Search

Background: 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., Objective: 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., Methods: 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., Results: 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)., Conclusion: 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.

Background: In Europe, Direct Healthcare Professional Communications (DHPCs) are important tools to inform healthcare professionals of serious, new drug safety issues. However, this tool has not always been successful in effectively communicating the desired actions to healthcare professionals., Objective: The aim of this study was to explore healthcare providers' experiences and their preferences for improvement of risk communication, comparing views of general practitioners (GPs), internists, community pharmacists and hospital pharmacists., Methods: A questionnaire was developed and pilot tested to assess experiences and preferences of Dutch healthcare professionals with DHPCs. The questionnaire and two reminders were sent to a random sample of 3488 GPs, internists and community and hospital pharmacists in the Netherlands. Descriptive statistics were used to describe demographic characteristics of the respondents. Chi squares, ANOVAs and the Wilcoxon signed rank test were used, when appropriate, to compare healthcare professional groups., Results: The overall response rate was 34% (N = 1141, ranging from 24% for internists to 46% for community pharmacists). Healthcare providers trusted safety information more when provided by the Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board (MEB) than by the pharmaceutical industry. This was more the case for GPs than for the other healthcare professionals. Respondents preferred safety information to be issued by the MEB, the Dutch Pharmacovigilance Center or their own professional associations. The preferred alternative channels of drug safety information were e-mail, medical journals and electronic prescribing systems., Conclusions: Safety information of drugs does not always reach healthcare professionals through DHPCs. To improve current risk communication of drug safety issues, alternative and/or additional methods of risk communication should be developed using electronic methods and medical journals. Moreover, (additional) risk communication coming from an independent source such as the MEB should be considered. Special effort is needed to reach GPs.

Background: After market approval, new serious safety issues are regularly identified for drugs that lead to regulatory action to inform healthcare professionals. However, the effectiveness of these safety-related regulatory actions is under question. We currently lack a comprehensive overview of the effects of these drug safety warnings on clinical practice to resolve the debate about their effectiveness., Objective: The aim of this systematic review is to provide an overview of studies that assessed the impact of safety warnings., Study Selection: A systematic search was performed for articles assessing the impact of Direct Healthcare Professional Communications or 'Dear Doctor' letters, Black Box Warnings and Public Health Advisories on clinical behaviour published between January 1996 and January 2010. The following variables were extracted: publication year, country, name of the drug, safety issue, specific safety warning (Direct Healthcare Professional Communication/Black Box Warning/Public Health Advisory), effect (intended/unintended) of the safety warning, outcome measure and study design. Papers were checked for several quality aspects. Study data were summarized using descriptive analyses., Results: A total of 50 articles were identified. Two articles assessed two different drugs and were therefore counted twice (n = 52). Thirty-three articles described the impact of safety warnings issued for three drugs and drug groups, i.e. third-generation oral contraceptives, cisapride and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. The remaining 19 articles described a broad variety of 14 drugs and drug groups. Twenty-five studies applied an interrupted time series design, 23 a controlled or uncontrolled before/after design, and four articles applied both. None of the articles could rule out the influence of confounding factors. The intended effects were reported in 18 (72%) of the 25 before/after analyses, whereas only 11 (41%) of the 27 interrupted time series analyses reported an impact. Only two (8%) of the before/after analyses against 11 (41%) of the interrupted time series analyses reported mixed impacts. When unintended effects were assessed in case of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and third-generation oral contraceptives, these were almost always present: in 19 of 22 and 4 of 5 articles, respectively. Our review shows that safety-related regulatory action can have some impact on clinical practice but firm conclusions are difficult to draw. Evidence is primarily based on three drugs and drug groups. Almost half of the studies had inadequate before/after designs and the heterogeneity in analyses and outcome measures hampered the reporting of overall effect sizes. Studies with adequate interrupted time series design reported a more mixed impact of safety warnings than before/after studies. Furthermore, this review shows the relevance of considering not only the intended but also the unintended effects of safety warnings., Conclusions: There is a clear need for further research with appropriate study designs and statistical analyses, with more attention to confounding factors such as media coverage, to understand the impact of safety-related regulatory action.

Background: As pre-approval trials are inherently limited in assessing the complete benefit-risk profile of a new drug, serious safety issues may emerge once a drug gains widespread use after approval. Regulators face the dilemma of balancing timely market access with the need for complete data on risks. This challenge has led to a life-cycle approach but, so far, few data are available on post-approval safety issues requiring regulatory action., Objective: The aim of this study is to determine the frequency, timing and nature of safety issues that necessitated safety-related regulatory action in the form of a Direct Healthcare Professional Communication (DHPC) issued by pharmaceutical companies in collaboration with the Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board during the past decade., Methods: All DHPCs issued in the Netherlands from 1 January 1999 to 1 January 2009 were retrospectively collected from the national regulatory authorities. Elapsed time between the approval date and the issue of the DHPC was determined. Characteristics of the action including the nature of the safety issue (according to Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities [MedDRA] terminology), type of drug and procedural aspects of the regulatory action taken were reviewed. DHPC characteristics were tabulated and explorative non-parametric tests were performed to study the effect of safety issue, drug class, drug type, orphan drug and first-in-class status on elapsed time from approval to the DHPC., Results: 157 DHPCs were issued concerning 112 different active substances, approximately 9% (112/1200) of active substances available in the Netherlands in 2007. The number of DHPCs issued increased by 2.1 (95% CI 1.2, 3.1; p < 0.001) DHPCs per year over the past decade, reaching a total of 25 in 2008. The median time between approval and DHPC was 5.3 years (range 0.13-48 years). No significant trend in elapsed time to DHPC was observed in relation to the studied years (p = 0.06). One-third of all DHPCs were issued in the first 3 years after approval, but 27% (n = 43/157) of the DHPCs were issued 10 or more years after approval. Timing of DHPCs differed depending on safety issue, drug class, drug type and orphan drug status. DHPCs mostly concerned adverse events in the system organ class of 'cardiac disorders' (15%), 'injury, poisoning and procedural complications' (13%) and 'general disorders and administration site conditions' (10%). In ten cases the drug was eventually withdrawn. Withdrawal occurred a median duration of 2.4 years after registration (range of 1.5-48 years) and was most frequently due to cardiac disorders (including QT interval prolongation; four occasions) and hepatobiliary disorders (two occasions)., Conclusions: In the past decade, the number of DHPCs has increased over time. This is likely caused by a multitude of factors: increased risk awareness by the public, media, regulators and other stakeholders; the type of drugs approved, such as orphan drugs and biologicals; and the regulatory process, including conditional approvals. The number of DHPCs may in the future increase further with the possibility of screening large epidemiological databases proactively for adverse drug events. Nine percent of all marketed drugs required a safety-related action. Regulatory action is taken shortly (<3 years) after market approval nearly as often as after intermediate (3-10 years) and long-term (>10 years) market exposure. These findings underline the need for risk management during the whole life cycle of a drug.