Direct Healthcare Professional Communications Research Articles

Preparation of Direct Healthcare Professional Communication: An Exploratory Study on the Experiences and Perceptions of European Pharmaceutical Companies and the EMA.

Despite the regulatory requirement for cooperation between marketing authorization holders (MAHs) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) in the direct healthcare professional communication (DHPC) preparation, no literature has explored DHPCs from an industry-regulator perspective. This constitutes a significant knowledge gap as any possibility of improving current DHPC effectiveness depends on decisions in the cooperative preparation phase. Thus, this EU-centered study explores differences in perceptions and experiences of DHPCs of European MAHs and EMA. European MAHs ([Formula: see text]) and EMA representatives ([Formula: see text]) were interviewed. The verbatim transcripts were coded into themes using NVivo software. Interview analysis was performed following a phenomenological approach of meaning condensation. The DHPC process was perceived as burdensome by the industry. One company stated the process was time-consuming either due to EMA's internal lengthy approval process or the translation activities with local company affiliates and national competent authorities. Three companies stated that DHPCs were not effective. One company stated that DHPCs are sent out due to legal Obligations and not because of their use as a risk minimization measure (RMM). Newly emerged safety concerns were found difficult to phrase. Optimization proposals included improved timelines, scrutinization of healthcare professionals and better communication tools in clinical practice. DHPCs were not perceived as optimal, although the most effective intervention as it targets healthcare professionals directly. Continuous evaluation by EMA of DHPCs and evaluation on how to reach healthcare professionals are necessary. It is believed that industry perceptions from this study can support EMA with improved regulatory decision making to benefit public health.

Impact of medicines regulatory risk communications in the UK on prescribing and clinical outcomes: Systematic review, time series analysis and meta-analysis.

Regulatory risk communications are important to ensure medication safety, but their impact is poorly understood. The aim was to quantify the impact of UK risk communications on medication use and other outcomes. We conducted a systematic review of studies reporting prescribing/health outcome data relevant to UK regulatory risk communication. Data were reanalysed using interrupted time series regression 12 months after each regulatory intervention. Mean changes were pooled using random-effects generic inverse variance examining the following subgroups: drug withdrawals; restrictions/changes in indications; be aware messages without specific recommendations for action; communication via direct healthcare practitioner communications; communication via drug bulletins. Of 11466 articles screened, 40 studies examining 25 UK regulatory risk communications were included. Product withdrawals, restriction in indications and be aware communications were associated with relative mean changes of -78% (95% confidence interval [CI] -60 to -96%), -34% (95% confidence interval [CI] -12 to -55%) and-11% (95%CI -8 to -15%) in targeted drug prescribing respectively. Direct healthcare professional communications were associated with relative mean changes of -47% (95%CI -27 to -68%) compared to -13% (95%CI -6 to -20%) for drug bulletins. Of 7 studies examining unique health outcomes related to the safety concern, risk communications were associated with a mean-10% (95%CI -3 to -16%) decrease in intended and a 7% (95%CI 4 to 10%) increase in unintended health outcomes. UK regulatory risk communications were associated with significant changes in targeted prescribing and potential changes in clinical outcomes. Further research is needed to systematically study the impact of regulatory interventions.

Effectiveness of Risk Minimization Measures to Prevent Pregnancy Exposure to Mycophenolate-Containing Medicines in Europe.

