The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

The UK BIO-TRAC Study: a cross-sectional study of product and batch traceability for biologics in clinical practice and electronic adverse drug reaction reporting in the UK

The UK BIO-TRAC Study: a cross-sectional study of product and batch traceability for biologics in clinical practice and electronic adverse drug reaction reporting in the UK
The UK BIO-TRAC Study: a cross-sectional study of product and batch traceability for biologics in clinical practice and electronic adverse drug reaction reporting in the UK

Introduction: Due to the complexity of biologics and the inherent challenges for manufacturing, it is important to know the specific brand name and batch number of suspected biologics in adverse drug reaction (ADR) reports. Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the extent to which biologics are traceable by brand name and batch number in UK hospital practice and in ADRs reported by patients and healthcare professionals. Methods: We performed an online hospital pharmacist survey to capture information on how specific product details are recorded during the processes of prescribing, dispensing and administration of biologics in routine UK hospital practice. We also assessed the proportion of ADR reports specifying brand name and batch number from electronic ADR reports submitted to the UK national spontaneous reporting database, the Yellow Card Scheme, between 1 January 2009 and 30 September 2017. Results: Brand name recording in routine hospital processes ranged from 79 to 91%, whereas batch numbers were less routinely recorded, ranging from 38 to 58%. Paper-based recording of product details was more commonly used for recording information. A total of 6108 electronic ADR reports were submitted to the Yellow Card Scheme for recombinant biologics, of which 38% and 15%, respectively, had an identifiable brand name and batch numbers. Whereas batch number traceability in electronic ADR reports improved slightly after the implementation of the European Union pharmacovigilance legislation in 2012, no improvement of brand name traceability was observed. Conclusion: Brand name and batch number traceability for biologics in UK ADR reports are generally low. Shortcomings in the systematic recording of product details in UK clinical practice may contribute to the limited traceability.

0114-5916
255–263
Klein, Kevin
4572664c-09fe-4465-83f8-628ca554c49b
Hazell, Lorna
1c9036d8-13c0-4fe1-88be-9a926dc003b5
Stolk, Pieter
d8fba2c4-1703-4487-9a75-29bad195e847
Shakir, Saad
56650522-3859-4e28-8936-fe11c0a404d4
Klein, Kevin
4572664c-09fe-4465-83f8-628ca554c49b
Hazell, Lorna
1c9036d8-13c0-4fe1-88be-9a926dc003b5
Stolk, Pieter
d8fba2c4-1703-4487-9a75-29bad195e847
Shakir, Saad
56650522-3859-4e28-8936-fe11c0a404d4

Klein, Kevin, Hazell, Lorna, Stolk, Pieter and Shakir, Saad (2020) The UK BIO-TRAC Study: a cross-sectional study of product and batch traceability for biologics in clinical practice and electronic adverse drug reaction reporting in the UK. Drug Safety, 43 (3), 255–263. (doi:10.1007/s40264-019-00891-6).

Record type: Article

Abstract

Introduction: Due to the complexity of biologics and the inherent challenges for manufacturing, it is important to know the specific brand name and batch number of suspected biologics in adverse drug reaction (ADR) reports. Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the extent to which biologics are traceable by brand name and batch number in UK hospital practice and in ADRs reported by patients and healthcare professionals. Methods: We performed an online hospital pharmacist survey to capture information on how specific product details are recorded during the processes of prescribing, dispensing and administration of biologics in routine UK hospital practice. We also assessed the proportion of ADR reports specifying brand name and batch number from electronic ADR reports submitted to the UK national spontaneous reporting database, the Yellow Card Scheme, between 1 January 2009 and 30 September 2017. Results: Brand name recording in routine hospital processes ranged from 79 to 91%, whereas batch numbers were less routinely recorded, ranging from 38 to 58%. Paper-based recording of product details was more commonly used for recording information. A total of 6108 electronic ADR reports were submitted to the Yellow Card Scheme for recombinant biologics, of which 38% and 15%, respectively, had an identifiable brand name and batch numbers. Whereas batch number traceability in electronic ADR reports improved slightly after the implementation of the European Union pharmacovigilance legislation in 2012, no improvement of brand name traceability was observed. Conclusion: Brand name and batch number traceability for biologics in UK ADR reports are generally low. Shortcomings in the systematic recording of product details in UK clinical practice may contribute to the limited traceability.

Text
Klein 2020 Article The UKBIO-TRAC Study - Version of Record
Download (755kB)

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 25 November 2019
e-pub ahead of print date: 23 December 2019
Published date: 1 March 2020

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 439097
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/439097
ISSN: 0114-5916
PURE UUID: cd151151-bf9a-49b8-a622-a77835536de8
ORCID for Lorna Hazell: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-5962-0648

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 03 Apr 2020 16:30
Last modified: 17 Mar 2024 12:38

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Kevin Klein
Author: Lorna Hazell ORCID iD
Author: Pieter Stolk
Author: Saad Shakir

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×