RSI in Clinical Trials: MHRA Findings and Tips

The Reference Safety Information (RSI) in Clinical Trials has been one of our favorite topics since we started this blog. I first wrote about it in January 2018 after the Clinical Trials Facilitation Group (CTFG) issued their guidance document entitled "Questions and Answers – Reference Safety Information (RSI)". In addition to presenting the main points of the guidance, I provided an overview of the background and the issues raised by MHRA Inspectors on this topic: link here

The CTFG guidance was a major step forward, which brought clarifications on many aspects to set the regulatory expectations for future inspections. Recognizing that this was a significant change, European Authorities announced a 1-year transition period in a Cover Note and that the new requirements would only be enforced from 01-Jan-2019, which led me to write about it again in April 2018: link here

In addition to its many benefits, the CTFG guidance also brought new challenges, in particular regarding the date of implementation for the assessment of expectedness for suspected Serious Adverse Reactions (SARs), which defines if a case is a SUSAR that qualifies for expedited submission. For companies running multiple Clinical Trials in multiple territories, it became critical to identify which version of the RSI should be used for SUSAR and DSUR reporting activities.

Photo by Karla Hernandez on Unsplash

It has now been more than 2 years since the CTFG guidance became applicable and the MHRA GCP Inspectors continue to see non-compliance in this area. As described in a new post on the MHRA Inspectorate Blog (link here), the GCP inspectors have raised Critical Findings related to this topic for 8 organisations since 01-Jan-2019.

The MHRA Blog Post provides a list of common findings the inspectors continue to observe and includes recommendations to improve compliance. I encourage everyone to read the MHRA piece but I would like to highlight the following points:

• Reminder: The MHRA must approve the RSI and any changes via a substantial amendment. There must be a good rationale to include a SAR in the RSI, and appropriate risk mitigation measures should be in place.
• Onset date: The assessment of SARs expectedness should be based on the RSI valid at the time of occurrence, including for follow-up information, as opposed to Case Receipt Date.
• Comparator IMPs: the comparator SmPC should be reviewed periodically to evaluate the need for protocol amendment and/or re-consent.
• Fatal and Life-Threatening SARs: Although there might be exceptions, this type of events should not be considered expected. Auto-labelling systems may fail to consider event severity, which would then result in unreported SUSARs.
• RSI implementation date: The RSI must be approved at a trial level. Furthermore, in a trial conducted in both the UK and the EU, it must be approved by both the MHRA and all concerned EU authorities. As a tip, the MHRA considers that it can be useful to have trial-specific RSIs.
• RSI for a licensed product: It is generally not acceptable to copy and paste section 4.8 of the SmPC into the RSI section of an IB.
• Lack of Efficacy and Disease Progression: SARs due to lack of efficacy or disease progression should not be considered expected, unless this has been approved as part of the protocol and/or in the RSI.
• MedDRA terms and updates: A process must be in place to assess whether MedDRA updates have an impact on the RSI.

Photo by Sebastian Herrmann on Unsplash

In connection with this Blog Post, the MHRA has also published a new GCP Inspections metrics report, which covers inspections conducted from April 2018 to March 2019: link here

The report provides details about the 7 Critical Findings identified during inspections of Commercial Sponsors, which includes 2 Findings over Pharmacovigilance deficiencies: Critical Findings N°1 and N°5 both relate to deficiencies in the management of Reference Safety Information (RSI), which led to non-compliance with SUSAR and DSUR reporting requirements.

Based on the information presented in the Blog Post, we can expect to see more RSI Findings in the next GCP Inspections metrics report. So... Watch this space !!

_______________________________________

Thierry Hamard is a Pharmacist with more than 15 years of Global Pharmacovigilance Auditing experience and over 200 PV Audits performed since his company PV Focus was established in 2004.

Thierry is also Chief Editor of Safety Observer, a provider of Regulatory Intelligence services for Pharmacovigilance since 2005.

EMA Risk Management approach for COVID-19 vaccines

Further to the recent good news regarding the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccine candidates, European Authorities have published new guidance documents to support Risk Management activities for these vaccines once they are authorised.