In 2015, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) requested additional Risk Minimization Measures (RMM), consisting of a Direct Healthcare Professional Communication (DHPC), a Guide for Healthcare Professionals (HCPs), and a Guide for Patients, to prevent pregnancy exposure to mycophenolate-containing medicines. This study assessed the effectiveness of the additional RMM for any mycophenolate-containing medicine among prescribers of these products in Europe. A cross-sectional survey was conducted among prescribers of mycophenolate-containing medicines in five European countries via the administration of 19 questions checking knowledge levels for the key messages included in the additional RMM. Of 79,783 invitations sent to potential prescribers of mycophenolate-containing medicines, 295 HCPs accessed the survey, giving an overall response rate of 0.4% (range 0.1-8.6%). A total of 231 prescribers were included in the primary analysis. Knowledge levels for 15 questions was fair (50 to < 70%) to high (≥ 70%), and for 4 questions was poor (< 50%). Highest knowledge (≥ 75%) was for knowing that mycophenolate is contraindicated in women of childbearing potential not using highly effective contraception (80.3%) and that mycophenolate should not be routinely prescribed during pregnancy (77.5%). Lowest knowledge (≤ 30%) was for knowing that no specific mechanism of teratogenicity and mutagenicity has been identified for mycophenolate (23.4%). Less than half of HCPs reported receipt of the DHPC (42.5%) or were aware of the Guide for HCPs (32.1%) and Guide for Patients (29.7%). The most frequently reported primary source from which HCPs learned about these risks was the Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC; 33.8%), while only 9.9% indicated the Guide for HCPs. Prescribers who participated in this survey appear to be reasonably well informed about the key messages of the RMM put in place in Europe for mycophenolate-containing medicines. The relatively high knowledge levels, in spite of the low proportion of HCPs reporting receipt of the additional RMM, suggest that the SmPC may be sufficiently informing prescribers about the pregnancy risks of mycophenolate-containing medicines and actions recommended to minimize pregnancy risk. Nevertheless, Roche in consultation with EMA will continue to distribute all additional RMM.

Parents’ learning needs and preferences in a neonatal intensive care unit: A desire for enhanced communication and eHealth technology

The aim of this study was to explore the learning needs of parents of infants admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) through descriptive qualitative design. Three focus groups were conducted with thirteen parents. Three main themes were derived following content analysis: Expectations and Uncertainties, Seeking and Learning, and Desires and Preferences. Parents identified a need for greater clarity around their role in the NICU and while healthcare professionals were identified as the foremost trusted source of information in the NICU, parents also voiced concerns related to communication difficulties. Parents attempted to satisfy learning needs online and believed that traditional resources, such as hospital-based pamphlets, be replaced with resources that are virtual, readily accessible, evidence-based and tailored to their individual needs. Education through technology as a supplement to direct health care professional communication may promote optimal health outcomes for infants and families.

Preparation of Direct Healthcare Professional Communication: An Exploratory Study on the Experiences and Perceptions of European Pharmaceutical Companies and the EMA.

Despite the regulatory requirement for cooperation between marketing authorization holders (MAHs) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) in the direct healthcare professional communication (DHPC) preparation, no literature has explored DHPCs from an industry-regulator perspective. This constitutes a significant knowledge gap as any possibility of improving current DHPC effectiveness depends on decisions in the cooperative preparation phase. Thus, this EU-centered study explores differences in perceptions and experiences of DHPCs of European MAHs and EMA. European MAHs (n = 6) and EMA representatives (n = 2) were interviewed. The verbatim transcripts were coded into themes using NVivo software. Interview analysis was performed following a phenomenological approach of meaning condensation. The DHPC process was perceived as burdensome by the industry. One company stated the process was time-consuming either due to EMA's internal lengthy approval process or the translation activities with local company affiliates and national competent authorities. Three companies stated that DHPCs were not effective. One company stated that DHPCs are sent out due to legal obligations and not because of their use as a risk minimization measure (RMM). Newly emerged safety concerns were found difficult to phrase. Optimization proposals included improved timelines, scrutinization of healthcare professionals and better communication tools in clinical practice. DHPCs were not perceived as optimal, although the most effective intervention as it targets healthcare professionals directly. Continuous evaluation by EMA of DHPCs and evaluation on how to reach healthcare professionals are necessary. It is believed that industry perceptions from this study can support EMA with improved regulatory decision making to benefit public health.

Post-authorisation Safety Study of Pioglitazone Use and Safety Endpoints of Interest in Denmark After Direct Healthcare Professional Communication.

