Bone mineral density testing, and bisphosphonate and oestrogen prescribing associated with depot medroxyprogesterone acetate utilization-The impact of the boxed warning

Prescriber perceptions of boxed warnings: A qualitative study

PURPOSE

To explore how boxed warning (BW) information fits within the context of prescribers' overall treatment decision-making and communication with patients.

METHODS

In-depth interviews (N = 52) were conducted with primary care providers and specialists. Participants were presented with one of two prescribing scenarios: (1) estrogen vaginal inserts to treat vulvovaginal atrophy (VVA) associated with menopause; or (2) direct-acting antivirals (DAA) to treat chronic hepatitis C virus infection (HCV). The semi-structured interviews explored participants' treatment decision-making within the scenario, reactions to current prescribing information for a product within the FDA-approved drug class, as well as their perceptions of BWs generally.

RESULTS

Across scenarios, providers described that the BW is only one of several factors that influence treatment decision-making. In the VVA scenario, symptom severity, family history, and experience with nonprescription drugs were raised as common factors that influence prescribing considerations; compared to comorbid infections, viral load, and HCV genotype in the HCV scenario. Perceptions of the DAA BW were generally positive or neutral, as many participants found the information important and appropriate. The VVA BW was viewed less favorably, with many participants stating the BW overstates the risk for this drug.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest that BWs are one of several factors that influence providers' treatment decisions, and BW influence largely depends on context. Providers across scenarios expressed notable differences in their perceptions of the risk information provided in the presented BWs; however, across scenarios participants expressed consideration of how patients may perceive the BW.

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

AIMS

Evaluating 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.

METHODS

We 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.

RESULTS

From 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%).

CONCLUSION

Whilst 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.