    ⇒    Link to EMA News Release

Photo by Daniel Schludi on Unsplash

CoreRMP19 requirements and guidance

This includes a new guidance document published by the EMA to help companies prepare the Risk Management Plan (RMP) for their COVID-19 vaccines, which complements the existing GVP Guidelines and the associated RMP template. This document covers specific considerations for COVID-19 vaccines, including:

• The submission by MAHs of Summary Monthly Safety Reports to the EMA, to complement PSURs. As detailed within the guidance, these reports should include interval and cumulative summary tabulations of ADR reports, exposure data, ongoing and closed signals, etc.
• The need to adapt signal detection methods and practices to the expected large volume of ADR reports in the context of vaccination campaigns during a pandemic
• The need to consider global efforts to define the list of Adverse Events of Special Interest (AESIs)
• The need to consider the use of specific Follow-up Questionnaires for reports of identified safety concerns and suspected AESIs, while the burden on healthcare professionals should remain limited
• The need to consider missing information for specific populations, including pregnant women, patients with co-morbidities, elderly and children

   ⇒    Direct link to Core RMP guidance for COVID-19 vaccines

Please Note that a revision of the above guidance was published on 15-Jun-2021.

Photo by CDC on Unsplash

Pharmacovigilance Plan of the EU Regulatory Network

European Authorities have also produced a Safety Monitoring Plan for COVID-19 vaccines, which outlines how they intend to collect and review all relevant information once COVID-19 vaccines get authorised.

In addition to the EU GVPs, several activities will apply specifically to COVID-19 vaccines. As described above, this includes new reporting obligations for companies, who will be required to submit Summary Monthly Safety Reports to the EMA.

Transparency is an important theme of the plan, and it details the exceptional measures set up by the EMA to support public confidence and promote the uptake of COVID-19 vaccines. As an example, the EMA will publish on its website the full body of the RMP for all authorised COVID-19 vaccines, including Annex 4 presenting specific ADR follow-up forms.

    ⇒    Direct link to Pharmacovigilance Plan of the EU Regulatory Network

_______________________________________

Thierry Hamard is a Pharmacist with more than 15 years of Global Pharmacovigilance Auditing experience and over 200 PV Audits performed since his company PV Focus was established in 2004.

Thierry is also Chief Editor of Safety Observer, a provider of Regulatory Intelligence services for Pharmacovigilance since 2005.

Established products to exit EU list of Black Triangle Products ?

As reported in Safety Observer N°148 of September 2018, the EMA has published the minutes of the 100th Management Board meeting, which took place on 06 and 07-Jun-2018.

The Board discussed a great variety of topics, including Brexit and lessons learnt after the first EMA Public Hearing. It also included a discussion on a report exploring the experience made with the list of products subject to additional monitoring, also known as the list of Black Triangle Products.

As described in GVP Module X, all medicines on the list must be identified with an inverted Black Triangle, which is displayed in their package leaflet and in the SmPC. This system was derived from the Black Triangle scheme already in place in the UK to highlight the medicines under close scrutiny by the authorities, which was expanded throughout Europe with the implementation of the 2010 Pharmacovigilance Legislation. The EMA published the list for the first time in April 2013 and it is reviewed every month by the PRAC.

There are a few reasons that can make a medicine enter the list, knowing that it should remain on the list for 5 years unless the PRAC decides otherwise:

• It contains a new active substance or a new biological/biosimilar product

• It has been given a conditional approval, or approved under exceptional circumstances or with specific obligations on the recording of suspected ADRs

• The company that markets the medicine is required to conduct a post-authorisation safety study (PASS)

One of the main conclusions of the report discussed by the Board is that the latter criterion has led to the inclusion of a large number of established products in the list (see item B.9 in the minutes). This is reportedly of limited value and the PRAC supports that this category of products should be removed from the scope of additional monitoring.

Based on the current list (i.e. Revision 58 dated 25-Jul-2018), there are 57 out of 346 active substances that are on the list only because of a required PASS. They are not all established products but those are easy to spot because the number of products and MAHs concerned is so large that they need to be presented in Annexes separate to the list. For example, the list of Domperidone-containing medicinal products (Annex X) is 6 pages long. Even though each formulation / MAH / Country is presented, it still concerns a large number of products indeed.

Based on the report and the opinion of the PRAC Committee, this may change in the future and these products would no longer qualify for the Black Triangle scheme in the EU. Following endorsement by the Heads of Medicines Agencies (HMA), the report will be sent to the European Commission for further consideration and decision by the European Parliament and Council.

→       Link to EMA Management Board Meeting Page

→       Direct link to EMA Management Board 100th Meeting Minutes

→       Link to EMA Page: Medicines under additional monitoring

→       Link to EMA Page: List of medicines under additional monitoring

Thierry Hamard is a Pharmacist with more than 15 years of Global Pharmacovigilance Auditing experience and over 200 PV Audits performed since his company PV Focus was established in 2004.

Thierry is also Chief Editor of Safety Observer, a provider of Regulatory Intelligence services for Pharmacovigilance since 2005.