IntroductionA Direct Healthcare Professional Communication (DHPC) sent in Denmark on 11 August 2011 provided information on new pioglitazone labelling and guidance on monitoring treatment effectiveness. We describe pioglitazone use in Denmark after the DHPC, estimate the incidence of heart failure (HF), quantify pioglitazone cessation following a diagnosis of bladder cancer (BC) or uninvestigated macroscopic haematuria, and describe glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) values.MethodsThis was a cohort study. From Danish population-based registries, cohorts of type 2 diabetes mellitus incident or prevalent users of pioglitazone or insulin in 2011–2015 were created. Patient characteristics, treatment patterns, laboratory results (available for a regional subset of the population), and incidence rates of HF and BC were estimated.ResultsThere were 80 pioglitazone and 17,699 insulin incident users, 140 pioglitazone and 13,183 insulin prevalent users. There were no new BC cases among incident pioglitazone users, and < 5 new BC cases among prevalent pioglitazone users. Pioglitazone was rarely the first-line treatment. History of haematuria was documented in < 5 incident and 11 prevalent pioglitazone users. During follow-up, there were < 5 HF cases among 77 incident pioglitazone users and < 5 among 133 prevalent pioglitazone users without a history of HF. Median HbA1c at index date was 7.8% and 8.8% in incident pioglitazone and insulin cohorts, and 7.5% and 7.6% in prevalent pioglitazone and insulin cohorts, respectively. During follow-up of up to 4.4 years, 28.8% incident and 20.7% prevalent pioglitazone users discontinued pioglitazone.ConclusionsNumbers of pioglitazone users in Denmark were low and decreased over time. Risks of BC or HF were low and risk estimates imprecise.

Implications of Direct Healthcare Professional Communication in Egypt: barriers and preferences of Health Care Professionals

Direct Healthcare Professional Communication (DHPC) is essentially distributed for fast communication of new serious drug safety information to healthcare professionals (HCPs). However, the use of this tool concerning the knowledge and preferences of HCPs has never been evaluated in Egypt. This study aimed to evaluate the HCPs' knowledge, preferences, and barriers to the use of DHPC in Egypt. A cross-sectional study of a random sample of 254 HCPs surveyed via face-to-face interviews to assess the Egyptian HCPs' awareness of DHPC, the preferences, and barriers that affect its use. Among the 297 approached HCPs, only 254 accepted to participate with a response rate of 85.5%, including (50% internists, 22.83% cardiologists, 11.02% neurologists, 11.02% pediatricians, and 5.12% from other specialties). Most HCPs were not familiar with DHPC (N= 254, 61.8%). One-third of the visited HCPs who were aware of concerned drugs' risk(s) got their information from DHPC (N= 149, 36.9%). HCPs preference for communication channel was highest for meetings (N= 254, 65.7%) and least for newsletters (N= 254, 28%). HCPs reported barriers to reading DHPC included; busy schedule (N= 254, 47.6%), mistrusted source (N= 254, 24.4%), view as a marketing tool (N= 254, 21.7%), invaluable information (N= 254, 9.8%) and disbelief (N= 254, 7.5%). The DHPC did not reach the target HCPs most of the time, but when received, it was successful in conveying the required message to the target HCPs. Multiple barriers were identified that negatively impacted the success of DHPC. It is recommended to use other electronic communication methods to enhance the reachability of the current method (DHPC).

Prescribing Variation in General Practices in England Following a Direct Healthcare Professional Communication on Mirabegron.

Introduction: Pharmacovigilance may detect safety issues after marketing of medications, and this can result in regulatory action such as direct healthcare professional communications (DHPC). DHPC can be effective in changing prescribing behaviour, however the extent to which prescribers vary in their response to DHPC is unknown. This study aims to explore changes in prescribing and prescribing variation among general practitioner (GP) practices following a DHPC on the safety of mirabegron, a medication to treat overactive bladder (OAB). Methods: This is an interrupted time series study of English GP practices from 2014–2017. National Health Service (NHS) Digital provided monthly statistics on aggregate practice-level prescribing and practice characteristics (practice staff and registered patient profiles, Quality and Outcomes Framework indicators, and deprivation of the practice area). The primary outcome was monthly mirabegron prescriptions as a percentage of all OAB drug prescriptions and we assessed the change following a DHPC issued by the European Medicines Agency in September 2015. The DHPC stated mirabegron use was contraindicated with severe uncontrolled hypertension and cautioned with hypertension. Variation between practices in mirabegron prescribing before and after the DHPC was assessed using the systematic component of variation (SCV). Multilevel segmented regression with random effects quantified the change in level and trend of prescribing after the DHPC. Practice characteristics were assessed for their association with a reduction in prescribing following the DHPC. Results: This study included 7408 practices. During September 2015, 88.9% of practices prescribed mirabegron and mirabegron comprised a mean of 8.2% (SD 6.8) of OAB prescriptions. Variation between practices was classified as very high and the median SCV did not change significantly (p = 0.11) in the six months after the September 2015 DHPC (12.4) compared to before (11.6). Before the DHPC, the share of mirabegron over all OAB drug prescriptions increased by 0.294 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.287, 0.301) percentage points per month. There was no significant change in the month immediately after the DHPC (−0.023, 95% CI −0.105 to 0.058), however there was a significant reduction in trend (−0.036, 95% CI −0.049 to −0.023). Higher numbers of registered patients, patients aged ≥65 years, and practice area deprivation were associated with having a significant decrease in level and slope of mirabegron prescribing post-DHPC. Conclusion: Variation in mirabegron prescribing was high over the study period and did not change substantively following the DHPC. There was no immediate prescribing change post-DHPC, although the monthly growth did slow. Knowledge of the degree of variation in and determinants of response to safety communications may allow those that do not change prescribing habits to be provided with additional support.

