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.

Influence of drug safety advisories on drug utilisation: an international interrupted time series and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between regulatory drug safety advisories and changes in drug utilisation. DESIGN: We conducted controlled, interrupted times series analyses with administrative prescription claims data to estimate changes in drug utilisation following advisories. We used random-effects meta-analysis with inverse-variance weighting to estimate the average postadvisory change in drug utilisation across advisories. STUDY POPULATION: We included advisories issued in Canada, Denmark, the UK and the USA during 2009-2015, mainly concerning drugs in common use in primary care. We excluded advisories related to over-the-counter drugs, drug-drug interactions, vaccines, drugs used primarily in hospital and advisories with co-interventions within ±6 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Change in drug utilisation, defined as actual versus predicted percentage change in the number of prescriptions (for advisories without dose-related advice), or in the number of defined daily doses (for dose-related advisories), per 100 000 population. RESULTS: Among advisories without dose-related advice (n=20), the average change in drug utilisation was -5.83% (95% CI -10.93 to -0.73; p=0.03). Advisories with dose-related advice (n=4) were not associated with a statistically significant change in drug utilisation (-1.93%; 95% CI -17.10 to 13.23; p=0.80). In a post hoc subgroup analysis of advisories without dose-related advice, we observed no statistically significant difference between the change in drug utilisation following advisories with explicit prescribing advice, such as a recommendation to consider the risk of a drug when prescribing, and the change in drug utilisation following advisories without such advice. CONCLUSIONS: Among safety advisories issued on a wide range of drugs during 2009-2015 in 4 countries (Canada, Denmark, the UK and the USA), the association of advisories with changes in drug utilisation was variable, and the average association was modest.

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.

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.