EMA Guidance on ICSR data from EudraVigilance

Everybody should know by now but in case you missed it, the EMA published much-awaited guidance over the summer to clarify the obligations of MAHs to record information on ICSRs they can access in EudraVigilance.

Since the implementation of the New EudraVigilance on 22-Nov-2017, MAHs are given access to all ICSRs contained in the EudraVigilance database. The MAHs are now responsible to access EudraVigilance to retrieve all ICSRs related to their medicines and first received by National Authorities.

There was however no guidance regarding the obligations of MAHs in relation to ICSRs submitted to EudraVigilance by other MAHs or regarding those ICSRs available in EudraVigilance prior to 22-Nov-2017. This has caused a lot of pain and confusion, especially for MAHs of generic products who could not exclude ownership of the suspected products in many ICSRs they became aware of.

This gap has now been closed by the EMA and the Note for Clarification published on 23-Jul-2018 brings much needed guidance:

• Regarding the ICSRs available in EudraVigilance prior to 22-Nov-2017, the Note clarifies that MAHs have no obligation to screen EudraVigilance for cases that they do not already have in their own database. In the same way, the MAH have no obligation to record in their database those ICSRs they become aware through activities related to Signal Management in EudraVigilance.

• Regarding the ICSRs submitted by other MAHs to EudraVigilance, the Note clarifies that MAHs have no obligation to record these in their own database.

Although some will argue this took a long time and could have been better anticipated, this should come as a relief for the industry. It also sets a clear standard for Regulatory Inspections.

→ Link to EMA Page: Access to EudraVigilance data

→ Direct link to Note for Clarification

Thierry Hamard is a Pharmacist with more than 15 years of Global Pharmacovigilance Auditing experience and over 200 PV Audits performed since his company PVFocus was established in 2004.

Thierry is also Chief Editor of Safety Observer, a provider of Regulatory Intelligence services for Pharmacovigilance since 2005.

EMA Signal Detection Pilot and New MAs…

The Signal Detection Pilot started on 22-Feb-2018 and concerned MAHs are now required to monitor EudraVigilance data and inform Authorities of validated signals detected in the database. Only those MAHs whose active substances are included in the list of products involved in the pilot are subject to these new requirements.

In March 2018, we published the response we received from the EMA to a question we asked regarding the possible addition of New Active Substances to the list. We were wondering whether the new requirements would apply to companies who get a new substance approved while the pilot is ongoing but the EMA confirmed that the list of substances involved in the pilot is fixed and will not change (link to our March 2018 post here).

Anna Marques, EU QPPV at Eignapharma (link to their website here), was wondering about another scenario: What if you get a new Marketing Authorisation for a product that is already in the list, for instance if you register a new generic product ?

That’s also an interesting question and I would like to thank Anna for accepting to share the response she received from the EMA, which states that the new requirements do not apply to products that became authorised after the start of the pilot. Anna’s exchange with the EMA is available in a comment to our March 2018 post (link to our March 2018 post here).

In conclusion, only companies that were MAHs for products included in the list at the beginning of the pilot are concerned by the new Signal Detection requirements and this will not change during the pilot. I hope this helps !

Thierry Hamard is a Pharmacist with more than 15 years of Global Pharmacovigilance Auditing experience and over 200 PV Audits performed since his company PVFocus was established in 2004.

Thierry is also Chief Editor of Safety Observer, a provider of Regulatory Intelligence services for Pharmacovigilance since 2005.

RSI in Clinical Trials: EU Authorities set Compliance Date

As reported in the December 2017 issue of Safety Observer, the Heads of Medicines Agencies (HMA) have published a new version of their guidance document entitled “Questions and Answers – Reference Safety Information (RSI)”.

The new Q&As document explains what information the RSI should include and how it should be presented. Most importantly, it explains how it should be used in the context of applicable expedited (i.e. SUSAR) and periodic (i.e. DSUR) reporting.

If you have not read our blog post from January 2018 on this topic, you should really take the time and get to know the key messages brought by the new guidance: link here

EU Heads of Agencies set compliance date

The CTFG has now published a Cover Note where it acknowledges that the changes brought by the revised Q&As are significant. Although the document should be considered as applicable from the publication date, the Cover Note refers to a 1-year transition period until National Competent Authorities enforce the new requirements more strictly from 01-Jan-2019. The MHRA has also updated the guidance on its website accordingly.

