Pharma Under Fire for Fair Balance Failings

Uh oh! Seems like the Pharma industry is in trouble again.

Research published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine suggests that family physicians receive “little or no information” about adverse effects associated with medicines in the majority of drug promotions made by sales representatives.

In the study, 255 family doctors from urban practices in the US [Sacrameto], France [Tolouse] and Canada [Montreal and Vancouver] answered questionnaires following visits from sales representatives.  The primary outcome measure was “minimally adequate safety information” (mention of at least one indication, serious adverse event, common adverse event, and contraindication, and no unqualified safety claims or unapproved indications).

The findings showed that sales representatives did not provide any information about common or serious side effects, or identify the patients who should not be using the drug, in 59% of the promotions. In Canada, no potential side effects were mentioned for 66% of promoted products, according to the results.

The researchers also indicated that although 57% of the promoted drugs carried boxed warnings from the FDA or Health Canada, serious adverse events were only discussed in about 6% of the sales pitches.

Félicitations to the French reps who provided information on harm for 61% of the promotions, compared to only 34% in Canada and 39% in the US.

Despite this lack of “fair balance” overall, the doctors considered the quality of the scientific information to be good or excellent for 54% of the promotions and indicated that they would be willing to prescribe the drugs 64% of the time.

“Laws in all three countries require sales representatives to provide information on harm as well as benefits,” says lead author Barbara Mintzes, Assistant Professor at the University of British Colombia. “But no one is monitoring these visits and there are next to no sanctions for misleading or inaccurate promotion.”

Despite widespread belief by physicians to the contrary, the information provided by pharmaceutical sales representatives has been shown to influence prescribing. Greater exposure to promotion is associated with higher prescribing volume and costs.  And while regulations in all three countries require sales representatives to provide information on the risks as well as the benefits of their drugs, there are differences.  It’s interesting, to correlate the above results with the fact that that France has the strictest information standards, whereas Canada relies on industry self-regulation.

However, across all three countries, the results of this study would appear to question if current approaches are adequate to protect patient health.

The Pharma Industry should take note.  Time to clean up your act before the Government and Regulatory Authorities do it for you.

Should new drugs wear a ‘Proceed with Caution’ label?

SRxA’s Word on Health was alarmed to read a new study showing that almost a quarter of prescription drugs approved in Canada over 16 years were later slapped with serious safety warnings or yanked from the market for safety reasons. As Canada’s drug safety agency operates much like the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the study may reflect the state of drug safety in the United States as well.

When assessing a new drug, regulators at Health Canada and the FDA are entrusted with making critical and difficult scientific judgments that can affect the health of hundreds of thousands of patients in a matter of months after product launch.

And the cost of error may be high given that the number of people exposed to unsafe drugs may be in the millions.

University of Toronto health policy researcher Dr. Joel Lexchin looked at the 434 drug approvals that moved through Health Canada’s drug-safety arm from the start of 1995 to the end of 2010.

About a quarter of the drugs approved in that period received a fast-track deliberation known as a “priority review” which lasts 180 days instead of the typical 300 days.

Lexchin found that drugs approved this way were 50% more likely to end up with safety warnings, compared with drugs approved according to the customary deliberation period.

And while you might assume that the most-risky drugs would be those those fast-tracked for approval for life-threatening diseases such as cancer and HIV, Lexchin discovered they were no more likely to have safety concerns than drugs fast-tracked for less serious illnesses.

That was a surprise, because regulators could be expected to accept some heightened risks when approving new medications to treat serious illness.

In an accompanying editorial, Thomas J. Moore of the Institute for Safe Medication Practices suggests that new drugs should carry special labeling for their first three years on the market, so that doctors are reminded to prescribe with caution.

“Getting faster access to newer, less-thoroughly tested drugs is at best a mixed blessing,” said Moore. “For the first three years after approval, new drugs should carry a special warning akin to the black triangle used in Britain. It should be prominent and mean to every physician, ‘New Drug: Caution Indicated.’ ”

That caution may be worth remembering by both physicians and patients when considering switching to new drugs.