[e-drug] Differences in Drug Datasheets

E-DRUG:

I am interested in the variability of the quality and content of
medicines data sheets (PI or MSDS) between countries and between
different drugs (especially generics) marketed in the same country.
For example Voltaren injection has a comprehensive insert that warns
against injection in to the thigh and prolonged use - to avoid
injection site reactions that can be very severe. In contrast, some
diclofenac injection products (especially generics in developing
countries) carry no such warnings.

Shouln't we be adopting a standard datasheet, at least for ADRs?
Does anyone have any similar anecdotes or concerns, or know if any
studies have been done in this area ?

Thanks,
Dave Woods
Consultant Pharmacist
Dunedin
NEW ZEALAND
worldclimbs@gmail.com

[The moderator agrees with Dave but have for years been pessimistic about the possibility to make this an international standard. At least it will have to be done by someone else than the pharmaceutical industry. In Europe, it is not even possible to harmonise the patented product and the generics mainly because of the industry's resistance.]

E-DRUG: Differences in Drug Datasheets (4)
-----------------------------------------

In Australia, most doctors (and prescribing software) seem to use the
MIMS database, which is a collection of manufacturer provided product
information sheets. Even there I see the problem you mention - the
information provided varies from brand to brand of the same generic
substance. There are even anecdotes of doctors prescribing a
particular brand because it's product information does not mention a
potential adverse reaction or drug interaction that is mentioned in
the product information of a different brand - of the same drug

At that time I wanted to start a public database of drug reference
information (drugref.org), but the project died due to lack of
interest. Perhaps it should be resuscitated.

Horst

Horst Herb
subscriptions@gnumed.net

E-DRUG: Differences in Drug Datasheets (3)
-----------------------------------------

Andrew Herxheimer and some others did work in this area a number of years
ago I believe looking at the difference in data sheets for NSAIDs. I think
that this work was published in Pharmaceutical Journal. If Andrew is on this discussion group perhaps he could fill in more details.

[the moderator has copied an editorial by Andrew below, it is from BMJ 1998]

Joel Lexchin
--
Joel Lexchin MD
121 Walmer Rd.
Toronto ON
Canada M5R 2X8
Tel: 416-964-7186
Fax: 416-736-5227
E mail: joel.lexchin@utoronto.ca

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/316/7130/492?view=long&pmid=9501702
BMJ 1998;316:492 (14 February)

Editorials
Many NSAID users who bleed don't know when to stop
Uncomprehending "adherence" is dangerous

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding and perforation are common and serious adverse effects of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. About a third of all ulcer bleeding in older people is associated with these drugs1 2; the same may apply to perforation. The most important predisposing influences are the type and dose of drug (and use of two non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents together), which can increase the risk up to 20-fold. Other risk factors include prior ulcer,3 anticoagulants, systemic corticosteroids,4 smoking,5 alcohol consumption,6 and old age.1 3 Some of these are independent, so that treatment with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs increases an already high risk. As we look for ways of lowering the risk of bleeding in patients using non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs, an ingenious investigation from Newcastle offers a new lead.6

Wynne and Long studied 50 consecutive patients admitted to hospital with an acute gastrointestinal bleed who had taken any of four commonly used non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the preceding three days and 100 controls from local practices�matched for age, sex, drug, and dosage�who had not bled.6 All patients were visited at home by a nurse to assess their knowledge of their arthritis treatment. The nurse asked whether the patients had received any information about possible side effects of the drug, if so from where, and what they had been advised to do if side effects occurred. She asked the index patients, "Did you have any stomach problems, such as indigestion or pain before your stomach bleed?" and the controls, "Have you had any stomach problems, such as indigestion or pain?" The nurse also asked the patients to estimate how much of the prescribed dose they actually took and, if it was less than prescribed, why so.

It turned out not only that the patients who had bled into the gut knew less about the side effects of their drugs or what to do when they occurred than did the controls but also that they stuck more closely to the prescribed dosage. Fewer index patients (16%) than controls (41%) remembered having been told of the potential side effects or about what to do if they developed an adverse effect (4% v 21%). "Full compliance" was commoner among the index patients (96%) than among the controls (70%). Furthermore, 18 (36%) of the index patients had had epigastric pain before the bleed and all but two had continued to take the drug, whereas only 15 (15%) of the controls had had dyspepsia, of whom 10 had reduced their intake.