New safety signals assessed by the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee at EU level in 2014–2017

ABSTRACTBackground: Safety monitoring of all drugs throughout their entire life cycle is mandatory in order to protect the public health. Our objective was to describe all new safety signals assessed at EU level by the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC).Methods: Publicly available data on signals assessment from PRAC meeting minutes for the period January 2014–November 2017 were analyzed and classified.Results: A total of 239 new signals for 194 drugs/drug combinations/therapeutic classes were evaluated by PRAC. A total of 154 signals were triggered by spontaneous reporting, 31 by literature case reports, and 26 by observational studies. In 188 signals, the drugs involved were authorized for more than 5 years. The drug classes for which most signals were detected were antineoplastic/immunomodulators (n = 75), anti-infectives (n = 34), and drugs acting on the nervous system (n = 27). Signals were triggered for drug interactions (n = 15), in utero exposure (n = 7), medication errors (n = 6), and for different disorders, among which the skin/subcutaneous tissue disorders were more common. PRAC recommendations consisted in label updates (n = 86), in Direct Healthcare Professional Communications (n = 17), and in eight recommendations for a more complex evaluation through referral procedures.Conclusions: Most new signals assessed were triggered by spontaneous reporting and led to routine risk minimization measures, such as updating the product information.

Safety Communication Tools and Healthcare Professionals' Awareness of Specific Drug Safety Issues in Europe: A Survey Study.

IntroductionNational competent authorities (NCAs) use Direct Healthcare Professional Communications (DHPCs) to communicate new drug safety issues to healthcare professionals (HCPs). More knowledge is needed about the effectiveness of DHPCs and the extent to which they raise awareness of new safety issues among HCPs.ObjectiveThe objective was to assess and compare general practitioners’ (GPs’), cardiologists’, and pharmacists’ familiarity with DHPCs as communication tools, their awareness of specific drug safety issues, and the sources through which they had become aware of the specific issues.MethodsGPs, cardiologists, and pharmacists from nine European countries (Croatia, Denmark, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and the UK) completed a web-based survey. The survey was conducted in the context of the Strengthening Collaboration for Operating Pharmacovigilance in Europe (SCOPE) Joint Action. Respondents were asked about their familiarity with DHPCs in general and their awareness of safety issues that had recently been communicated and involved the following drugs: combined hormonal contraceptives, diclofenac, valproate, and ivabradine. Those HCPs who were aware of the specific safety issues were subsequently asked to indicate the source through which they had become aware of them. Differences between professions in familiarity with DHPCs and awareness were tested using a Pearson χ2 test per country and post hoc Pearson χ2 tests in the case of statistically significant differences.ResultsOf the 3288 included respondents, 54% were GPs, 40% were pharmacists, and 7% were cardiologists. The number of respondents ranged from 67 in Denmark to 916 in Spain. Most respondents (92%) were familiar with DHPCs, with one significant difference between the professions: pharmacists were more familiar than GPs in Italy (99 vs 90%, P = 0.004). GPs’ awareness ranged from 96% for the diclofenac issue to 70% for the ivabradine issue. A similar pattern was shown for pharmacists (91% aware of the diclofenac issue to 66% of the ivabradine issue). Cardiologists’ awareness ranged from 91% for the ivabradine issue to 34% for the valproate issue. Overall, DHPCs were a common source through which GPs (range: 45% of those aware of the contraceptives issue to 60% of those aware of the valproate issue), cardiologists (range: 33% for the contraceptives issue to 61% for the valproate issue), and pharmacists (range: 41% for the contraceptives issue to 51% for the ivabradine issue) had become aware of the specific safety issues, followed by information on websites or in newsletters.ConclusionsGPs, cardiologists, and pharmacists were to a similar extent (highly) familiar with DHPCs, but they differed in awareness levels of specific safety issues. Cardiologists were less aware of safety issues associated with non-cardiology drugs even if these had cardiovascular safety concerns. This implies that additional strategies may be needed to reach specialists when communicating safety issues regarding drugs outside their therapeutic area but with risks related to their field of specialisation. DHPCs were an important source for the different professions to become aware of specific safety issues, but other sources were also often used. NCAs should consider the use of a range of sources when communicating important safety issues to HCPs.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s40264-018-0643-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Measuring the impact of medicines regulatory interventions - Systematic review and methodological considerations.

