How is safety of dermatology drugs assessed: trials, registries, and spontaneous reporting

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Skin conditions are common and highly varied in their etiology; therefore, a diverse array of therapeutics are utilized. Drug safety studies in dermatology can be challenging as there are over 3000 diagnoses to consider. As a result, dermatologists rely on data from multiple sources including clinical trials and real-world evidence.

Areas covered: In this review, we cover the main sources of safety data available, their strengths and weaknesses and how dermatologists should utilize such data. We use real-world examples of the different types of adverse events reported and how they are best captured by either randomized controlled trials or post-marketing pharmacovigilance methods. With multiple new therapies in dermatology, such as dupilumab for atopic dermatitis and janus-kinase inhibitors for alopecia areata the specialty is awash with evolving high-level evidence for their use. It is important to understand the optimal way to assess safety from trials but also appreciate the need for ongoing capture of safety data in clinical practice.

Expert opinion: In dermatology, there is a plethora of conditions to treat and clinical trials, post-marketing surveillance, such as drug registries and spontaneous reporting, all enable dermatologists to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the safety profiles of drugs being used.

KEYWORDS:

• Dermatology
• psoriasis
• biologics
• targeted treatments
• badbir
• drug registry
• drug safety
• pharmacovigilance in dermatology
• alopecia
• eczema

Declaration of Interest

RBW has been a paid consultant and/or clinical trial investigator and/or received department research funds from Abbvie, Almirall, Avillion, Arena, BMS, BI, Celgene, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, Janssen and UCB. The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed.

Reviewer Disclosures

Peer reviewers on this manuscript have no relevant financial or other relationships to disclose.

Additional information

Funding

This paper was not funded.