essure problems: utilizing facebook and mobile apps in pharmacovigilance

26
Essure Problems: Utilizing Facebook and Mobile Apps in Pharmacovigilance Chi Bahk, MS Aug 25 2015 ICPE Chi Y Bahk1, Melanie Goshgarian2, Krystal Donahue2, Clark C Freifeld1, Christopher Menone1, Carrie Pierce1, Harold Rodriguez1, John S Brownstein1, Robert Furberg3, Nabarun Dasgupta1 1 Epidemico, Boston, MA, USA 2 “Essure Problems” Facebook Group 3 RTI International, NC, USA

Upload: epidemico

Post on 14-Apr-2017

617 views

Category:

Data & Analytics


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Essure Problems: Utilizing Facebook and Mobile Apps in Pharmacovigilance

Chi Bahk, MS

Aug 25 2015 ICPE

Chi Y Bahk1, Melanie Goshgarian2, Krystal Donahue2, Clark C Freifeld1, Christopher Menone1, Carrie Pierce1, Harold Rodriguez1, John S Brownstein1, Robert Furberg3, Nabarun Dasgupta1 1 Epidemico, Boston, MA, USA 2 “Essure Problems” Facebook Group 3 RTI International, NC, USA

Disclosures •  This research was funded in part by the Center for Devices and

Radiologic Health of the US Food and Drug Administration.

•  Presenter is an employee of Epidemico, developer of MedWatcher App. Epidemico does not commercially benefit from the public’s downloading or use of the App. We do commercialize the information technology aspects of this research.

•  This presentation contains adverse event information for a product manufactured by Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals. Epidemico has no relationship with Bayer, and the manufacturer was not notified ahead of time about this presentation.

•  This presentation contains patient-related information, which has been approved for presentation purposes by patient group.

3

5. Participation 6. Outcome1. Motivation

2. Incentives

3. Incentive support

4. Activation

5. Report tomanufactureror clinician

6. Data sharedwith regulator1. Altruism

2. Prevent harm

4. Activation

Theoretical Model

Traditional Pharmacovigilance

5. Report viamobile app

6. Data sharedwith regulatorand community

1. Altruism

4. Activation

2. Prevent harm

3. Process endorsementby community

3. Empathyfrom community

2. Validation ofexperience

Intrinsic

Extrinsic

2. Recognition

Crowdsourcing with Community Outreach

 Bahk  C.  et  al,  Pharmaceu1cal  Medicine  

MIAB Model for successful crowdsourcing

5

MedWatcher App

01

02

03

04

05

Free, user-friendly Web & mobile app

Allows for rapid reporting of suspected adverse events

Increase public access to drug, device, and vaccine information

Supported by US FDA Center for Devices and Radiologic Health

US launch in 2010; EU expansion in in progress

Essure

Conduct Nullam eu tempor purus. Nunc a leo magna, sit amet consequat risus. Etiam faucibus tortor a ipsum vehicula sed hendrerit.

•  Implantable, permanent birth control for women

•  Coils made of polyester fibers, nickel-titanium and stainless steel,

implanted into fallopian tubes

•  US FDA approved 2002

•  5-year fail rate: 0.27%

•  Common and notable AEs: abdominal pain, pelvic pain, abdominal distension,

vaginal haemorrhage, alopecia, allergy to metals, device dislocation, pregnancy with

contraceptive device, salpingectomy, hysterectomy

01

02

03

04

05

Launched in March 2011 by patient, Angie Firmalino

As of August 2015, more than 19,000 members

Environment where patients can share information and experiences

Managed by 11 volunteer administrators; 2 elected as co-authors

Engaged by MedWatcher team starting October 2013

9

“Essure Problems” Facebook Group

Methods

Outreach to Facebook

group “Essure Problems”

Work with administrators to promote AE reporting via mobile app

1,349 AE reports (May 2013 –

Dec 2014) coded & analyzed

WHO-UMC VigiGrade completeness scores

calculated & MIAB model for successful

crowdsourcing applied

Findings: Essure Reports per Month

7 per monthFDA MAUDE

132 months marketing authorization

103 per monthMedWatcher Mobile App

19 months collaboration with patient community

Findings: Crowdsourcing vs. Traditional Pharmacovigilance Comparison of Essure mobile app submissions with WHO-UMC database

Average Time for Submission App users submitted in 11.4 minutes

compared to 40 minutes via traditional forms

Average VigiGrade Score App submissions were more complete

than global avg in VigiBase.

“Well-documented” Reports App reports were considered “well-

documented” 4x more often than global avg in VigiBase

40 min 0.45

Bergvall  T  2013  Drug  Safety  

11.4 min 0.80 56%

24% HCP

13% overall

5. Participation 6. Outcome1. Motivation

2. Incentives

3. Incentive support

4. Activation

5. Report tomanufactureror clinician

6. Data sharedwith regulator1. Altruism

2. Prevent harm

4. Activation

Theoretical Model

Traditional Pharmacovigilance

5. Report viamobile app

6. Data sharedwith regulatorand community

1. Altruism

4. Activation

2. Prevent harm

3. Process endorsementby community

3. Empathyfrom community

2. Validation ofexperience

Intrinsic

Extrinsic

1. Recognition

Crowdsourcing with Community Outreach

Bahk  C.  et  al,  Pharmaceu1cal  Medicine  

•  June 24, 2015: FDA announces Advisory Committee meeting on Essure

•  “The majority of reports received since 2013 have been voluntary reports, mostly from women who received Essure implants”

•  5093 reports on MAUDE through May 31, 2015; 2087 through MedWatcher app

•  To date, 3592 reports received through MedWatcher app

To Date

16

LIMITATIONS OF SOCIAL MEDIA & MOBILE APPS

CAUSALITY Patients may not correctly assess causality. Define methods to measure probability of real world significance.

VOLUME Volume of reports likely to be large. Reduce false positives and create automated tools to triage information.

SIGNAL DETECTION Very limited statistical methods to detect problems. Collaborate with academia, industry and regulators to refine methods.

PRIVACY Patient privacy expectations and fear of government oversight. Use publicly available data only.

REGULATION UNCLEAR When is there an obligation to monitor or report? Work with regulators and industry to clarify guidance.

01

02

03

04

05

17

QUESTIONS?

[email protected]

www.medwatcher.org@[email protected]

All Adverse EventsSerious Adverse Events

*

Num

ber o

f Rep

orts

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Year of Event2005 2010 2015

Serious EventsNon-serious Events

Num

ber o

f Rep

orts

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Patient Age in Years20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

Most frequently reported AEs Most frequently reported important medical events

252

271

278

316

318

357

368

397

411

411

418

430

459

468

491N

Alopecia

Dyspareunia

Migraine

Vaginal haemorrhage

Arthralgia

Abnormal weight gain

Pain

Headache

Uterine spasm

Menorrhagia

Abdominal distension

Abdominal pain

Pelvic pain

Back pain

Fatigue

Patient Age in Years30 32 34 36 38

5

5

7

7

11

13

14

16

18

26

27

43

62

108

142N

Salpingitis

Appendicetomy

Urinary retention

Systemic lupus erythematosus

Kidney infection

Pelvic inflammatory disease

Suicidal ideation

Autoimmune disorder

Spontaneous abortion

Endometrial ablation

Uterine perforation

Post-procedural haemorrhage

Salpingectomy

Device dislocation

Mental impairment

Patient Age in Years25 30 35 40 45