AimsEvaluating the public health impact of regulatory interventions is important but there is currently no common methodological approach to guide this evaluation. This systematic review provides a descriptive overview of the analytical methods for impact research.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for articles with an empirical analysis evaluating the impact of European Union or non‐European Union regulatory actions to safeguard public health published until March 2017. References from systematic reviews and articles from other known sources were added. Regulatory interventions, data sources, outcomes of interest, methodology and key findings were extracted.ResultsFrom 1246 screened articles, 229 were eligible for full‐text review and 153 articles in English language were included in the descriptive analysis. Over a third of articles studied analgesics and antidepressants. Interventions most frequently evaluated are regulatory safety communications (28.8%), black box warnings (23.5%) and direct healthcare professional communications (10.5%); 55% of studies measured changes in drug utilization patterns, 27% evaluated health outcomes, and 18% targeted knowledge, behaviour or changes in clinical practice. Unintended consequences like switching therapies or spill‐over effects were rarely evaluated. Two‐thirds used before–after time series and 15.7% before–after cross‐sectional study designs. Various analytical approaches were applied including interrupted time series regression (31.4%), simple descriptive analysis (28.8%) and descriptive analysis with significance tests (23.5%).ConclusionWhilst impact evaluation of pharmacovigilance and product‐specific regulatory interventions is increasing, the marked heterogeneity in study conduct and reporting highlights the need for scientific guidance to ensure robust methodologies are applied and systematic dissemination of results occurs.

Evaluation of Risk-Minimization Activities for Cyproterone Acetate 2mg/Ethinylestradiol 35µg: A Cross-Sectional Physician Survey.

BackgroundCyproterone acetate 2 mg/ethinylestradiol 35 µg, an estrogen/progestogen treatment with anti-androgenic properties, shares a thromboembolism risk with combined hormonal contraceptives. Educational materials (i.e., direct healthcare professional communication, patient information card, prescriber checklist) were distributed to physicians to increase risk awareness.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to measure physician knowledge of thromboembolism risk of cyproterone acetate 2 mg/ethinylestradiol 35 µg and ascertain whether physicians received the educational materials.MethodsA cross-sectional web-based physician survey of recent prescribers of cyproterone acetate 2 mg/ethinylestradiol 35 µg in Austria, the Czech Republic, France, the Netherlands, and Spain was conducted. Sampling targets for physician specialty were based on country-specific prescribing patterns. Frequency of correct responses was calculated for 14 knowledge questions.ResultsAmong 759 physician respondents (37% of obstetricians/gynecologists, 42% of general practitioners, 20% of dermatologists), 51% received one or more of three educational materials. Knowledge was highest (≥80%) for symptoms of possible deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and cerebrovascular accident; most important risk factors for thrombosis; use in smokers; indication for moderate-to-severe acne; and understanding that cyproterone acetate 2 mg/ethinylestradiol 35 µg should not be used for contraception alone. Knowledge varied for contraindications, myocardial infarction symptoms, other risk factors for thrombosis, instructions regarding anticipated prolonged immobilization, and selected concomitant medical conditions. Knowledge was lower regarding prescribing cyproterone acetate 2 mg/ethinylestradiol 35 µg for acne only after failure of topical therapy or systemic antibiotics. Generally, knowledge did not vary by physician specialty, receipt of educational materials, number of patients prescribed cyproterone acetate 2 mg/ethinylestradiol 35 µg in the previous 3 months, and years in practice.ConclusionsKnowledge was generally high for thromboembolism risk and varied for more complex or infrequent topics.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40290-017-0203-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Communication on Safety of Medicines in Europe: Current Practices and General Practitioners' Awareness and Preferences.

