Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Quality of Medicine Information in Product Information Leaflets: A Retrospective Audit

  • Regulatory Science: Original Research
  • Published:
Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Nonstandard product information leaflets (PIs) may lead to medication errors. We assessed the completeness, and compatibility of, essential information against reference sources in selected PIs of medicines used in Sri Lanka.

Methods

Hundred PIs each were used to assess completeness and compatibility of information, respectively. Availability of essential information was checked against drug regulations of the country. Clinical facts were matched against the British National Formulary and/or Australian Medicines Handbook for compatibility. PIs were categorized as “compatible” if all facts stated under each clinical information type were mentioned in at least one of the references; “partially compatible” if only some facts mentioned under each clinical information type were available in at least one of the references; and “totally incompatible” if none of the facts stated in each clinical information type were mentioned in both references.

Results

Of the 100 PIs, 28% did not include at least one of the essential information required by the regulations. Pharmacokinetic data, duration of treatment, overdose, and special dosage information were frequently missing. Nine types of clinical information in PIs matched with reference sources resulted in 900 cross-matches. Among the cross-matches, 80 (8.9%) partial compatibilities and 8 (0.9%) total incompatibilities were encountered. Nearly half (48%) of the PIs had at least one incompatibility.

Conclusion

Some PIs lacked important medicines information and were incompatible with known references. PIs need to be carefully prepared by medicine manufacturers and meticulously reviewed by regulatory authorities for accuracy and completeness.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bawazir SA, Abou-auda HS, Gubara OA, et al. Public attitude toward drug technical package inserts in Saudi Arabia. J Pharm Technol. 2003;19:209–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Fuchas J, Hippius M, Schaefer M. Analysis of German package inserts. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2006;44:8–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Cosmetics Devices and Drugs Act. No. 27 0f 1980. Sri Lanka: Ministry of Health. http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/documents/s17094e/s17094e.pdf. Accessed January 5, 2017.

  4. Charnock D, Shepperd S, Needham G, Gann R. DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. J Epidemiol Commun Health. 1999;53:105–111.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Joint Formulary Committee. September 2015 — March 2016. British National Formulary 70. London: BMJ Group and Pharmaceutical Press.

  6. Australian Medicines Handbook. Adelaide: Australian Medicines Handbook Pty Ltd; 2011.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to N. R. Samaranayake PhD, BSc Pharm.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Saheeha, M.S.S., Piumanthi, M.H.S., Perera, S.P. et al. Quality of Medicine Information in Product Information Leaflets: A Retrospective Audit. Ther Innov Regul Sci 52, 656–660 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479017753128

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479017753128

Keywords

Navigation