Drug safety and the impact of drug warnings: An interrupted time series analysis of diabetes drug prescriptions in Germany and Denmark

Mixed Impact of Direct Healthcare Professional Communications When Considering Proximal Outcomes and the Targeted Population: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Direct Healthcare Professional Communications (DHPCs) are an important risk minimisation measure. Their effect has been shown to be variable and has been measured using different outcomes and study populations. Depending on the content of the message, the optimal outcome to measure a direct effect of the DHPC can differ. This systematic review investigates whether the effects of DHPCs differ according to the use of proximal outcomes and the inclusion of the targeted population.

METHODS

EMBASE and MEDLINE were searched for European DHPC effectiveness studies performed up to April 6, 2022, evaluating the impact of DHPCs issued from 2008. Outcomes and their impact were extracted, together with a classification of the message. The outcomes were categorised as knowledge/awareness, self-reported behaviour (prescribing/monitoring), prescribing of medication (including dosage changes), monitoring, or adverse events/other health outcomes, including hospitalisation. The outcomes closest to the message of the DHPC were defined as proximal. Outcomes were coded 1 when effective and 0 if not. If multiple outcomes were reported in a study, a composite outcome was created ranging from 0 to 1. Chi-square or Fisher exact tests were performed.

RESULTS

From 7063 (scientific) publications identified in our literature search, 60 publications evaluating 31 different DHPCs were selected for our review. As publications could study multiple messages with an outcome, from the 60 scientific publications, 103 outcomes were generated for the messages, of which 30 had a high impact on the composite outcome, with the proportion of analyses with a significant association between 0.75 and 1. When taking the target population into account, some messages were studied in more than one population, resulting in 115 outcomes, of which 33 had a high impact, that is, a composite outcome between 0.75 and 1.

CONCLUSION

Neither the use of proximal outcomes nor the restriction of the analysis to the targeted population significantly influenced the impact observed of the DHPC. These results stress the need for improving drug safety communication.

Unintended impact of pharmacovigilance regulatory interventions: A systematic review

AIMS

Studies assessing the impact of pharmacovigilance regulatory interventions often focus on the expected (or intended) outcomes, while any possible unintended impact may be overlooked. The update of the Good Pharmacovigilance Practice guideline in 2017 elaborated on impact assessment, emphasizing the need also to assess possible unintended impact. This systematic literature review investigated how often the unintended impact of regulatory interventions was considered in publications of studies investigating pharmacovigilance regulatory interventions in Europe.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of the literature on MEDLINE and EMBASE from 1 January 2012 to 28 February 2022 to identify publications that investigated the impact of regulatory interventions in Europe. The primary outcome of the study was the number of publications reporting assessments of unintended impact. In addition, we studied the characteristics of these publications, including the type of outcomes assessed, the analytical methods applied and the type of data used.

RESULTS

In total, 96 publications were included in the analysis. The unintended impact of pharmacovigilance regulatory interventions was investigated in 23 of 96 publications (24%). The drug classes most frequently studied in the publications assessing unintended impact of regulatory interventions were oral glucose-lowering drugs (n = 6, 26%), opioids (n = 4, 17%), antidepressants (n = 4, 17%) and antipsychotics (n = 3, 13%). The reported methods to assess the unintended impact were interrupted time series (n = 10, 43%) and descriptive statistics with or without significance testing (n = 2 [9%] and n = 9 [39%], respectively). The outcomes selected for unintended impact assessments included the use of other drugs (n = 16, 70%), health outcomes (n = 8, 35%) and behavioural changes (n = 4, 17%). Most of the publications reported on the use of electronic health record databases (n = 13, 57%) or claims databases (n = 13, 57%), while registries were used in 4 publications (17%).

CONCLUSION

The unintended impact of pharmacovigilance regulatory interventions was reported in only a quarter of identified publications. There was no apparent increase in attention to unintended impact assessments after the update of the Good Pharmacovigilance Practice guidelines.

Understanding and addressing populations whose prior experience has led to mistrust in healthcare

BACKGROUND

Policy makers need to maintain public trust in healthcare systems in order to foster citizen engagement in recommended behaviors and treatments. The importance of such commitment has been highlighted by the recent COVID-19 pandemic. Central to public trust is the extent of the accountability of health authorities held responsible for long-term effects of past treatments. This paper addresses the topic of manifestations of trust among patients damaged by radiation treatments for ringworm.

METHODS

For this mixed-methods case study (quan/qual), we sampled 600 files of Israeli patients submitting claims to the National Center for Compensation of Scalp Ringworm Victims in the years 1995-2014, following damage from radiation treatments received between 1946 and 1960 in Israel and/or abroad. Qualitative data were analyzed with descriptive statistics, and correlations were analyzed with chi-square tests. Verbal data were analyzed by the use of systematic content analysis.

RESULTS

Among 527 patients whose files were included in the final analysis, 42% held authorities responsible. Assigning responsibility to authorities was more prevalent among claimants born in Israel than among those born and treated abroad (χ² = 6.613, df = 1, p = 0.01), claimants reporting trauma (χ² = 4.864, df = 1, p = 0.027), and claimants living in central cities compared with those in suburban areas (χ² = 18.859, df = 6, p < 0.01). Men, younger claimants, patients with a psychiatric diagnosis, and patients from minority populations expressed mistrust in health regulators.

CONCLUSIONS

Examining populations' perceived trust in healthcare institutions and tailoring health messages to vulnerable populations can promote public trust in healthcare systems.

Trends in global prescribing of antidiabetic medicines in primary care: A systematic review of literature between 2000-2018

The aim of this review was to examine changes in the use of diabetes medicines prescribed to treat type 2 diabetes in the primary care setting. Five electronic databases were searched using strict inclusion/exclusion criteria. The quality of eligible studies was appraised using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Findings show the trend has been away from using sulfonylurea and towards the use of metformin. The introduction of newer drugs has not shifted treatment outcomes and glycaemic control. It was not possible to determine how clinicians make choices about the medicines they prescribe for T2DM, or what influences those choices.

Impact of the black triangle label on prescribing of new drugs in the United Kingdom: lessons for the United States at a time of deregulation

PURPOSE

Newly approved novel drugs in Europe receive a black triangle label to promote pharmacovigilance. With growing momentum for earlier drug approvals and reliance on real-world evidence, we studied if the black triangle label promotes more judicious prescribing.

METHODS

We examined whether general practitioners prescribed escitalopram, tadalafil, and vardenafil with a black triangle more cautiously than the same or similar drugs without a black triangle in The Health Improvement Network (UK). We performed interrupted time-series analyses to estimate changes in new prescription rates and nested case-control studies to compare characteristics of new users before and after removal of a black triangle.

RESULTS

Prescribing rates to the 33 441 new users of these new drugs were highest shortly after initial approval and declined subsequently; there were no increases in rates of new prescriptions after a black triangle's removal (new prescriptions/million/month postlabel: escitalopram -1.5 [95% CI, -1.9 to -1.2]; tadalafil and vardenafil: -0.1 [95% CI, -0.6 to 0.4]). Among drugs in the same class, loss of a patent had more impact on prescribing rates than loss of a black triangle. People who began taking black triangle drugs were less likely to be young or to have multiple comorbidities or recent hospitalization compared with those starting the same drugs after the label's removal. However, these differences generally reflected secular trends seen also in similar, unlabeled medicines.

CONCLUSIONS

Accelerated drug approvals could cause more uncertainty about drug effectiveness and safety, but specific labeling of newly approved medicines is unlikely to promote more judicious prescribing.