Perhaps this study should be interpreted cautiously: it was fairly small; patients with a complication may be more likely to claim that they were inadequately warned; and dyspepsia is widely accepted to be a poor guide to ulceration�though this has not been critically examined in relation to use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Nevertheless, it looks as if ignorance about side effects led to failure to recognise warning symptoms and to inappropriate compliance. Ten of the 16 patients who had pain but continued their drug and bled might not have bled if they had stopped the drug at once. Ten bleeds fewer out of 50 would be a useful reduction.

As the authors say, we need effective methods of increasing patients' knowledge and understanding of side effects�and this applies not only to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. In particular we must try to ensure that patients and doctors share the same goals in medicine taking and move from compliance to concordance.7 8 Establishing what works best will take time and effort. But for a start, whenever doctors, pharmacists, and nurses see a patient who is using a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug they could check whether the patient understands two things. Firstly, they should understand that the drug is for symptomatic relief and should be used only when arthritic pain or inflammation is troublesome. Some patients with severe rheumatoid arthritis may have to take the drug all the time, but most others do not. Prescribers and patients should not aim at complete relief by using high doses because this increases the risk of damaging the gut; they should accept partial relief. Secondly, they should know that stomach pain or indigestion is a signal to stop taking the drug if possible; if this is not possible, they and the doctor should consider whether to reduce the dose.

Of 21 patient information leaflets for oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, nine tell the patient to stop taking the drug if such symptoms occur; the others say "tell your doctor" or something similar.* The points about symptomatic relief and using moderate doses whenever possible are almost completely absent. The Medicines Control Agency should insist that the leaflets are clear and consistent on these points.

Andrew Herxheimer, Adviser a

a Health Action International�Europe, 9 Park Crescent, London N3 2NL Andrew_Herxheimer@compuserve.com

*I did the survey in spring 1997 and I thank Andrew King and David Scott for obtaining leaflets not in the ABPI Compendium of Patient Information Leaflets 1996-97.

References
1. Somerville K, Faulkner G, Langman M. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and bleeding peptic ulcer. Lancet 1986;i:462-4.
2. Faulkner G, Prichard P, Somerville K, Langman MJS. Aspirin and bleeding ulcers in the elderly. BMJ 1988;297:1311-3.
3. Laporte J-R, Carn� X, Vidal X, Moreno V, Juan J. Upper gastrointestinal bleeding in relation to previous use of analgesics and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Lancet 1991;337:85-9.
4. Piper OM, Ray WA, Daugherty JR, Griffin MR. Corticosteroid use and peptic ulcer disease: role of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Ann Intern Med 1991;114:735-40.
5. Henry D, Dobson A, Turner C. Variability in the risk of major gastrointestinal complications from non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Gastroenterology 1993;105:1078-88.
6. Wynne HA, Long A. Patient awareness of the adverse effects of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Br J Clin Pharmacol 1996;42:253-6.
7. Mullen PD. Compliance becomes concordance. BMJ 1997;314:691-2.[Free]
8. Marinker M. From compliance to concordance: achieving shared goals in medicine taking. BMJ 1997;314:747-8.[Free]

E-DRUG: Differences in Drug Datasheets (2)
-----------------------------------------

David,

I suggest you contact Jim Stockigt who has been campaigning for improvements to medicines data sheets in Australia. The following editorial is his latest publication on the topic.

The quality of medication information in Australia: the need for more
clinical expertise and accountability
Jim R Stockigt. Med J Aust 2009; 190 (3): 110-111.

Abstract:
Pharmaceutical product information (PI) and consumer medicines information
(CMI) are mandatory for prescription products in Australia, and government
regulations specify that CMI must be consistent with PI.1 Health
professionals and consumers should be able to assume that these sources are
up-to-date and consistent with evidence-based best practice. However, this
is not necessarily so, particularly for older medications.2,3 There is a
wide discrepancy between the high-quality information available for new
medications (eg, through series such as NPS RADAR [National Prescribing
Service Rational Assessment of Drugs and Research]) and some existing
texts2-4 that originate from pharmaceutical sponsors, who pay fees to the
Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) for review and approval of their
submitted material.

--
regards,

Peter

Dr Peter R Mansfield OAM BMBS
GP
Director, Healthy Skepticism Inc
www.healthyskepticism.org
Visiting Research Fellow, University of Adelaide
www.adelaide.edu.au/directory/peter.mansfield
peter.mansfield@adelaide.edu.au

E-DRUG: Differences in Drug Datasheets (8)
-----------------------------------------

We have studied the variability of alert status in labeling
(contraindication, caution, non-alerted) for major CYP3A4 mediated drug-drug interactions (DDIs) in Japan, US, and UK (Ohno Y, Hisaka A, Suzuki H, et al). There were quite a few discrepancies (data not published yet).

