Systematic Evaluation of Australian Risk Management Plans for Biologic Medicines

Jun Ni Ho (), Jodie Belinda Hillen, Benjamin Daniels, Renly Lim and Nicole Pratt
Additional contact information
Jun Ni Ho: University of South Australia
Jodie Belinda Hillen: University of South Australia
Benjamin Daniels: University of New South Wales
Renly Lim: University of South Australia
Nicole Pratt: University of South Australia

Drug Safety, 2025, vol. 48, issue 9, No 8, 1063-1072

Abstract: Abstract Background Risk management plans (RMPs) are a critical element of pharmacovigilance. However, few studies have examined the quality and type of information included in RMPs, and none has examined the RMPs in the Australian medicines regulatory context. Objectives This study aims to characterise safety concerns, particularly missing information listed in the current Australian RMPs for commonly used biologic medicines, and identify additional pharmacovigilance and risk minimisation activities proposed to address identified gaps. Methods A descriptive review of RMPs included in the Australian Public Assessment Reports (2009–2024) was performed for 15 biologic medicines approved for use and universally funded in Australia for inflammatory arthropathies, inflammatory bowel diseases and inflammatory skin conditions. We extracted and quantified safety concerns (important identified risks, important potential risks and missing information) from the latest Australian Public Assessment Reports, and further categorised missing information by specific populations and conditions. We then qualitatively described the additional activities proposed. Results There were 246 safety concerns listed for the 15 medicines of interest: 85 important identified risks (34.6%), 81 important potential risks (32.9%) and 80 instances of missing information (32.5%). More than half (n = 9, 60%) of the reviewed medicines listed children and adolescents as the most common populations with missing information. Pregnant women (n = 8, 53%) and those with hepatic and renal impairment (n = 7, 47%) were also commonly listed as having missing information. Additional pharmacovigilance activities were proposed for two thirds of the medicines (n = 10, 77%) where missing information was listed. Only one third of the reviewed medicines (n = 5, 33%) had specific proposals or protocols listed in the current Australian Public Assessment Reports to address missing information. Conclusions Our study identified important gaps in RMPs for commonly used biologic medicines at the post-market phase. Despite some medicines having an extensive market history, these safety concerns remain unaddressed. Regular monitoring and critical review of RMPs are recommended to prioritise post-market studies and address outstanding safety concerns.

Date: 2025
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40264-025-01557-2 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:drugsa:v:48:y:2025:i:9:d:10.1007_s40264-025-01557-2

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/adis/journal/40264

DOI: 10.1007/s40264-025-01557-2

Access Statistics for this article

Drug Safety is currently edited by Nitin Joshi

More articles in Drug Safety from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().