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

INTRODUCTION: National 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). OBJECTIVE: The 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. METHODS: Web-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. RESULTS: Current 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). CONCLUSIONS: NCAs 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.

Erythropoietin therapy and cancer related anaemia: updated Swedish recommendations.

Due to concerns related to treatment with erythropoietin (EPO) and possible negative effects on tumour control, a workshop was organised by the Medical Products Agency of Sweden with the aim to revise national treatment guidelines if needed. In patients with solid tumours, conflicting results have been reported with respect to tumour control and survival. Until further notice it is therefore recommended that EPO should be used restrictively in the treatment of patients with cancer and that the anticipated improvement in quality of life should be evaluated against potential risks.

Antiretroviral treatment of HIV infection: Swedish recommendations 2005.

On 2 earlier occasions, in 2002 and 2003, the Swedish Medical Products Agency (MPA) and the Swedish Reference Group for Antiviral Therapy (RAV) have jointly publicized recommendations for the treatment of HIV infection. A working group from the same expert team that produced the 2002 report has now revised the text again. Since the publication of the last treatment recommendations, 4 new medicines have become available: emtricitabine, atazanavir, fosamprenavir, and enfuvirtid. The last-mentioned belongs to a new class of HIV medications called fusion inhibitors (Box 1). It is likely that tipranavir will also be on the market soon. Simultaneously, the drug zalcitabin has been deregistered. The following updated recommendations parallel the earlier ones, but increased knowledge allows us to be more specific in our recommendations. Thus, it is now suggested that the initial treatment for HIV infection consist of 2 nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) and 1 non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI); or 2 NRTIs and 1 protease inhibitor (PI). In the group of the NRTIs, stavudine is no longer recommended for this purpose. In the NNRTI group, efavirenz should be preferred to nevirapine, except under special circumstances. Finally, PIs ought to be boosted with ritonavir (PI/r). Also new are recommendations regarding treatment choices for patients co-infected with hepatitis B virus (HBV) or tuberculosis (TB). As in the case of the previous publication, recommendations are evidence-graded in accordance with the Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine, 2001 (see http://www.cebm.net/levels_of_evidence.asp#levels), and have been supplemented with references to newly-added sections and data not referred to in earlier background documentation.

Antiretroviral treatment of human immunodeficiency virus infection: Swedish recommendations.

The Swedish guidelines (SwG) for treatment of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection have several important roles. A major task involves the promotion of a uniformly high standard of care in all HIV treatment clinics in Sweden and the identification of strengths, weaknesses and relevance of recent research findings. CD4+ T-cell counts < 200 cells/microl are clear indications for the initiation of treatment, whereas high viral loads serve as an indication for increased vigilance rather than a criterion for therapy. It is recommended that the first regimen consists of 2 nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors in combination with 1 protease inhibitor or 1 non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor. The definition of treatment failure is rigorous. Treatment change should be considered if the viral load has not fallen by at least 1.5 log in 4 weeks or is undetectable within 3-4 months. Resistance testing is endorsed at primary infection, in the event of treatment failure and in pregnant women. Interaction with experts in HIV resistance testing is emphasized. Therapeutic drug monitoring is advocated. Patients with treatment failure should be handled individually and the decision on therapeutic strategy should be based on treatment history, resistance testing and other clinical facts. The SwG do not give recommendations for some important issues such as prolonged drug holidays and preferences in initial treatment regimens. More scientific data are likely to be available soon and the SwG will be refined accordingly. The present guidelines are translated from Swedish; they are published on the Medical Products Agency (MPA) and Swedish Reference Group for Antiviral Therapy (RAV) websites (www.mpa.se and www.rav.nu.se), including 7 separate papers based on a thorough literature search. A complete reference list is available on request from the MPA.

Evidence b(i)ased medicine--selective reporting from studies sponsored by pharmaceutical industry: review of studies in new drug applications.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the relative impact on publication bias caused by multiple publication, selective publication, and selective reporting in studies sponsored by pharmaceutical companies. DESIGN: 42 placebo controlled studies of five selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors submitted to the Swedish drug regulatory authority as a basis for marketing approval for treating major depression were compared with the studies actually published (between 1983 and 1999). RESULTS: Multiple publication: 21 studies contributed to at least two publications each, and three studies contributed to five publications. Selective publication: studies showing significant effects of drug were published as stand alone publications more often than studies with non-significant results. Selective reporting: many publications ignored the results of intention to treat analyses and reported the more favourable per protocol analyses only. CONCLUSIONS: The degree of multiple publication, selective publication, and selective reporting differed between products. Thus, any attempt to recommend a specific selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor from the publicly available data only is likely to be based on biased evidence.