I agree that ADR labeling should be harmonized between the patented product
and the generics in one country/region (by the regulating body and/or
industry). However, in comparison to pharmacokinetic changes in DDIs, the
clinical relevance of ADRs are generally more population-dependent.
Therefore, before adopting an international standard in ADR labeling, I feel the need for a more scientific discussion on decision-making in ethnic
differences; i.e., not only the causes but also the consequences of the
labeling in each country.

Makiko KUSAMA
Graduate School of Pharmaceutical Sciences
The University of Tokyo
JAPAN
kusamaki-tky@umin.ac.jp

E-DRUG: Differences in Drug Datasheets (7)
-----------------------------------------

I think that the general weakness of data sheets is insufficient drug
regulation. Why is not forbidden to have different data sheets for the same generic substance!??

[the moderator agrees. Never understood why the regualtors cannot put their foot down when the industry demands to keep information 'exclusive']

Professor B.Vrhovac MD, PhD, FRCP
Croatia
bvrhovac@post.t-com.hr

E-DRUG: Differences in Drug Datasheets (6)
-----------------------------------------

Another study from WHO:

Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2003 Aug;59(4):263-70.
Prescribing information in 26 countries: a comparative study.

Reggi V, Balocco-Mattavelli R, Bonati M, Breton I, Figueras A, Jambert E, Kopp C, Montane E, Rägo L, Rocchi F; The International Comparative Study on Drug Information Collaborative Group.
Quality assurance and safety: medicines, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.

This study was set up to document the variability of prescribing information from different sources concerning indications, side effects and cautions of selected drugs. An original method to measure the degree of information agreement among different written materials, such as summaries of product characteristics, package inserts and data sheets, and a widely accepted reference text was developed. The results show that there is substantial disagreement in the materials available to prescribers and patients in different countries. Disagreement was even found within a single country when written materials from different brands of the same drug were compared. The discordance can be explained by the fact that the evidence available for each drug is considered/assessed differently by separate countries. It is argued that the discrepancies found may mislead prescribers, patients and those comparing drug-use patterns across countries. National regulatory authorities have a key role to play in remedying this situation, and a two-pronged approach is proposed. At the international level, national authorities should strengthen collaboration and information interchange and, at the national level, should implement appropriate measures aimed at removing contradictory statements on drug-information materials that have no reason to be different. Finally, further training and continued education aimed at drug regulatory officials could provide the necessary knowledge and enable national authorities to meet the need for drug information that is independent of commercial interests.

E-DRUG: Differences in Drug Datasheets (9)
----------------------------------------

The article by Andrew Herxheimer that Joel Lexchin mentioned is easy to find using the Healthy Skepticism library search page:
www.healthyskepticism.org/library/search.php

Herxheimer A.
Leaflets with NSAIDs do not warn users clearly ‹a UK survey
Pharmaceutical Journal 1999;262:559-561

Abstract:
AIM: To examine how far patient information leaflets (PILs) for
non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) explain theirsafe use and
warn about gastrointestinal side effects. DESIGN: Survey of PILs for 29
major NSAID preparations listed in the British National Formulary.
OUTCOME MEASURES: Does the PIL explain that: (1) the NSAID relieves symptoms but does not influence the course of the disease, (2) the use of high doses or of the strongest drugs to obtain complete relief increases the risk of serious adverse effects, and (3) if any ³stomach² symptom occurs, the patient should stop taking the medicine or at least reduce the dose, and seek advice?
RESULTS: (1) Only 4 of the 29 PILs clearly explained that the NSAID only relieves symptoms. (2) None of the PILs discouraged efforts by the patient to obtain complete relief with the drug. (3) 13 of the 29 PILs did not mention stopping the medication if stomach symptoms occurred; 10 advised stopping only if serious symptoms occurred (i.e., bleeding or severe stomach pain); six advised stopping, and seeking advice if any stomach symptom occurred.
CONCLUSION: The information in PILs should be more complete, clearer and consistent for all NSAIDs. This requires urgent efforts by the Medicines Control Agency and manufacturers.

--
regards,

Peter

Dr Peter R Mansfield OAM BMBS
GP
Director, Healthy Skepticism Inc
www.healthyskepticism.org
Visiting Research Fellow, University of Adelaide
www.adelaide.edu.au/directory/peter.mansfield
peter.mansfield@adelaide.edu.au