How do safety warnings on medicines affect prescribing?

INTRODUCTION: Many adverse effects of medicines only become known after approval, prompting regulatory agencies to issue post-market safety advisories to support safer care. Our team evaluated advisories issued by national regulators in Australia, Canada, Denmark, the United Kingdom, and the United States from 2007 to 2016 inclusive, comparing regulators' decisions to warn, effects on prescribing, doctors' awareness and responses to warnings, relevant regulatory policies, and specific case studies. AREAS COVERED: Based mainly on our research program and a narrative review, this commentary describes how often regulators issue safety advisories and effects on clinical practice. We found extensive differences in decisions to warn, timing and content of warnings. Monitoring advice is often inadequate. The most systematic estimate suggests an average reduction in prescribing of around 6% compared with settings with no advisory. Interviews with doctors suggest limited awareness, uptake, and at times belief in these warnings. EXPERT OPINION: Post-market safety advisories are an important intervention aiming to improve prescribing and use of medicines. However, differing warnings mean that some patients may be exposed to riskier prescribing than others. Better integration of safety information into clinical practice is needed, as well as improved transparency, independence, and public engagement in regulatory decision-making.

Regulatory authority and clinical acceptability: Physicians' responses to regulatory drug safety warnings.

AIMS: Medicines regulators issue post-market safety warnings to advise of newly uncovered risks, but with mixed impacts. We aimed to identify factors influencing the use of regulatory warnings by primary care and specialist physicians in the US and Australia. METHODS: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were carried out with 40 primary care physicians, endocrinologists and other generalist specialists in Boston (USA) and Australia. Coding and analysis were performed inductively and iteratively to identify and examine key factors. Analysis centred around four areas: physicians' awareness of drug safety information, preferred information sources, opinion-forming and sharing of information with patients. RESULTS: Uncertainty, trust and clinical authority emerged as factors influencing use of advisories. Although regulators were trusted as authoritative institutions, they appeared to lack clinical authority, and physicians validated regulatory information against other trusted sources including evidence, expert opinion and experience. Specialists became aware of drug safety issues through specialised literature, using evidence and clinical consensus to form opinions. Primary care physicians, fielding high volumes of information, relied on convenient, accessible information sources including the media and the "clinical grapevine" for awareness, and on clinical colleagues, specialists and experience for interpretation. Communicating risk to patients was complicated by uncertainty; physicians tailored information to patients' health literacy and information needs. US physicians were more aware of their national regulator's post-market safety role than Australian physicians of theirs. CONCLUSION: Drug safety warnings may not be optimally received or used. Regulators should consider strategies that increase trust, clinical relevance and accessibility, and address physicians' needs in communicating risk to patients.

Postmarket Safety Communication for Protection of Public Health: A Comparison of Regulatory Policy in Australia, Canada, the European Union, and the United States.

In the wake of the withdrawal of the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug rofecoxib, regulators worldwide reconsidered their approach to postmarket safety. Many have since adopted a "life cycle" approach to regulation of medicines, facilitating faster approval of new medicines while planning for potential postmarket safety issues. A crucial aspect of postmarket safety is the effective and timely communication of emerging risk information using postmarket safety advisories, commonly issued as letters to healthcare professionals, drug safety bulletins, media alerts, and website announcements. Yet regulators differ in their use of postmarket safety advisories. We examined the capacity of regulators in the United States, Europe, Canada, and Australia to warn about postmarket safety issues through safety advisories by assessing their governance, legislative authority, risk communication capabilities, and transparency.

Regulatory post-market drug safety advisories on cardiac harm: A comparison of four national regulatory agencies.

