Explore the vast range of titles available.

In pharmacovigilance, disproportionality analyses based on individual case safety reports are widely used to detect safety signals. Unfortunately, publishing disproportionality analyses lacks specific guidelines, often leading to incomplete and ambiguous reporting, and carries the risk of incorrect conclusions when data are not placed in the correct context. The REporting of A Disproportionality analysis for drUg Safety signal detection using individual case safety reports in PharmacoVigilance (READUS-PV) statement was developed to address this issue by promoting transparent and comprehensive reporting of disproportionality studies. While the statement paper explains in greater detail the procedure followed to develop these guidelines, with this explanation paper we present the 14 items retained for READUS-PV guidelines, together with an in-depth explanation of their rationale and bullet points to illustrate their practical implementation. Our primary objective is to foster the adoption of the READUS-PV guidelines among authors, editors, peer reviewers, and readers of disproportionality analyses. Enhancing transparency, completeness, and accuracy of reporting, as well as proper interpretation of their results, READUS-PV guidelines will ultimately facilitate evidence-based decision making in pharmacovigilance.

Background and aim Disproportionality analyses using reports of suspected adverse drug reactions are the most commonly used quantitative methods for detecting safety signals in pharmacovigilance. However, their methods and results are generally poorly reported in published articles and existing guidelines do not capture the specific features of disproportionality analyses. We here describe the development of a guideline (REporting of A Disproportionality analysis for drUg Safety signal detection using individual case safety reports in PharmacoVigilance [READUS-PV]) for reporting the results of disproportionality analyses in articles and abstracts. Methods We established a group of 34 international experts from universities, the pharmaceutical industry, and regulatory agencies, with expertise in pharmacovigilance, disproportionality analyses, and assessment of safety signals. We followed a three-step process to develop the checklist: (1) an open-text survey to generate a first list of items; (2) an online Delphi method to select and rephrase the most important items; (3) a final online consensus meeting. Results Among the panel members, 33 experts responded to round 1 and 30 to round 2 of the Delphi and 25 participated to the consensus meeting. Overall, 60 recommendations for the main body of the manuscript and 13 recommendations for the abstracts were retained by participants after the Delphi method. After merging of some items together and the online consensus meeting, the READUS-PV guidelines comprise a checklist of 32 recommendations, in 14 items, for the reporting of disproportionality analyses in the main body text and four items, comprising 12 recommendations, for abstracts. Conclusions The READUS-PV guidelines will support authors, editors, peer-reviewers, and users of disproportionality analyses using individual case safety report databases. Adopting these guidelines will lead to more transparent, comprehensive, and accurate reporting and interpretation of disproportionality analyses, facilitating the integration with other sources of evidence.

In most animal species, vision is mediated by compound eyes, which offer lower resolution than vertebrate single-lens eyes, but significantly larger fields of view with negligible distortion and spherical aberration, as well as high temporal resolution in a tiny package. Compound eyes are ideally suited for fast panoramic motion perception. Engineering a miniature artificial compound eye is challenging because it requires accurate alignment of photoreceptive and optical components on a curved surface. Here, we describe a unique design method for biomimetic compound eyes featuring a panoramic, undistorted field of view in a very thin package. The design consists of three planar layers of separately produced arrays, namely, a microlens array, a neuromorphic photodetector array, and a flexible printed circuit board that are stacked, cut, and curved to produce a mechanically flexible imager. Following this method, we have prototyped and characterized an artificial compound eye bearing a hemispherical field of view with embedded and programmable low-power signal processing, high temporal resolution, and local adaptation to illumination. The prototyped artificial compound eye possesses several characteristics similar to the eye of the fruit fly Drosophila and other arthropod species. This design method opens up additional vistas for a broad range of applications in which wide field motion detection is at a premium, such as collision-free navigation of terrestrial and aerospace vehicles, and for the experimental testing of insect vision theories.

Over a period of 5 years, the Innovative Medicines Initiative PROTECT (Pharmacoepidemiological Research on Outcomes of Therapeutics by a European ConsorTium) project has addressed key research questions relevant to the science of safety signal detection. The results of studies conducted into quantitative signal detection in spontaneous reporting, clinical trial and electronic health records databases are summarised and 39 recommendations have been formulated, many based on comparative analyses across a range of databases (e.g. regulatory, pharmaceutical company). The recommendations point to pragmatic steps that those working in the pharmacovigilance community can take to improve signal detection practices, whether in a national or international agency or in a pharmaceutical company setting. PROTECT has also pointed to areas of potentially fruitful future research and some areas where further effort is likely to yield less.

