BIOVIGILANCE IN THE UNITED STATES:
Download
1 / 35

BIOVIGILANCE IN THE UNITED STATES: EFFORTS TO BRIDGE A CRITICAL GAP IN PATIENT SAFETY AND DONOR HEALTH - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 917 Views
  • Uploaded on

BIOVIGILANCE IN THE UNITED STATES: EFFORTS TO BRIDGE A CRITICAL GAP IN PATIENT SAFETY AND DONOR HEALTH Alan E. Williams, Ph.D. Office of Blood Research and Review CBER, FDA Pharma Conference January 27-29, 2010 Biovigilance

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'BIOVIGILANCE IN THE UNITED STATES: EFFORTS TO BRIDGE A CRITICAL GAP IN PATIENT SAFETY AND DONOR HEALTH' - emily


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Slide1 l.jpg
BIOVIGILANCE IN THE UNITED STATES: EFFORTS TO BRIDGE A CRITICAL GAP IN PATIENT SAFETY AND DONOR HEALTH

Alan E. Williams, Ph.D.

Office of Blood Research and Review

CBER, FDA

Pharma Conference

January 27-29, 2010


Biovigilance l.jpg
Biovigilance

  • Biovigilance ….a comprehensive and integrated national patient safety program to collect, analyze and report on the outcomes of collection and transfusion and/or transplantation of blood components and derivatives, tissues, organs, and cellular therapies. (ACBSA 2006)


Public health goals for a comprehensive biovigilance system l.jpg
Public Health Goals for a Comprehensive Biovigilance System

  • Benchmarking and Quality Assurance

  • Adverse outcome measurement

    • Sentinel signal detection

    • Surveillance

  • Incident tracking (“e.g. near misses”)

    • Enhanced power to detect problems

  • Intervention evaluation (experimental studies)

  • Regulatory oversight

    • Rapid action to remove unsafe products/practices


Biovigilance gap report l.jpg
Biovigilance Gap Report

  • Drafted in response to 2006 ACBSA recommendations (and concurrence by Assistant Secretary of Health):

    • that DHHS coordinate Federal actions and programs to support and facilitate biovigilance in partnership with private sector initiatives

    • that DHHS form a task group to perform a gap analysis of current systems and make recommendations for public-private partnerships in biovigilance (blood, cell, tissue, and organ therapies).

    • Hemovigilance is the blood-specific aspect of biovigilance


Hhs biovigilance gap report key deficiencies of hemovigilance in the united states l.jpg
HHS Biovigilance Gap report:Key Deficiencies of Hemovigilance in the United States

  • Absence of……….

    • Long-term stability

    • National scope

    • Multicenter design

    • Common definitions

    • Broad data access and sharing

    • Real Time Data Availability

    • Active use to document practice improvement


Biovigilance design options all have advantages and disadvantages depending on perspective l.jpg
Biovigilance Design Options(All have advantages and disadvantages depending on perspective)

  • Single Institution vs. Aggregated Data

  • Voluntary vs. Required Reporting

  • Functionally Anonymous vs. Identity-Linked Reporting

  • Sentinel vs. Surveillance

  • Severe Adverse Events vs All Incidents

  • Government vs. Private vs. Partnership

  • Commonality of data systems (HL7)


International hemovigilance global models l.jpg
International Hemovigilance Global Models

  • 1993 Hemovigilance (France)

    • Mandatory Reporting

  • 1996 SHOT (UK)

    • First voluntary system

    • Made key observation: TRALI relationship to female plasma

  • European Blood Directive 2002/98/EC(2)


  • International hemovigilance global models cont l.jpg
    International Hemovigilance Global Models (cont.)

    • Some hemovigilance systems are governed by regulations (France, Germany Switzerland)

    • Some are managed by blood manufacturers

      (Japan, Singapore, South Africa)

    • Others are managed by Medical Societies (Netherlands, UK)

      or Public Health Authorities (Canada)


    International hemovigilance global models cont9 l.jpg
    International Hemovigilance Global Models (cont.)

