No abstract

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.

Post‐approval drug risks are a significant public health problem. A central instrument to mitigate them in the European Union is direct to healthcare professional communications (DHPC), typically a letter sent from the manufacturer to prescribers. However, evaluations show that DHPCs have limited impact on prescribing behavior. Which factors influence prescribers’ lack of adoption of DHPCs remains unknown. This article presents a think‐aloud reading study of 17 Danish general practitioners’ reading aloud a 2013 DHPC about new oral anticoagulants, interjecting their immediate reactions and associations to daily clinical routines concurrently. We found that interviewees inferred more from the DHPC than risk information. It was perceived to be commercially biased, which generally discouraged reading despite learning new safety information. DHPCs were also disregarded because they are isolated from routinely used clinical information sources. Furthermore, DHPCs were perceived as pre‐emptive acts of legal defence aiming to relocate responsibility from the manufacturer onto prescribers. In conclusion, the study indicates that certain DHPCs may be disregarded because of the perceived motivations that prescribers attribute to the DHPC senders. While the specific letter itself was deemed unsatisfactory, its legitimacy among prescribers remains the central challenge. Further integration with trusted and established information structures is also needed.

No abstract

Background: Despite the regulatory requirement for cooperation between marketing authorization holders (MAHs) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) in the direct healthcare professional communication (DHPC) preparation, no literature has explored DHPCs from an industry-regulator perspective. This constitutes a significant knowledge gap as any possibility of improving current DHPC effectiveness depends on decisions in the cooperative preparation phase. Thus, this EU-centered study explores differences in perceptions and experiences of DHPCs of European MAHs and EMA. Methods: European MAHs (n = 6) and EMA representatives (n = 2) were interviewed. The verbatim transcripts were coded into themes using NVivo software. Interview analysis was performed following a phenomenological approach of meaning condensation. Results: The DHPC process was perceived as burdensome by the industry. One company stated the process was time-consuming either due to EMA’s internal lengthy approval process or the translation activities with local company affiliates and national competent authorities. Three companies stated that DHPCs were not effective. One company stated that DHPCs are sent out due to legal obligations and not because of their use as a risk minimization measure (RMM). Newly emerged safety concerns were found difficult to phrase. Optimization proposals included improved timelines, scrutinization of healthcare professionals and better communication tools in clinical practice. Conclusion: DHPCs were not perceived as optimal, although the most effective intervention as it targets healthcare professionals directly. Continuous evaluation by EMA of DHPCs and evaluation on how to reach healthcare professionals are necessary. It is believed that industry perceptions from this study can support EMA with improved regulatory decision making to benefit public health.