Today, materials designed for bone regeneration are requested to be degradable and resorbable, bioactive, porous, and osteoconductive, as well as to be an active player in the bone-remodeling process. Multiphasic silica/collagen Xerogels were shown, earlier, to meet these requirements. The aim of the present study was to use these excellent material properties of silica/collagen Xerogels and to process them by additive manufacturing, in this case 3D plotting, to generate implants matching patient specific shapes of fractures or lesions. The concept is to have Xerogel granules as active major components embedded, to a large proportion, in a matrix that binds the granules in the scaffold. By using viscoelastic alginate as matrix, pastes of Xerogel granules were processed via 3D plotting. Moreover, alginate concentration was shown to be the key to a high content of irregularly shaped Xerogel granules embedded in a minimum of matrix phase. Both the alginate matrix and Xerogel granules were also shown to influence viscoelastic behavior of the paste, as well as the dimensionally stability of the scaffolds. In conclusion, 3D plotting of Xerogel granules was successfully established by using viscoelastic properties of alginate as matrix phase.

Background The SAVVY project aims to improve the analyses of adverse events (AEs), whether prespecified or emerging, in clinical trials through the use of survival techniques appropriately dealing with varying follow-up times and competing events (CEs). Although statistical methodologies have advanced, in AE analyses, often the incidence proportion, the incidence density, or a non-parametric Kaplan-Meier estimator are used, which ignore either censoring or CEs. In an empirical study including randomized clinical trials from several sponsor organizations, these potential sources of bias are investigated. The main purpose is to compare the estimators that are typically used to quantify AE risk within trial arms to the non-parametric Aalen-Johansen estimator as the gold-standard for estimating cumulative AE probabilities. A follow-up paper will consider consequences when comparing safety between treatment groups. Methods Estimators are compared with descriptive statistics, graphical displays, and a more formal assessment using a random effects meta-analysis. The influence of different factors on the size of deviations from the gold-standard is investigated in a meta-regression. Comparisons are conducted at the maximum follow-up time and at earlier evaluation times. CEs definition does not only include death before AE but also end of follow-up for AEs due to events related to the disease course or safety of the treatment. Results Ten sponsor organizations provided 17 clinical trials including 186 types of investigated AEs. The one minus Kaplan-Meier estimator was on average about 1.2-fold larger than the Aalen-Johansen estimator and the probability transform of the incidence density ignoring CEs was even 2-fold larger. The average bias using the incidence proportion was less than 5%. Assuming constant hazards using incidence densities was hardly an issue provided that CEs were accounted for. The meta-regression showed that the bias depended mainly on the amount of censoring and on the amount of CEs. Conclusions The choice of the estimator of the cumulative AE probability and the definition of CEs are crucial. We recommend using the Aalen-Johansen estimator with an appropriate definition of CEs whenever the risk for AEs is to be quantified and to change the guidelines accordingly.

Analysis of liver safety data has to be multivariate by nature and needs to take into account time dependency of observations. Current standard tools for liver safety assessment such as summary tables, individual data listings, and narratives address these requirements to a limited extent only. Using graphics in the context of a systematic workflow including predefined graph templates is a valuable addition to standard instruments, helping to ensure completeness of evaluation, and supporting both hypothesis generation and testing. Employing graphical workflows interactively allows analysis in a team-based setting and facilitates identification of the most suitable graphics for publishing and regulatory reporting. Another important tool is statistical outlier detection, accounting for the fact that for assessment of Drug-Induced Liver Injury, identification and thorough evaluation of extreme values has much more relevance than measures of central tendency in the data. Taken together, systematical graphical data exploration and statistical outlier detection may have the potential to significantly improve assessment and interpretation of clinical liver safety data. A workshop was convened to discuss best practices for the assessment of drug-induced liver injury (DILI) in clinical trials.

In the last decade there has been a significant increase in the literature discussing the use of benefit–risk methods in medical product (including devices) development. Government agencies, medical product industry groups, academia, and collaborative consortia have extensively discussed the advantages of structured benefit–risk assessments. However, the abundance of information has not resulted in a consistent way to utilize these findings in medical product development. Guidelines and papers on methods, even though well structured, have not led to a firm consensus on a clear and consistent approach. This paper summarizes the global landscape of benefit–risk considerations for product- or program-level decisions from available literature and regulatory guidance, providing the perspectives of three stakeholder groups—regulators, collaborative groups and consortia, and patients. The paper identifies key themes, potential impact on benefit–risk assessments, and significant future trends.

Product labels are intended to provide health care professionals with clear and concise prescribing information that will enhance the safe and effective use of drug products. In this manuscript, we offer suggestions to improve product labels. First, we recommend that product labels that include comparator data be changed to include adjusted incidence proportions (or adjusted incidence rates when needed and appropriate) for adverse drug reactions that are somewhat common. Second, we believe that including comparator incidence in product labels is a good practice, as it gives health care providers and patients appropriate information to put the absolute risks in perspective. Finally, we recommend changing the practice of reporting extremely rare events based on the “Rule of 3” in the Summary of Product Characteristics in Europe. We recommend that these adverse drug reactions be put in a separate table from other adverse drug reactions with a note that it is difficult to reliably estimate their incidences. In exceptional circumstances, it may be possible to present an estimate of their incidence based on postmarketing data. We believe the proposed changes could help product labels to better reflect the risk of a drug relative to a comparator.