    • Hema-Quebec (non-profit blood establishment serving Quebec)

      • Established transfusion safety officers (TSOs) in each medical facility

      • High rate of transfusion AE reporting.


    International hemovigilance global models cont10 l.jpg
    International Hemovigilance Global Models (cont.)

    • Recognized need for uniformity in definitions of adverse events and incidents

    • International Hemovigilance Network (EHN/IHN)

      • 50 members, 34 countries. includes most EU Nations

      • Defined grading for severity, imputability, and clinical signs (subsequently modified and expanded by the ISBT hemovigilance working party)

      • US may soon join the IHN


    Us national hemovigilance the hurdles l.jpg
    US National Hemovigilance: The Hurdles

    Complexity of the effort

    Uncertainty of future funding

    Differing definitions

    Wide variety of Data Systems

    Potential for inter-organizational competition

    FDA AE reporting regulations not finalized


    Examples of hemovigilance related elements currently operational in the united states l.jpg
    Examples of Hemovigilance-Related Elements Currently Operational in the United States:

    • Investigator-initiated research

    • Major blood organizations (donors)

    • Individual hospitals (recipients)

    • MERS-TM


    Examples of hemovigilance related elements currently operational in the united states13 l.jpg
    Examples of Hemovigilance-Related Elements Currently Operational in the United States:

    • Federally sponsored multi-center epidemiological studies

      NHLBI REDS and REDS-II

      RADAR, FACTS other repositories

      National Blood Collection and Utilization Survey (NBCUS)

      Marker positive donor interview studies


    Examples of hemovigilance elements currently operational in the united states l.jpg
    Examples of Operational in the United States:Hemovigilance Elements Currently Operational in the United States:

    FDA Blood Safety Mandatory Reporting

    Fatalities (donors & recipients)

    Product deficiencies

    Biological product deviation (BPD) reports

    Medical device reports

    (Note: mandatory FDA drug AE reporting is far more comprehensive)




    Examples of hemovigilance elements currently operational in the united states17 l.jpg
    Examples of Hemovigilance Elements Currently Operational in the United States:

    Voluntary “passive” reporting to FDA via AERS/MedWatch


    Aers reports for blood calendar year 2007 l.jpg
    AERS Reports for Blood the United States:Calendar Year 2007

    Query for blood and components as primary or secondary suspect products.

    Total = 44; some patients received blood components and derivatives.


    The deficiencies in us biovigilance have explanations l.jpg
    The Deficiencies in US Biovigilance have Explanations the United States:

    • Absence of national blood system

    • Strong programs of investigator-initiated and federally-funded research programs

    • Barriers to data-sharing

    • Lack of targeted investment - especially “real-time” data analysis/interpretation

    • Legal liability

    • Regulatory liability



    Hhs aabb donor hemovigilance l.jpg
    HHS/AABB Donor Hemovigilance the United States:

    Funded by DHHS

    Focus on Donor Adverse Reactions

    Key Participants – DHHS, AABB, ARC, DoD, BSI, Coffee Memorial, Mayo, PPTA, Canadian Blood System, KBS


    Hhs aabb donor hemovigilance22 l.jpg
    HHS/AABB Donor Hemovigilance the United States:

    • National Standards for Donor Reaction Data Collection

      • Data Elements and Definitions

      • Reactions and Reaction Categorization

    • Systemic, Standard Mechanism to Calculate Donor Reaction Rates

      • Trends at Facility, Organization, Region and Nation Levels

      • Comparison With Peers, Region and Nation


    Hhs aabb donor hemovigilance23 l.jpg
    HHS/AABB Donor Hemovigilance the United States:

    • Predictive and Causality Analysis

      • Analyze Variables (Age, Sex, Weight, BP) Affecting Donor Reaction Rates

      • Device and Kit Analysis

      • Analyze Associations between Policies, Procedures of Organizations and Donor Reaction Rates

