| Literature DB >> 32557303 |
Winona Rei R Bolislis1, Charlie Mortazavi1, Rossana Riccioni1, Paul-Etienne Schaeffer1, Thomas C Kühler2,3.
Abstract
Patient information leaflets (PILs) differ across regulatory jurisdictions-its form and structure are dependent on the regulations it conforms to. Yet, physical or paper-based documents remain to be the most prevalent way of delivering important information to patients. As technology continues to enhance our daily activities, patients are increasingly utilizing digital platforms to facilitate access to relevant product information, hence questioning the continuous viability of physical PILs. This paper aims to present the growing importance of transitioning from print to screen via dynamic electronic product information, as a way of expanding access and utility of patient information. It provides considerations or reflection points for regulators when adopting digital platforms to ensure that stakeholders, especially patients, receive trusted and real-time information on available and approved medicinal products. We underscore these with examples and case studies from countries and businesses that have adopted or are transitioning to such platforms.Entities:
Keywords: Digital; PIL; Patient safety; Pharmacovigilance; Regulatory; e-Label
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 32557303 PMCID: PMC7362886 DOI: 10.1007/s43441-019-00018-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ther Innov Regul Sci ISSN: 2168-4790 Impact factor: 1.778
e-Labelling Policy Development Stages.
| Policy Development Stage | Description |
|---|---|
| Status quo | Using physical labelling to demonstrate conformity |
| Develop | Build out initial e-labelling guideline and prepare for pilot and/or implementation |
| Pilot | Roll out limited, voluntary pilot and analyse results of initial policy |
| Finalize/implement | Incorporate results of analysis and stakeholder feedback; educate stakeholders of changes |
| Improve/build consensus | With domestic policy in place, work to align e-labelling approaches internationally |
Source: APEC (2017). Best Practices for Electronic Labeling. Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Subcommittee on Standards and Conformance.
| US | Japan | Canada | EU + Annex 13 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Minimum labelling criteria | ||||
| Contact name | R | |||
| Contact address | R | |||
| Contact telephone | R | |||
| Name: shipper, importer, manufacturer | ||||
| Drug name | R | R | R | |
| Strength/potency/dosage | R | |||
| Dosage form | R | |||
| Route of administration | R | |||
| Quantity of dosage units | R | |||
| Batch/lot | R | R | R | R |
| Trial reference code | R | R | ||
| Subject number | R | |||
| Investigator name/number | R | |||
| Directions for use | R | |||
| “Clinical trial use” phrase | R | R | R | R |
| Storage conditions | R | R | R | |
| Expiry date/period of use | R | R | ||
| ”Keep out of reach of children” | R | |||
| Handling/special precautions | R | R | ||
| Manufacture date | ||||
| Country-specific language | R | R | R | |
Note: R—required. This table is an example of labelling requirements and refers to clinical labels only. This table is provided for informational purposes and is not intended to provide legal advice. Each company is responsible for determining compliance with specific laws, regulations, and guidances
Source: Smith-Gick J. Barnes N, Barone, R, et al. The Near-Term Viability and Benefits of e-Labels for Patients, Clinical Sites, and Sponsors. DIA Therapeutic Innovation and Regulatory Science. 2018;5 2(5): 537-545. 10.1177/2168479018765463