Information on rare adverse effects is often limited when a medication is initially approved for marketing. Medicines regulators use safety advisories to warn health professionals and consumers about emerging harms. This study aimed to identify characteristics and advice provided in cardiac safety advisories released by regulators in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States. This was a retrospective study of safety advisories about cardiac-related adverse events issued by these four international medicines regulators between 2010 and 2016. A descriptive overview was followed by a more detailed content analysis, focusing on recommended actions for health professionals, including monitoring advice. For the latter, we applied the systematic information for monitoring (SIM) scale to assess adequacy. Over this period, 164 safety advisories about cardiac harms were issued by the four regulators. There were 61 drugs with advisories of cardiac risk, only 9 (14.7%) of which had advisories from all regulators in countries where the drug was approved. The most common adverse events were cardiac arrhythmias (n = 97, 59.1%) and coronary artery disorders (n = 39, 23.8%). The most frequent advice to prescribers was to monitor patients (n = 74, 45.1%), although only 41.2% of these advisories provided detailed advice on how monitoring should occur. We found many differences in the decision to warn and the advice provided. Patient monitoring was most often recommended, but key information such as frequency or thresholds for action was often lacking. Healthcare professionals and consumers need consistent information about rare serious harms so that they can make informed decisions.

A descriptive analysis of medicines safety advisories issued by national medicines regulators in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States - 2007 to 2016.

PURPOSE: To determine the frequency and characteristics of safety advisories issued by medicines regulatory agencies in Australia, Canada, United Kingdom (UK) and the United States (US). METHODS: This retrospective analysis examines medicines safety warnings issued by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Health Canada (HC), the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) from January 1, 2007 until December 31, 2016. A database of warnings obtained from regulators' websites was developed and warnings were classified by communication type, drug, or therapeutic class focus, and the risk discussed. Advisories identifying the same drug or therapeutic class and risk were combined into groups termed "drug-risk issues" for comparisons between regulators. RESULTS: Over this 10-year period, 1441 advisories were identified, with the MHRA issuing the most advisories (MHRA = 469, FDA = 382, HC = 370 TGA = 220). Seventy two percent focussed on single drugs (1034/1441) and 58.7% were alerts (846/1441) posted on the regulators' websites. Diabetes drugs, smoking cessation drugs and immunomodulatory agents were the individual drug types most often subject to safety advisories, while antidepressants, antipsychotics, and proton-pump inhibitors were the top three therapeutic classes. Of 680 identified drug-risk issues, 3.8% (26/680) described a risk of death. By body system, cardiac effects were the most frequent: 10.4% (71/680). CONCLUSION: We found considerable differences in the use of advisories including frequency, communication type, and focus. Disparities in communication about emergent evidence on risks may mean that clinicians and patients in some countries are less well informed about medicine safety concerns than others.

Media coverage of drug regulatory agencies' safety advisories: A case study of citalopram and denosumab.

AIMS: Drug regulators issue safety advisories to warn clinicians and the public about new evidence of harmful effects of medicines. It is unclear how often these messages are covered by the media. Our aim was to analyse the extent of media coverage of two medicines that were subject to safety advisories from 2007 to 2016 in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States. METHODS: Two medicines widely used to treat mental health or physical conditions were selected: citalopram and denosumab. Media reports were identified by searching LexisNexis and Factiva. Reports were included if they stated at least one health benefit or harm. A content analysis of the reports was conducted. RESULTS: In total, 195 media reports on citalopram and 239 on denosumab were included. For citalopram, 43.1% (84/195) of the reports mentioned benefits, 85.6% (167/195) mentioned harms and 9.7% (19/195) mentioned the harm described in the advisories (cardiac arrhythmia). For denosumab, 94.1% (225/239) of the reports mentioned benefits and 39.7% (95/239) mentioned harms. The harms described in the advisories were rarely mentioned: 10.9% (26/239) of the reports mentioned osteonecrosis and ≤5% mentioned any of the other harms (atypical fractures, hypocalcaemia, serious infections and dermatologic reactions). CONCLUSIONS: We found limited media coverage of the harms highlighted in safety advisories. Almost two-thirds of the media stories on denosumab did not include any information about harms, despite the many advisories during this time frame. Citalopram coverage covered harms more often but rarely mentioned cardiac arrhythmias. These findings raise questions about how to better ensure that regulatory risk communications reach the general public.

Recognising and responding to deteriorating patients: what difference do national standards make?