    • Intervention Analysis and Management




    Adverse reactions l.jpg
    Adverse Reactions the United States:

    Allergic reaction

    Acute hemolytic transfusion reaction

    Delayed hemolytic transfusion reaction

    Delayed serologic transfusion reaction

    Hypotensive transfusion reaction

    Febrile non-hemolytic transfusion reaction

    Post transfusion purpura

    Transfusion associated circulatory overload (TACO)

    Transfusion associated dyspnea

    TA- Graft versus host disease

    TRALI

    Transfusion associated infection (bacterial, viral, parasitic, other)


    Case definition criteria l.jpg
    Case Definition Criteria the United States:

    http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/nhsn_biovig.html


    For more information l.jpg
    For More Information the United States:

    http://www.aabb.org/biovigilance

    8101 Glenbrook Road

    Bethesda, MD 20814-2749

    Phone: +1.301.215.6574

    Fax: +1.301.907.6895

    biovigilance@aabb.org


    Fda s sentinel initiative l.jpg
    FDA’s Sentinel Initiative the United States:

    Need to improve ability to detect low frequency adverse events in populations receiving approved biologics.

    Development of a nationwide electronic safety monitoring system

    Under FDAAA, section 905, FDA is required to link to disparate sources of safety data in order to access 25 million patient records by 2010 and 100 million by 2012


    Slide32 l.jpg

    DOSES the United States:

    Use of CMSDatabase:

    RAPID ANALYSIS OF GBS RATE vs. USE OF SEASONAL FLU VACCINE - 2006

    GBS rates


    Initial fda vision of sentinel l.jpg
    Initial FDA Vision of Sentinel the United States:

    • Data sources remain with original owners behind existing firewalls

    Owners would run queries—FDA-requested or other—(or could opt out) and convey the results of their queries to the network for analysis according to strict privacy and security safeguards

    System will enable FDA to partner with existing data owners (e.g., insurance companies with large claims databases, owners of electronic health records)

    • New system

    Will strengthen FDA's ability to monitor postmarket performance of a product

    – Will augment, not replace, existing functionality


    Harmonization on hemovigilance the remaining challenges l.jpg
    Harmonization on Hemovigilance: The Remaining Challenges the United States:

    • CDCand HHS Hemovigilance

    • Voluntary

      • Unlinked

      • Surveillance design

      • Pilot → → National roll-out

    • FDA Adverse Event Data Needs (Drugs and Biologics)

      • Identity Linked (for follow-up)

      • Sentinel (and surveillance) design

      • Real time (to extent possible)

      • Voluntary and Mandatory

      • Early Middle stages of development (Patient Safety Rules, SENTINEL)

        Overall goal : Establish a comprehensive System for Simultaneous End-User Reporting in Support of Multiple Applications


    Phs biovigilance task group l.jpg
    PHS Biovigilance Task Group* the United States:

    • The PHS Biovigilance Working Group was formed to respond to the ACBSA’s recommendations to the Assistant Secretary for Health (ASH). The working group included: Matthew Kuehnert (chair), CDC; Jonathan Goldsmith (co-chair), formerly of FDA currently with NHLBI; Alan Williams (co-chair), FDA; James Bowman, formerly of CMS currently with HRSA; Simone Glynn, NIH, NHLBI; Harvey Klein, NIH; Laura St. Martin, FDA; Robert Wise, FDA; Jerry Holmberg, HHS/OPHS; James Burdick, formerly of HRSA; Elizabeth Ortiz-Rios, HRSA; Jay Epstein, FDA; Robyn Ashton, HRSA; and Karen Deasy, CDC.

    • Our thanks to others who contributed to this white paper, including D. Michael Strong, Barbee Whitaker and Kathy Loper, AABB; Tom Lane, University of California at San Diego; Anne Eder, American Red Cross; Peter Tomasulo, Blood Systems, Inc; Jim AuBuchon, Puget Sound Blood Center; and Susan Leitman, NIH.