IntroductionNational competent authorities (NCAs) for medicines coordinate communication relating to the safety of medicines in Europe. The effectiveness of current communication practices has been questioned, particularly with regard to reaching general practitioners (GPs).ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to assess current European NCA safety communication practices and to investigate European GPs’ awareness of and preferences for safety communications on medicines.MethodsWeb-based surveys were distributed among European NCAs and healthcare professionals (HCPs). The survey among regulators was emailed to a representative of each of the 27 European countries participating in the Strengthening Collaboration for Operating Pharmacovigilance in Europe (SCOPE) Joint Action. HCPs from nine European countries (Denmark, Spain, Croatia, Ireland, Italy, The Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the UK) were asked about their preferences through a link to the survey on websites, in newsletters, and/or in a direct email. From this survey, data from GPs were used and descriptive analyses were conducted.ResultsCurrent NCA practices were reported for 26 countries. In 23 countries (88%), NCAs published direct healthcare professional communications (DHPCs, i.e. urgent communication letters for serious safety issues) on their website in addition to distribution to individual HCPs. Educational materials were available on the NCA’s website in 10 countries (40%), and 21 NCAs (81%) indicated they had their own bulletin/newsletter, which is often presented on the NCA’s website (15 countries; 60%). More than 90% of the 1766 GPs who completed the survey were aware of DHPCs. The most preferred senders of safety information were NCAs and professional bodies, while the preferred channels for keeping up to date with safety information were medicines reference books and clinical guidelines. GPs found the repetition of safety issues useful (range of 80% in the UK to 97% in Italy). Preference for an electronic copy rather than a hardcopy varied per country (36% in Sweden to 72% in Spain).ConclusionsNCAs use similar methods for safety communications on medicines. Most GPs were aware of urgent communications and preferred similar senders of safety communications; however, their preferences towards the format differed per country.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40264-017-0535-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Post-marketing drug withdrawals: Pharmacovigilance success, regulatory problems

Modern pharmacovigilance began in the 1960s, since when the subject has grown markedly, interest having particularly increased since 2010. One index of its success is the increasing speed with which serious adverse drug reactions are discovered after marketing of a medicinal product. However, the speed with which products have subsequently been withdrawn as a result of the discovery of serious adverse reactions has not consistently changed. This highlights problems that regulators and manufacturers face when serious reactions are discovered, with difficulties in deciding which of several consequent actions to take: to add specific warnings (cautions) or contraindications to the product label; to issue a Direct Healthcare Professional Communication; to allow informed patients to decide whether they will take the drug; or, in the most serious cases, to withdraw the product or revoke the licence. Conflicts of interest may inhibit decision-making. Recommendations that arise from these observations are that: health professionals and patients should be more vigorously encouraged to report suspected adverse drug reactions; regulatory authorities and drug manufacturers should take quicker confirmatory action when serious suspected adverse drug reactions are reported, even anecdotally, with formal studies to test for causality conducted sooner rather than later, applying lower than usual thresholds for suspicion; temporary suspensions or restrictions could be considered during such assessments; universal guidelines are needed for determining when a drug should be withdrawn if serious adverse drug reactions are suspected; there should be more rigorous monitoring and verification of deaths and reporting of reasons for drop-outs during clinical trials, with more transparency in reporting adverse events and ready access to premarketing clinical study reports; post-marketing drug monitoring systems and medicines regulation in low-to-middle income economies, especially in Africa, where withdrawals are fewer than elsewhere, should be strengthened.

Prescription behavior for gastroprotective drugs in new users as a result of communications regarding clopidogrel - proton pump inhibitor interaction.

Safety concerns of the concomitant use of clopidogrel and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) were published in 2009 and 2010 by the medicines regulatory agencies, including a direct healthcare professional communication. We examined the association between various safety statements and prescription behavior for gastroprotective drugs in naïve patients in the Netherlands during the years 2008–2011. Data from the PHARMO Database Network were analyzed with interrupted time series analyses to estimate the impact of each communication on drug prescriptions. Dispensings were used as a proxy variable for prescription behavior. After the early communication in January 2009, 15.5% (95% CI 7.8, 23.4) more patients started concomitantly with (es)omeprazole and 13.8% (95% CI 6.5, 21.2) less with other PPIs. Directly after the first statement in June 2009, we found a steep increase in histamine 2‐receptor antagonists (H2RA) peaking at 25%, placing those patients at risk for gastrointestinal events. This effect for H2RA faded away after a few months. In February 2010, when the official advice via an adjusted statement was to avoid (es)omeprazole, we found a decrease of 11.9% (95% CI 5.7, 18.2) for (es)omeprazole and an increase of +16.0% (95% CI 10.3, 21.7) for other PPIs. Still 22.6% (95% CI 19.5, 25.7) of patients started on (es)omeprazole in February 2010, placing them at risk for cardiovascular events. Advices of regulatory authorities were followed, however, reluctantly and not fully, probably partly because of the existing scientific doubt about the interaction.

