Liver disease is a common condition worldwide that can cause alterations in drug disposition and susceptibility to drug toxicities, with increased risk of adverse drug reactions. European Summaries of Product Characteristics (SmPCs) and United States Prescribing Information (US PI) should therefore be comprehensible to prescribers regarding their liver-associated contraindications to ensure safe prescribing. This study aimed to evaluate the ambiguity of terminology used in communicating liver-associated absolute contraindications in SmPCs/PI of commonly prescribed drugs in four major drug markets (Germany, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States) by assigning wordings to different categories and analyzing their clinical comprehensibility. For US PI, 79% did not contain liver-related contraindications, compared to 2, 13, and 6% of German, Swiss, and British SmPCs, respectively. Study findings indicate that out of 228 examined SmPCs/PI containing liver-related contraindications, 77, 79, 76, and 52% contained unclear wording in the German, Swiss, British, and American drug market, respectively. Only 40% (German), 52% (Swiss), 39% (British), and 29% (American) of SmPCs/PI included terms with explicit wording. Including more precise statements in SmPCs/PI based on laboratory parameters (such as albumin) or scores (e.g., the Child–Pugh score) to objectify the severity of liver disease may improve the clarity of SmPCs/PI and the safety of drug prescription.

Aims Prescribing information should follow a defined structure to help prescribers easily find required information. Often information appears in different sections of Summaries of Product Characteristics (SmPCs) in an inconsistent way. Still unknown is how this inconsistency affects absolute contraindications and how it can be improved. Thisstudy aimed to evaluate the structure of absolute contraindications in SmPCs based on absolute drug–drug contraindications (DDCI) in the section ‘contraindications’ and references to sections ‘special warnings and precautions for use’ (here as ‘warnings’) and ‘interaction with other medicinal products and other forms of interaction’ (here as ‘interactions’). Methods SmPCs of 693 commonly prescribed drugs were analysed regarding absolute DDCI in ‘contraindications’ sections. References to sections on ‘warnings’ and ‘interactions’ were evaluated to characterize information provided about DDCI. Results Of 693 analysed SmPCs, 138 (19.9%) contained ≥1 absolute DDCI. Of 178 SmPCs that referred to sections on ‘warnings’ or ‘interactions’, 131 (73.6%) did not contain further information on absolute DDCI, whereas 47 (26.4%) did. Such additional information was found in sections on ‘interactions’ and ‘warnings’ in 41 (87.2%) and 9 (19.1%) SmPCs, respectively. Conclusions Information regarding absolute DDCI was found not only in sections on ‘contraindications’ but also in sections on ‘warnings’ and ‘interactions’. Information was not given with consistently straightforward phrasing and structure and so can leave uncertainty for prescribers. To improve drug safety, clear definitions and wording for absolute and relative contraindications should be provided, ideally in tables.