MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387357665 · doi:10.1111/bcp.15920

Call to action: Harmonization of pharmacovigilance regulations for post‐marketing pregnancy and breastfeeding safety studies

2023· review· en· W4387357665 on OpenAlexaff
Amalia Alexe, Osa Eisele, Maria Fernanda Scantamburlo Fernandes, Anju Garg, Birgit Kovacs, Keele Wurst, Leesha Balramsingh‐Harry, Nadezda Abramova, Yenlik Zheteyeva, David J. Lewis

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Clinical Pharmacology · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy and Medication Impact
Canadian institutionsRoche (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreastfeedingHarmonizationMedicinePharmacovigilanceEnvironmental healthPopulationLegislationClinical trialPostmarketing surveillanceBusinessFamily medicinePolitical sciencePediatricsAdverse effectPharmacologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Globally, more than 200 million women become pregnant each year, most of whom receive medications despite limited information on their safe use during pregnancy. The paucity of drug safety data on pregnant and breastfeeding women stems from the routine exclusion of this population from clinical trials due to scientific, ethical, regulatory and legal concerns. Consequently, at the time of initial drug approval, there may be scant safety data to inform the drug benefit-risk balance to the mother, foetus or infant. Although momentum is growing to include this underrepresented population in clinical trials, most information on drug exposure outcomes comes from data collected in the postmarketing setting. Regulatory guidance and legislation on medication use in pregnancy and breastfeeding were reviewed globally by the TransCelerate IGR PV Pregnancy and Breastfeeding Team. The International Conference of Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) standards and Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences guidelines served as benchmarks for national safety regulations and guidance. The landscape assessment identified a lack of harmonization of global regulations on research in pregnant and breastfeeding women and a lack of specific regulations on this topic in the majority of the territories included in the assessment. This article focuses on the ambiguities and lack of harmonization in global regulations on postmarketing pregnancy and breastfeeding safety studies. There is currently no ICH standard to guide these types of safety studies and, in most regions reviewed, there are no clear regulations or guidance on when and how to conduct them. While a challenging undertaking, greater clarity and harmonization would facilitate more timely completion of postmarketing pregnancy safety studies that would ultimately generate the critical data needed to optimize benefit-risk decisions for women who may conceive, as well as pregnant and breastfeeding women.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.454
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.416
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.546
Threshold uncertainty score0.674

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4540.416
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.012
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0050.014
Scholarly communication0.0240.024
Open science0.0200.017
Research integrity0.0430.054
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.008

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.314
GPT teacher head0.565
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Clinical PharmacologySame topicPregnancy and Medication ImpactFrench-language works237,207