Impact of direct healthcare professional communication on diclofenac consumption

Impact of direct healthcare professional communication on diclofenac consumption

A description of signals during the first 18 months of the EMA pharmacovigilance risk assessment committee.

New pharmacovigilance legislation in the European Union has underlined the importance of signal management, giving the European Medicines Agency's newly established Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) the mandate to oversee all aspects of the use of medicinal products including detection, assessment, minimization, and communication relating to the risk of adverse reactions. In this study, we describe the signals as brought to the PRAC during the first 18 months of its operation and the ensuing regulatory actions. Data were collected from publicly available sources, for the period July 2012-December 2013, classified according to predefined rules, and described using the appropriate descriptive statistics. Suspected adverse drug reactions were categorized into the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Affairs and drug names were mapped to the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical codes. During the study period, 125 signals concerning 96 medicinal products were discussed by the PRAC. The majority of signals were triggered by spontaneous reports (62%) and the median drug age (since marketing authorization) for drugs that prompted a signal was 12 years, significantly less compared with drugs that had no signal within the same period (20 years). The mean time until a decision was reached by the PRAC was 75 days (median 30 days, range 0-273) with 43% of all decisions taken during the first meeting. The decisions to start a referral and to send a direct healthcare professional communication took the least amount of time [54 days (median 27 days, range 0-186) and 51 days (median 0 days, range 0-153)]. The importance of spontaneous reporting in signal detection and monitoring of safety issues throughout the entire life cycle of a medicinal product is confirmed in this study. The amount of time a drug has been on the market is correlated with the number of signals detected. The PRAC decision-making process seems efficient particularly with respect to serious concerns; its role in improving signal prioritization and real-time signal management will be further clarified in its subsequent years of operation.

Implementation of warnings from Dear Doctor Letters (Rote-Hand-Briefe): an analysis of medication data from a large cohort of elderly patients.

Dear Doctor Letters (also known as Direct Healthcare Professional Communications) inform physicians about significant newly discovered drug risks and about measures to take to reduce these risks. How far these warnings actually influence prescribing behavior is unclear. The Geriatrics in Bavaria-Database (GiB-DAT, Geriatrie in Bayern Datenbank) collects data from more than 50 centers offering inpatient geriatric health care. Based on GiB-DAT data, the discharge medication of 76 568 patients (81 ± 8 years, 67% women) was recorded in a standardized manner and analyzed for the implementation of information contained in two Dear Doctor Letters about the risks of dose-related or drug interaction-related QT interval prolongation caused by citalopram or escitalopram. Patients were discharged with a median of 8 drugs. In the four quarters of 2012 following release of the Dear Doctor Letters, in comparison to the four quarters before their publication, a marked drop from 9.8% to 4.1% was seen in prescriptions for >20 mg/day citalopram--a dosage no longer recommended in elderly patients--and a similar drop from 23.6% to 12.8% in prescriptions for >10 mg/day escitalopram (p<0.0001). Co-prescription of either of these two drugs with other QT interval-prolonging drugs, which was now contraindicated, remained almost unchanged (citalopram: 19.3% [95% confidence interval (CI): 17.9-20.9%] versus 18.4% [95% CI: 17.0-19.8%]; escitalopram: 17.6% [95% CI: 15.8-19.6%] versus 17.1% [95% CI: 14.5-19.9%]). Simple information in Dear Doctor Letters, such as a reduction of the maximum daily dose, was better implemented than complicated information regarding contraindicated co-medication. Quality assurance systems such as the GiB-DAT network make it possible to identify problems of this kind. Licensing authorities and pharmaceutical companies should should improve the clinical usability, e.g., by providing official reference lists of drugs with safety warnings.

