those from HCPs, and more often noted the effects of ADRs on patients lives. Combining patient and HCP reports generated more potential signals than HCP reports alone; some potential signals in the HCP-only data set were lost when combined with patient reports, but fewer than those gained; the addition of patient reports to HCP reports identified 47 new serious reactions not previously included in Summaries of Product Characteristics. Most patient reporters found it fairly easy to make reports, although improvements to the scheme were suggested, including greater publicity and the redesign of web- and paper-based reporting systems. Among members of the public, 8.5% were aware of the YCS in 2009.nnnCONCLUSIONSnPatient reporting of suspected ADRs has the potential to add value to pharmacovigilance by reporting types of drugs and reactions different from those reported by HCPs; generating new potential signals; and describing suspected ADRs in enough detail to provide useful information on likely causality and impact on patients lives. These findings suggest that further promotion of patient reporting to the YCS is justified, along with improvements to existing reporting systems. In order of priority, future work should include further investigation of (1) the pharmacovigilance impact of patient reporting in a longer-term study; (2) the optimum approach to signal generation analysis of patient and HCP reports; (3) the burden of ADRs in terms of impact on patients lives; (4) the knowledge and attitudes of HCPs towards patient reporting of ADRs; (5) the value of using patient reports of ADRs to help other patients and HCPs who are seeking information on patient experiences of ADRs; and (6) the impact of increasing publicity and/or enhancements to reporting systems on the numbers and types of Yellow Card reports from patients.nnnFUNDINGnThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Incidence and drug treatment of emotional distress after cancer diagnosis: a matched primary care case-control study

Background:Emotional distress is common in cancer patients. This study aimed to describe, in the year after a cancer diagnosis: the incidence of anxiety, depression and excessive alcohol use; the pattern of these diagnoses and treatment over time; and the nature and duration of the prescribed treatment.Methods:A matched case–control study was conducted using routinely collected primary care data from 173 Scottish general practices. A presumptive diagnosis of emotional distress (anxiety, depression and/or excessive alcohol use) was based on prescription data or diagnostic code. Prescriptions for psychotropic drugs were described in terms of drug class, volume and treatment duration.Results:In total, 7298 cancer cases and 14u2009596 matched-controls were identified. Overall, 1135 (15.6%) cases and 201 (1.4%) controls met criteria for emotional distress (odds ratio 13.7, 95% confidence interval 11.6–16.1). Psychotropic drugs were prescribed in the 6 months following initial cancer diagnosis for 1066 (14.6%) cases and 161 (1.1%) controls. The volume and duration of anxiolytic and antipsychotic prescribing was significantly different between cases and controls.Conclusion:This study quantified the higher incidence of new emotional distress in cancer patients in the first year post diagnosis. Clinicians should be aware of the possibility of emotional distress at any time in the year after cancer diagnosis.

Discovery of Clinical Candidate 1-{[(2S,3S,4S)-3-Ethyl-4-fluoro-5-oxopyrrolidin-2-yl]methoxy}-7-methoxyisoquinoline-6-carboxamide (PF-06650833), a Potent, Selective Inhibitor of Interleukin-1 Receptor Associated Kinase 4 (IRAK4), by Fragment-Based Drug Design

Through fragment-based drug design focused on engaging the active site of IRAK4 and leveraging three-dimensional topology in a ligand-efficient manner, a micromolar hit identified from a screen of a Pfizer fragment library was optimized to afford IRAK4 inhibitors with nanomolar potency in cellular assays. The medicinal chemistry effort featured the judicious placement of lipophilicity, informed by co-crystal structures with IRAK4 and optimization of ADME properties to deliver clinical candidate PF-06650833 (compound 40). This compound displays a 5-unit increase in lipophilic efficiency from the fragment hit, excellent kinase selectivity, and pharmacokinetic properties suitable for oral administration.