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

Abstract

IntroductionNational 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).ObjectiveThe 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.MethodsWeb-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.ResultsCurrent 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).ConclusionsNCAs 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.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40264-017-0535-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

What can we learn from the public’s understanding of drug information and safety? A population survey

“…To improve the understanding of the PIL and to promote their use, several measures, such as the inclusion of short, structured and visual/text explanations, have been proposed . Competent authorities for the regulation of medicines in several European countries have recently reviewed their practices regarding communication about the safety of medicines …”

“…[27][28][29] Competent authorities for the regulation of medicines in several European countries have recently reviewed their practices regarding communication about the safety of medicines. [30] Some previous studies [27,31,32] have indicated that information on drug safety is the most-read part of the PIL. However, in our study, only the population that occasionally read the PIL reported this preference.…”

Prescribing Variation in General Practices in England Following a Direct Healthcare Professional Communication on Mirabegron

“…There is evidence that there is variation between countries in Europe in GP preferences for the format of safety communications. [28] Despite this, it appears that DHPCs represent the most common source of awareness of medicines' safety issues among European GPs, pharmacists and cardiologists. [29] Previous research has indicated that such communications have greater impact on non-specialist drugs and for safety issues with a risk of death and/or disability, [8] however to date, the relationship between characteristics of DHPCs and variation in outcomes has not been evaluated.…”

Communicating emerging risks of SGLT2 inhibitors—timeliness and transparency of medicine regulators

“…Such discussions are largely conducted in confidence and should be more transparent. Additionally, the issuance of safety communications by sponsors might affect the trust with which they are received 3536. Although European doctors have indicated that they prefer to receive safety advisories from regulators rather than industry,3536 a key form of safety advisory in the EU are letters from sponsors with text agreed by regulators.…”