Adverse events related to biologicals used for patients with multiple sclerosis: a comparison between information originating from regulators and information originating from the scientific community.

Abstract

Background and purposeClinical decision making is facilitated by healthcare professionals’ and patients’ adequate knowledge of the adverse events. This is especially important for biologicals used for treating multiple sclerosis (MS). So far, little is known about whether different information sources report adverse events consistently.MethodsBiologicals authorized by the European Medicines Agency for the treatment of MS were included in this study. Information on adverse events derived from phase 3 clinical trials from European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs) and from scientific publications was compared.ResultsIn the study, eight biologicals used for the treatment of MS were included for which the EPAR and/or scientific publication reported a total of 707 adverse events. Approximately one‐third of the adverse events was reported in both the EPAR and scientific publication, one‐third was only reported in the EPAR and one‐third only in the scientific publication. Serious adverse events and adverse events that regulators classified as ‘important identified risk’ were significantly more often reported in both sources compared to adverse events not classified as such (respectively, 38% vs. 30% and 49% vs. 30%). Adverse events only reported in the EPAR or in the scientific publication were, in general, not described in the benefit–risk section or abstract, which were considered to be the most important sections of the documents.ConclusionsThis study showed that there is substantial discordance in the reporting of adverse events on the same phase 3 trials between EPARs and scientific publications. To support optimal clinical decision making, both documents should be considered.