Christopher J Weatherburn1, Bruce Guthrie2, Tobias Dreischulte3, Daniel R Morales4. 1. General Practitioner, Division of Population Health and Genomics, University of Dundee, UK. 2. General Practice, Centre for Population Health Sciences, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, UK. 3. Clinical Health Services Research, Institute of General Practice and Family Medicine, University Hospital of Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Germany. 4. Discovery Fellow and General Practitioner, Division of Population Health and Genomics, University of Dundee, UK.
Abstract
AIMS: Regulatory risk communications are important to ensure medication safety, but their impact is poorly understood. The aim was to quantify the impact of UK risk communications on medication use and other outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of studies reporting prescribing/health outcome data relevant to UK regulatory risk communication. Data were reanalysed using interrupted time series regression 12 months after each regulatory intervention. Mean changes were pooled using random-effects generic inverse variance examining the following subgroups: drug withdrawals; restrictions/changes in indications; be aware messages without specific recommendations for action; communication via direct healthcare practitioner communications; communication via drug bulletins. RESULTS: Of 11 466 articles screened, 40 studies examining 25 UK regulatory risk communications were included. Product withdrawals, restriction in indications and be aware communications were associated with relative mean changes of -78% (95% confidence interval [CI] -60 to -96%), -34% (95% confidence interval [CI] -12 to -55%) and -11% (95%CI -8 to -15%) in targeted drug prescribing respectively. Direct healthcare professional communications were associated with relative mean changes of -47% (95%CI -27 to -68%) compared to -13% (95%CI -6 to -20%) for drug bulletins. Of 7 studies examining unique health outcomes related to the safety concern, risk communications were associated with a mean -10% (95%CI -3 to -16%) decrease in intended and a 7% (95%CI 4 to 10%) increase in unintended health outcomes. DISCUSSION: UK regulatory risk communications were associated with significant changes in targeted prescribing and potential changes in clinical outcomes. Further research is needed to systematically study the impact of regulatory interventions.
AIMS: Regulatory risk communications are important to ensure medication safety, but their impact is poorly understood. The aim was to quantify the impact of UK risk communications on medication use and other outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of studies reporting prescribing/health outcome data relevant to UK regulatory risk communication. Data were reanalysed using interrupted time series regression 12 months after each regulatory intervention. Mean changes were pooled using random-effects generic inverse variance examining the following subgroups: drug withdrawals; restrictions/changes in indications; be aware messages without specific recommendations for action; communication via direct healthcare practitioner communications; communication via drug bulletins. RESULTS: Of 11 466 articles screened, 40 studies examining 25 UK regulatory risk communications were included. Product withdrawals, restriction in indications and be aware communications were associated with relative mean changes of -78% (95% confidence interval [CI] -60 to -96%), -34% (95% confidence interval [CI] -12 to -55%) and -11% (95%CI -8 to -15%) in targeted drug prescribing respectively. Direct healthcare professional communications were associated with relative mean changes of -47% (95%CI -27 to -68%) compared to -13% (95%CI -6 to -20%) for drug bulletins. Of 7 studies examining unique health outcomes related to the safety concern, risk communications were associated with a mean -10% (95%CI -3 to -16%) decrease in intended and a 7% (95%CI 4 to 10%) increase in unintended health outcomes. DISCUSSION: UK regulatory risk communications were associated with significant changes in targeted prescribing and potential changes in clinical outcomes. Further research is needed to systematically study the impact of regulatory interventions.
Authors: Munir Pirmohamed; Sally James; Shaun Meakin; Chris Green; Andrew K Scott; Thomas J Walley; Keith Farrar; B Kevin Park; Alasdair M Breckenridge Journal: BMJ Date: 2004-07-03
Authors: S Jill Stocks; Evangelos Kontopantelis; Roger T Webb; Anthony J Avery; Alistair Burns; Darren M Ashcroft Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 5.606
Authors: Ashleigh Hooimeyer; Alice Bhasale; Lucy Perry; Alice Fabbri; Annim Mohammad; Eliza McEwin; Barbara Mintzes Journal: Pharmacol Res Perspect Date: 2020-12
Authors: Esther de Vries; Elisabeth Bakker; Remy D C Francisca; Stijn Croonen; Petra Denig; Peter G M Mol Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2022-03-29 Impact factor: 5.228
Authors: Daniel R Morales; Steve V Morant; Thomas M MacDonald; Isla S Mackenzie; Alexander S F Doney; Lyn Mitchell; Marion Bennie; Chris Robertson; Jesper Hallas; Anton Pottegard; Martin Thomsen Ernst; Li Wei; Lizzie Nicholson; Carole Morris; Ron M C Herings; Jetty A Overbeek; Elisabeth Smits; Robert W V Flynn Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2020-01-03 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Richard L Morrow; Barbara Mintzes; Patrick C Souverein; Marie L De Bruin; Elizabeth Ellen Roughead; Joel Lexchin; Anna Kemp-Casey; Lorri Puil; Ingrid Sketris; Dee Mangin; Christine E Hallgreen; Sallie-Anne Pearson; Ruth Lopert; Lisa Bero; Richard Ofori-Asenso; Danijela Gnjidic; Ameet Sarpatwari; Lucy T Perry; Colin R Dormuth Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2022-01-20 Impact factor: 7.035