Post-Approval Safety Issues with Innovative Drugs: A European Cohort Study

At time of approval, knowledge of the full benefit risk of any drug is limited, in particular with regards to safety. Post-approval surveillance of potential drug safety concerns is recognized as an important task of regulatory agencies. For innovative, often first-in-class drugs, safety knowledge at time of approval is often even less extensive and these may require tighter scrutiny post approval. We evaluated whether more post-approval serious safety issues were identified for drugs with a higher level of innovation. A cohort study was performed that included all new active substances approved under the European Centralized Procedure and for which serious safety issues were identified post-approval from 1 January 1999 to 1 January 2012. Serious safety issues were defined as issues requiring a Direct Healthcare Professional Communication to alert individual healthcare professionals of a new serious safety issue, or a safety-related drug withdrawal. Data were retrieved from publicly available websites of the Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board and the European Medicines Agency. The level of innovation was scored using a validated algorithm, grading drugs as important (A), moderate (B) or modest (C) innovations or as pharmacological or technological (pharm/tech) innovations. The data were analyzed using appropriate descriptive statistics and Kaplan-Meier analysis, with a Mantel-Cox log-rank test, and Cox-regression models correcting for follow-up duration, to identify a possible trend in serious safety issues with an increasing level of innovation. In Europe, 279 new drugs were approved between 1999 and 2011. Fifty-nine (21 %) were graded as important, 63 (23 %) moderate, or 34 (12 %) modest innovations and 123 (44 %) as non-innovative (pharm/tech), while 15 (25 %), 13 (21 %), 8 (24 %) and 17 (14 %) had post-approval safety issues, respectively (p = 0.06, linear-by-linear test). Five drugs were withdrawn from the market. The Kaplan-Meier-derived probability for having a first serious safety issue was statistically significant, log-rank (Mantel-Cox) p = 0.036. In the final adjusted Cox proportional hazard model there was no statistically significant difference in occurrence of a first serious safety issue for important, moderate and modest innovations versus non-innovative drugs; hazard ratios 1.76 (95 % CI 0.82-3.77), 1.61 (95 % CI 0.76-3.41)], and 1.25 (95 % CI 0.51-3.06), respectively. A higher level of innovation was not clearly related to an increased risk of serious safety issues identified after approval.

The Additional Value of an E-Mail to Inform Healthcare Professionals of a Drug Safety Issue: A Randomized Controlled Trial in the Netherlands

The usefulness and the impact of Direct Healthcare Professional Communications (DHPCs, or 'Dear Doctor letters') in changing the clinical behaviour of physicians have been debated. Changes in the current risk communication methods should preferably be based on the preferences of the healthcare professionals, to optimize the uptake of the message. The aim of this study was to assess whether safety issues are communicated more effectively with an additional e-mail sent by the Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board (MEB) than with the DHPC only. A randomized controlled trial was conducted amongst ophthalmologists and hospital pharmacists in the Netherlands, who were the target group of a DHPC that was issued for pegaptanib, a drug that is administered intra-ocularly in patients with macular degeneration. The intervention group (N = 110) received the pegaptanib DHPC, as well as the MEB e-mail. The control group (N = 105) received the traditional paper-based DHPC only. Two weeks later, the study population received an invitation to fill out an online questionnaire. Questions were asked about the respondents' knowledge and attitude regarding the pegaptanib issue, and any action they had consequently taken. Additional questions were asked about their satisfaction with the DHPC and the e-mail, and their preferred source of such information. Forty respondents (18.6%) completed the questionnaire. Eighty-one percent of the respondents in the intervention group (N = 21) and 47% of the control group (N = 19) correctly indicated that a serious increase in intra-ocular pressure could be caused by pegaptanib injections (Fishers' exact test, p = 0.046). Nine respondents in the intervention group versus none of the control group respondents indicated that they had taken action in response to the pegaptanib safety issue (Fishers' exact test, p = 0.01). The majority of both the intervention group and the control group confirmed that they would like to receive an MEB e-mail with safety information about drugs in the future (90 and 95 %, respectively). The results of this study indicate that an additional e-mail might strengthen the uptake of the safety information provided to healthcare professionals, who prefer to receive an e-mail from the MEB as a source of such information, as well as the DHPC. This study may serve as a starting point for new strategies to improve risk communication regarding safety issues associated with drugs and its impact on prescribing.