BACKGROUND: The Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care released a set of national standards which became a mandatory part of accreditation in 2013. Standard 9 focuses on the identification and treatment of deteriorating patients. The objective of the study was to identify changes in the characteristics and perceptions of rapid response systems (RRS) since the implementation of Standard 9. METHODS: Cross-sectional study of Australian hospitals. Baseline data was obtained from a pre-implementation survey in 2010 (220 hospitals). A follow-up survey was distributed in 2015 to staff involved in implementing Standard 9 in public and private hospitals (276 responses) across Australia. RESULTS: Since 2010, the proportion of hospitals with formal RRS had increased from 66 to 85. Only 7% of sites had dedicated funding to operate the RRS. 83% of respondents reported that Standard 9 had improved the recognition of, and response to, deteriorating patients in their health service, with 51% believing it had improved awareness at the executive level and 50% believing it had changed hospital culture. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing a national safety and quality standard for deteriorating patients can change processes to deliver safer care, while raising the profile of safety issues. Despite limited dedicated funding and staffing, respondents reported that Standard 9 had a positive impact on the care for deteriorating patients in their hospitals.

Secret safety warnings on medicines: A case study of information access requests.

PURPOSE: There has been less attention to the transparency of postmarket evidence of harmful effects of medicines than of premarket clinical trial data. This is a case study of requests for Australian "direct health professional communications" (DHPCs). These letters are used by regulators and manufacturers to inform clinicians of emergent evidence of harm. DHPCs are not made public by Australia's Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). METHODS: We requested all DHPCs sent out in Australia from 2007 to 2016 inclusive for 207 drugs that were subject to safety advisories over this decade in Canada, the United Kingdom, and/or the United States. We contacted 39 manufacturers (February to May 2018), with repeat requests to nonrespondents, and a follow-up freedom-of-information (FOI) request to the TGA. RESULTS: Fifteen companies provided information, either sending DHPCs (n = 4, on five drugs) or affirming none were sent out (n = 11). The remaining 24 of 39 (62%) companies did not provide DHPCs: nine (23%) refused the request, often citing commercial confidentiality; the rest provided no answer despite repeat requests. In total, we had no information for 170 of 207 (82%) of the drugs. Our FOI request to the TGA was unsuccessful. CONCLUSIONS: Our experience highlights unacceptable secrecy concerning safety warnings previously sent to thousands of Australian clinicians. In the absence of explicit regulatory policy supporting disclosure, companies differed in their response. These letters warn of serious and often life-threatening harm and guide safer care; full ongoing public access is needed, ideally in searchable online databases.

Effect of a National Standard for Deteriorating Patients on Intensive Care Admissions Due to Cardiac Arrest in Australia.

OBJECTIVES: To assess whether a national standard for improving care of deteriorating patients affected ICU admissions following cardiac arrests from hospital wards. DESIGN: Retrospective study assessing changes from baseline (January 1, 2008, to June 30, 2010), rollout (July 1, 2010, to December 31, 2012), and after (January 1, 2013, to 31 December 31, 2014) national standard introduction. Conventional inferential statistics, interrupted time series analysis, and adjusted hierarchical multiple logistic regression analysis. SETTING: More than 110 ICU-equipped Australian hospitals. PATIENTS OR SUBJECTS: Adult patients (≥ 18 yr old) admitted to participating ICUs. INTERVENTIONS: Introducing a national framework to improve care of deteriorating patients including color-coded observation charts, mandatory rapid response system, enhanced governance, and staff education for managing deteriorating patients. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Cardiac arrest-related ICU admissions from the ward decreased from 5.6% (baseline) to 4.9% (rollout) and 4.1% (intervention period). Interrupted time series analysis revealed a decline in the rate of cardiac arrest-related ICU admissions in the rollout period, compared with the baseline period (p = 0.0009) with a subsequent decrease in the rate in the intervention period (p = 0.01). Cardiac arrest-related ICU admissions were less likely in the intervention period compared with the baseline period (odds ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.78-0.93; p = 0.001), as was in-hospital mortality from cardiac arrests (odds ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.65-0.96; p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Introducing a national standard to improve the care of deteriorating patients was associated with reduced cardiac arrest-related ICU admissions and subsequent in-hospital mortality of such patients.