Improving Pharmacovigilliance Quality Management System in the Pharmacy and Poisions Board of Kenya
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The purpose of this study was to explore ways of improving the pharmacovigilance quality system employed by the Pharmacy and Poisons Board of Kenya. The Pharmacy and Poisons Board of Kenya employs a hybrid system of pharmacovigilance that utilizes an online system of reporting pharmacovigilance incidences and a physical system, where a yellow book is physically filled by the healthcare worker and sent to the Pharmacy and Poisons Board for onward processing. This system, even though it has been relatively effective compared to other systems employed in Africa, has one major flaw. It is a slow and delayed system that captures the data much later after the fact and the agency will always be behind the curve in controlling the adverse incidents and events. This means that the incidences might continue to arise or go out of control. This project attempts to develop a system that would be more proactive in the collection of pharmacovigilance data and more predictive of pharmacovigilance incidences. The pharmacovigilance system should have the capacity to detect and analyze subtle changes in reporting frequencies and in patterns of clinical symptoms and signs that are reported as suspected adverse drug reactions. The method involved carrying out a thorough literature review of the latest trends in pharmacovigilance employed by different regulatory agencies across the world, especially the more stringent regulatory authorities. A review of the system employed by the Pharmacy and Poisons Board of Kenya was also done. Pharmacovigilance data, both primary and secondary, were collected and reviewed. Media reports on adverse drug reactions and poor-quality medicines over the period were also collected and reviewed. An appropriate predictive pharmacovigilance tool was also researched and identified. It was found that the Pharmacy and Poisons Board had a robust system of collecting historical pharmacovigilance data both from the healthcare workers and the general public. However, a more responsive data collection and evaluation system is proposed that will help the agency achieve its pharmacovigilance objectives. On analysis of the data it was found that just above half of all the product complaints, about 55%, involved poor quality medicines; 15% poor performance, 13% presentation, 8% adverse drug reactions, 7% market authorization, 2% expired drugs and 1% adulteration complaints. A regulatory pharmacovigilance prioritization tool was identified, employing a risk impact analysis was proposed for regulatory action.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,010 | 0,023 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».