Search

Direct‐acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are licensed for the prevention of thromboembolism in non‐valvular atrial fibrillation, amongst other indications. Prescribers use information derived from the summary of product characteristics which is based on the key trials supporting the DOAC's market authorisation. However, prescribers may not be aware of the limitations within these trials regarding underrepresentation of patient populations commonly encountered in clinical practice and how this may adversely impact them. This review highlights the gaps in the licensing evidence using four clinical vignettes that explore prescribing challenges in older adults, female patients, patients with obesity and patients from non‐Europid ethnic backgrounds. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Coroners inquire into sudden, unexpected, or unnatural deaths. We have previously established 99 cases (100 deaths) in England and Wales in which medicines or part of the medication process or both were mentioned in coroners' 'Regulation 28 Reports to Prevent Future Deaths' (coroners' reports).Objective: We wished to see what responses were made by National Health Service (NHS) organizations and others to these 99 coroners' reports.Methods: Where possible, we identified the party or parties to whom these reports were addressed (names were occasionally redacted). We then sought responses, either from the UK judiciary website or by making requests to the addressee directly or, for NHS and government entities, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Responses were analysed by theme to indicate the steps taken to prevent future deaths.Results: We were able to analyse one or more responses to 69/99 cases from 106 organizations. We analysed 201 separate actions proposed or taken to address the 160 concerns expressed by coroners. Staff education or training was the most common form of action taken (44/201). Some organisations made changes in process (24/201) or policy (17/201), and some felt existing policies were sufficient to address some concerns (22/201).Conclusions: Coroners' concerns are often of national importance but are not currently shared nationally. Only a minority of responses to coroners' reports concerning medicines are in the public domain. Processes for auditing responses and assessing their effectiveness are opaque. Few of the responses appear to provide robust and generally applicable ways to prevent future deaths. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The terms 'licensed', 'unlicensed', and 'off-label', often used in relation to marketing and prescribing medicinal products, may confuse UK prescribers. To market a medicinal product in the UK requires a Marketing Authorization ('product licence') for specified indications under specified conditions, regulated by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). The Marketing Authorization includes the product's agreed terms of use (the 'label'), described in the Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC). Prescribing a licensed product outside those terms is called 'off-label' prescribing. Products for which no-one holds a UK Marketing Authorization are unlicensed. Prescribers can prescribe authorized products according to the conditions described in the SmPC ('on-label') or outside those conditions ('off-label'). They can also prescribe unauthorized products, even if they are unlicensed in the UK, if they are licensed elsewhere or if they have been manufactured in the UK by a licensed manufacturer as a 'special'. The complexities of this system can be understood by considering the status of the manufacturer of the product, the company that markets it (which may or may not be the same), the product itself, and its modes of use, and by emphasizing the word 'authorized'. If a Marketing Authorization is granted to the supplier of a product, it will specify the authorized modes of use; the product will be prescribable as authorized (i.e. 'on-label') or in other modes of use, which will all be off-label. Unlicensed products with no authorized modes of use can be regarded as 'unauthorized products'. All 'specials' can be regarded as authorized products lacking authorized modes of use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This letter to the editor is in response to the article "A Prescription for Better Prescribing," written by J. K. Aronson, G. Henderson, D. J. Webb and M. D. Rawlins in the September 2, 2006 issue of the "British Medical Journal."