Until then, Clinical Trial Applications and/or Substantial Amendment dossiers will not be rejected if the RSI is not completely in line the new Q&As, provided that the IB contains a RSI section that is considered fit for purpose. However the authorities may raise comments on the RSI and the sponsor will be expected to update the IB accordingly at the next routine update.

→ Direct link to CTFG Cover Note

→ Link to MHRA Clinical trial Guidance

Thierry Hamard (LinkedIn Profile) is a Pharmacist with more than 15 years of Global Pharmacovigilance Auditing experience and over 200 PV Audits performed since his company PV Focus was established in 2004.

Thierry is also Chief Editor of Safety Observer, a provider of Regulatory Intelligence services for Pharmacovigilance since 2005.

EMA Signal Detection Pilot and New Active Substances…

As everyone knows, the New EudraVigilance System was implemented on 22-Nov-2017 and brings enhanced Signal Detection and Data Analysis tools to support safety monitoring directly by MAHs.

As described in the latest revision of GVP Module IX on Signal Management, Marketing Authorisation Holders (MAHs) have a requirement to continuously monitor EudraVigilance data and inform EMA and National Competent Authorities of validated signals detected in the database.

Transitional arrangements have however been agreed in order to streamline the implementation of this new process and during a pilot period of one year starting on 22-Feb-2018, only those MAHs whose active substances are included in the list of products involved in the pilot will be subject to the new requirements.

The list of substances involved in the pilot was first published by the EMA on 27-Oct-2017 and was last corrected on 14-Feb-2018 (Link to EMA Signal Management Page Here).

As initially communicated by the EMA, the list of substances involved in the pilot is based on the list of medicines under additional monitoring in the EU, i.e. the list of Black Triangle Products, which is revised on a monthly basis by the EMA (Link to EMA List of Medicines Under Additional Monitoring Here). And this made us wonder…

Can products be added to the list during the Pilot ?

I have worked for a Start-Up company recently which is awaiting its first Marketing Authorisation in Europe. As the product is a new active substance, it will obviously be added to the list of Black Triangle Products and so we were wondering whether the product will also be added to the list of substances involved in the Signal Detection pilot.

I tried to find the response to this question in the information available on the EMA website but I could not find what I was looking for. And so I sent my question to the EMA.

EMA Says No !

I was pleased to receive a conclusive response within a day, and the EMA confirmed that the list of substances involved in the pilot is fixed and will not change over the duration of the pilot.

I don’t know if many people also wondered about this but I hope this is helpful. I believe the EMA has since removed any reference to the list of Black Triangle Products for the avoidance of doubt.

Here is a copy of the exchange I had with the EMA:

I wonder if you could clarify this for me : I know that the list of products for the Signal Detection pilot is based on the list of products under additional monitoring. If a new product is approved over the next year, it will go to the list of Black Triangle products but what about the Signal Detection pilot ? Will the list of products for the pilot be revised on an on-going basis or is fixed for the year to come ? Many thanks in advance.

Re: EMA request reference ASK-39482

Dear Mr Hamard,

Thank you for your query.

We confirm that the pilot list is fixed i.e. it will not be affected by changes to the additional monitoring list (additions or deletions).

Best regards,

European Medicines Agency

Thierry Hamard is a Pharmacist with more than 12 years of Global Pharmacovigilance Auditing experience and over 200 PV Audits performed since his company PVFocus was established in 2004.

Thierry is also Chief Editor of Safety Observer, a provider of Regulatory Intelligence services for Pharmacovigilance since 2005.

Reference Safety Information in Clinical Trials: The New EU Guidance explained

As reported in the December 2017 issue of Safety Observer, the Heads of Medicines Agencies (HMA) have published a new version of their guidance document entitled "Questions and Answers – Reference Safety Information (RSI)". This is a deliverable of the Clinical Trials Facilitation Group (CTFG), replacing the previous version dated December 2013.

The regulatory context and resulting issues

Until now, the relevant EU regulatory requirements were specified in the EU-CT 3 guideline published in June 2011 (link here) and the above mentioned CTFG Q&As introduced in December 2013 (link here).

Without going into too much detail, there were some gaps in this guidance and a number of companies received inspection findings for not meeting expectations in relation to the RSI, particularly in the context of SUSAR reporting.

As I have seen myself during audits, some companies merely included in their Investigator’s Brochure a list of all suspected ADRs observed during clinical trials, which they considered as the RSI. Needless to say that this did not help the clinical Investigator sites very much in getting familiar with the safety profile of the Investigational Medicinal Product (IMP).

