Literature DB >> 23942130

The Drug Facts Box: Improving the communication of prescription drug information.

Lisa M Schwartz1, Steven Woloshin.   

Abstract

Communication about prescription drugs ought to be a paragon of public science communication. Unfortunately, it is not. Consumers see $4 billion of direct-to-consumer advertising annually, which typically fails to present data about how well drugs work. The professional label--the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) mechanism to get physicians information needed for appropriate prescribing--may also fail to present benefit data. FDA labeling guidance, in fact, suggests that industry omit benefit data for new drugs in an existing class and for drugs approved on the basis of unfamiliar outcomes (such as depression rating scales). The medical literature is also problematic: there is selective reporting of favorable trials, favorable outcomes within trials, and "spinning" unfavorable results to maximize benefit and minimize harm. In contrast, publicly available FDA reviews always include the phase 3 trial data on benefit and harm, which are the basis of drug approval. However, these reviews are practically inaccessible: lengthy, poorly organized, and weakly summarized. To improve accessibility, we developed the Drug Facts Box: a one-page summary of benefit and harm data for each indication of a drug. A series of studies--including national randomized trials--demonstrates that most consumers understand the Drug Facts Box and that it improves decision-making. Despite calls from their own Risk Communication Advisory Committee and Congress (in the Affordable Care Act) to consider implementing boxes, the FDA announced it needs at least 3-5 y more to make a decision. Given its potential public health impact, physicians and the public should not have to wait that long for better drug information.

Entities:  

Keywords:  data presentation; evidence summaries; physician–patient communication

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23942130      PMCID: PMC3752172          DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1214646110

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A        ISSN: 0027-8424            Impact factor:   11.205


  31 in total

1.  Direct-to-consumer advertisements for prescription drugs: what are Americans being sold?

Authors:  S Woloshin; L M Schwartz; J Tremmel; H G Welch
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2001-10-06       Impact factor: 79.321

2.  Association of funding and conclusions in randomized drug trials: a reflection of treatment effect or adverse events?

Authors:  Bodil Als-Nielsen; Wendong Chen; Christian Gluud; Lise L Kjaergard
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2003-08-20       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles.

Authors:  An-Wen Chan; Asbjørn Hróbjartsson; Mette T Haahr; Peter C Gøtzsche; Douglas G Altman
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2004-05-26       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Absolutely relative: how research results are summarized can affect treatment decisions.

Authors:  L Forrow; W C Taylor; R M Arnold
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  1992-02       Impact factor: 4.965

5.  How the FDA forgot the evidence: the case of donepezil 23 mg.

Authors:  Lisa M Schwartz; Steven Woloshin
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2012-03-22

6.  Direct-to-consumer marketing of prescription drugs: creating consumer demand.

Authors:  M F Hollon
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1999-01-27       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  Direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising builds bridges between patients and physicians.

Authors:  A F Holmer
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1999-01-27       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  Direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising and the public.

Authors:  R A Bell; R L Kravitz; M S Wilkes
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 5.128

9.  The framing effect of relative and absolute risk.

Authors:  D J Malenka; J A Baron; S Johansen; J W Wahrenberger; J M Ross
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1993-10       Impact factor: 5.128

10.  Measured enthusiasm: does the method of reporting trial results alter perceptions of therapeutic effectiveness?

Authors:  C D Naylor; E Chen; B Strauss
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1992-12-01       Impact factor: 25.391

View more
  18 in total

1.  The sciences of science communication.

Authors:  Baruch Fischhoff
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2013-08-13       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  My Lived Experiences Are More Important Than Your Probabilities: The Role of Individualized Risk Estimates for Decision Making about Participation in the Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene (STAR).

Authors:  Christine Holmberg; Erika A Waters; Katie Whitehouse; Mary Daly; Worta McCaskill-Stevens
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2015-07-16       Impact factor: 2.583

3.  Communicating scientific uncertainty.

Authors:  Baruch Fischhoff; Alex L Davis
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2014-09-15       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  Quantitative Information on Oncology Prescription Drug Websites.

Authors:  Helen W Sullivan; Kathryn J Aikin; Linda B Squiers
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 2.037

Review 5.  Pharmaceutical Benefit-Risk Communication Tools: A Review of the Literature.

Authors:  Dominic Way; Hortense Blazsin; Ragnar Löfstedt; Frederic Bouder
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 5.606

6.  The Unintended Consequences of Adverse Event Information on Medicines' Risks and Label Content.

Authors:  Giovanni Furlan; David Power
Journal:  Pharmaceut Med       Date:  2020-11-16

7.  Communicating Benefit and Risk Information in Direct-to-Consumer Print Advertisements: A Randomized Study.

Authors:  Helen W Sullivan; Amie C O'Donoghue; Kathryn J Aikin
Journal:  Ther Innov Regul Sci       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 1.778

8.  Design and evaluation of a software for the objective and easy-to-read presentation of new drug properties to physicians.

Authors:  Maia Iordatii; Alain Venot; Catherine Duclos
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2015-05-30       Impact factor: 2.796

9.  People's Understanding of Verbal Risk Descriptors in Patient Information Leaflets: A Cross-Sectional National Survey of 18- to 65-Year-Olds in England.

Authors:  Rebecca K Webster; John Weinman; G James Rubin
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 5.606

10.  Comparison of the Effects of a Pharmaceutical Industry Decision Guide and Decision Aids on Patient Choice to Intensify Therapy in Rheumatoid Arthritis.

Authors:  Richard W Martin; Ryan D Enck; Donald J Tellinghuisen; Aaron T Eggebeen; James D Birmingham; Andrew J Head
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2017-03-15       Impact factor: 2.583

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.