↓ Skip to main content

A pharmacovigilance system for treatment access and medical donation programs: The Max Foundation experience

Overview of attention for article published in Globalization and Health, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 Mendeley
Title
A pharmacovigilance system for treatment access and medical donation programs: The Max Foundation experience
Published in
Globalization and Health, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12992-018-0391-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ann Kim Novakowski, Pat Garcia-Gonzalez, Michael Wrigglesworth, Andy Stergachis

Abstract

Cancer is a major burden of disease in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) yet financial barriers limit access to life-saving oncology drugs. Medical donation and other drug access programs can help improve patient access to essential medicines, such as quality assured oncology drugs in LMICs. However, there are no published examples of the conduct of pharmacovigilance with donated medical products intended for use in LMICs where pharmacovigilance is weak. We describe a partnership between a pharmaceutical company and a non-governmental organization as a case example that addresses the challenges in performing pharmacovigilance with donated medicines in LMICs. The Max Foundation's direct to patient model is designed to improve global access to quality assured oncology drugs through access programs such as the Glivec® (generic name: imatinib) International Patient Assistance Program (GIPAP). Between 2013 and 2016, in the course of managing the GIPAP program, The Max Foundation was made aware of 13,039 instances of adverse events (AEs). These AEs were reported to The Max Foundation by physicians, patients, and caregivers. The Max Foundation reported these AEs to Novartis through the AE reporting tool within its Patient Assistance Tracking System (PATS). Physicians were the reporters for 58% of the AEs while the remainder of the AEs were reported directly by patients or caregivers. The overall rate of reported AEs remained relatively steady for the years 2013 through 2016 at 92, 95, 86, and 97 AEs reported per 1000 persons who received Glivec® per year, respectively. The vast majority of adverse events (85%) were reported from countries where The Max Foundation has a MaxStation, i.e., where The Max Foundation staff interact directly with physicians and patients at clinics or over the phone. AE reporting rates were consistently higher in all years studied from countries where The Max Foundation has a MaxStation. While India accounted for the largest number of reported adverse events in 2016 (1990), Bolivia had the highest rate of reported adverse events at 484 AEs per 1000 patients. International patient assistance programs that provide access to medicines can have an important role in assisting pharmaceutical companies in fulfilling their pharmacovigilance obligations. Adverse event information collected through PATS can potentially contribute to the overall body of knowledge on the safety of medicinal products.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 23%
Researcher 4 8%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 4%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 20 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 10 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 17%
Social Sciences 8 15%
Computer Science 1 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 19 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 August 2018.
All research outputs
#13,105,954
of 23,098,660 outputs
Outputs from Globalization and Health
#858
of 1,113 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#159,039
of 330,334 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Globalization and Health
#31
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,098,660 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,113 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.0. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 330,334 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.