Any new occurrence of an observed ADR was subsequently considered “expected” and no longer qualified for SUSAR reporting. Through this approach, the information necessary to monitor the safety profile of the IMP is only available to the Sponsor whereas the other stakeholders, including Authorities and Ethics Committees, are left in the dark, unable to fulfill their responsibilities with regards to subject protection.

Another aspect of the problem relates to the implementation of an updated RSI: As clearly specified in the existing guidance, a revised RSI should be submitted as a Substantial Amendment. What was not so clearly specified is that companies should not implement the updated RSI for expectedness assessment until it is approved by the Authorities.

As mentioned already, this has caused a number of Inspection Findings and companies have also seen some of their RSI Amendments rejected by the Authorities, in particular the MHRA.

The MHRA Inspectorate communicated about the issue, in an attempt to educate the Industry about their expectations:

• A first Blog Post was published in March 2016: Link Here
• The issue was subsequently discussed with Industry representatives at the MHRA GCP Stakeholder Engagement Meeting (StEM) on 18-Mar-2016 : Minutes and Presentations on this Page
• This was presented at the MHRA GCP Symposium in September 2016: Link Here
• A second Blog Post was published in January 2017: Link Here

As described in the EFPIA Position Paper published in September 2016 (Link Here), the industry expressed some concerns with the implications of this issue and called for better guidance, which has now led to the publication of the updated Q&As document.

The New RSI Q&As and the Key Take-Home Messages

One could challenge why this is not part of Eudralex Volume 10 but the important point is that new guidance is now available on the HMA website. The Q&As document has been expanded from 6 to 18 questions and from 3 to 19 pages to explain what information the RSI should include and how it should be presented. It includes clarifications on a number of rather technical aspects including the use of MedDRA terms, or the expression of frequency and severity of the events listed in the RSI. Moreover, it explains how it should be used in the context of applicable expedited (i.e. SUSAR) and periodic (i.e. DSUR) reporting.

Here is a list of the main requirements described in the new Q&As document (Link Here):

• Question 1: The content of the RSI should include a clear list of "expected" Serious Adverse Reactions (SARs) for the IMP, based on thorough causality assessment of observed SARs. This is therefore a subset of all observed SARs for which the Sponsor can justify a very strong plausibility of a causal relationship and it would generally exclude SARs that have been observed only once.
• Question 11: A Substantial Amendment is always required to be submitted if there are changes to the RSI.
• Question 12: This Substantial Amendment should be submitted to the authorities in all EU Member States where trials are ongoing in parallel to the DSUR submission.
• Question 12: The updated RSI can only be used for assessment of expectedness of SARs after the approval of the Substantial Amendment in all Member States where trials are ongoing.
• Question 12: The identification of SUSARs in the "Cumulative summary tabulation of serious adverse reactions" in a DSUR should be based on the version of the RSI most recently approved in all Member States (Note that this may not be the version "in effect at the start of the reporting period" as specified in CT-3)
• Question 17: When the WHO classification categories are used for causality assessment, "unlikely" is considered "not related".
• Question 18: The RSI used for the assessment of the initial SAR should be used to assess expectedness for follow up reports. SUSARs should not be downgraded even if the SAR became "expected" through an update of the RSI.

Where does this leave us ?

There is no doubt that the new guidance brings welcome clarifications on many aspects and the regulatory expectations are now clearly set for future inspections. It will also help many companies who did not know what information to include in the RSI or how to present it.

On the other hand, one of the concerns raised by the EFPIA was that companies consider the RSI as a global document. In order to comply with the new version of the Q&As and the requirement to make the RSI effective only after approval by all concerned EU member states, companies may need to use a different version of the RSI in Europe compared to other regions. Unfortunately we may not obtain the desirable harmonisation until the issue is discussed at ICH level.

Even within Europe, I know companies who are concerned by the potential delay it takes some authorities to approve Substantial Amendments, which I have heard can take up to 6 months even though the current guidelines specify a 35-Day response period…

In this context, some companies have decided to use a “tell, wait and do” procedure, which is used by the EMA for some variations to a Marketing Authorisation: In the cover letter, the Sponsor informs the receiving authority that unless stated otherwise, the RSI will be considered effective after a period of 60 days. Does this sound like a reasonable compromise ?

Please feel free to use the comment field at the bottom of this post to share your experience or concerns, or to explain what the new guidance will change for your company. Thank you !

Thierry Hamard (LinkedIn Profile) is a Pharmacist with more than 12 years of Global Pharmacovigilance Auditing experience and over 200 PV Audits performed since his company PV Focus was established in 2004.

Thierry is also Chief Editor of Safety Observer, a provider of Regulatory Intelligence services for Pharmacovigilance since 2005.