Drug Safety

, Volume 36, Issue 9, pp 723–731

The Additional Value of an E-Mail to Inform Healthcare Professionals of a Drug Safety Issue: A Randomized Controlled Trial in the Netherlands

  • Sigrid Piening
  • Pieter A. de Graeff
  • Sabine M. J. M. Straus
  • Flora M. Haaijer-Ruskamp
  • Peter G. M. Mol
Short Communication

Abstract

Background

The usefulness and the impact of Direct Healthcare Professional Communications (DHPCs, or ‘Dear Doctor letters’) in changing the clinical behaviour of physicians have been debated. Changes in the current risk communication methods should preferably be based on the preferences of the healthcare professionals, to optimize the uptake of the message.

Objective

The aim of this study was to assess whether safety issues are communicated more effectively with an additional e-mail sent by the Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board (MEB) than with the DHPC only.

Methods

A randomized controlled trial was conducted amongst ophthalmologists and hospital pharmacists in the Netherlands, who were the target group of a DHPC that was issued for pegaptanib, a drug that is administered intra-ocularly in patients with macular degeneration. The intervention group (N = 110) received the pegaptanib DHPC, as well as the MEB e-mail. The control group (N = 105) received the traditional paper-based DHPC only. Two weeks later, the study population received an invitation to fill out an online questionnaire. Questions were asked about the respondents’ knowledge and attitude regarding the pegaptanib issue, and any action they had consequently taken. Additional questions were asked about their satisfaction with the DHPC and the e-mail, and their preferred source of such information.

Results

Forty respondents (18.6 %) completed the questionnaire. Eighty-one percent of the respondents in the intervention group (N = 21) and 47 % of the control group (N = 19) correctly indicated that a serious increase in intra-ocular pressure could be caused by pegaptanib injections (Fishers’ exact test, p = 0.046). Nine respondents in the intervention group versus none of the control group respondents indicated that they had taken action in response to the pegaptanib safety issue (Fishers’ exact test, p = 0.01). The majority of both the intervention group and the control group confirmed that they would like to receive an MEB e-mail with safety information about drugs in the future (90 and 95 %, respectively).

Conclusion

The results of this study indicate that an additional e-mail might strengthen the uptake of the safety information provided to healthcare professionals, who prefer to receive an e-mail from the MEB as a source of such information, as well as the DHPC. This study may serve as a starting point for new strategies to improve risk communication regarding safety issues associated with drugs and its impact on prescribing.

Supplementary material

40264_2013_79_MOESM1_ESM.docx (114 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 114 kb)
40264_2013_79_MOESM2_ESM.docx (23 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 22 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Piening S, Haaijer-Ruskamp FM, De Vries JTN, Van Der Elst ME, De Graeff PA, Straus SMJM, et al. Impact of safety-related regulatory action on clinical practice: a systematic review. Drug Saf. 2012;35(5):373–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Piening S, Reber KC, Wieringa JE, Straus SMJM, de Graeff PA, Haaijer-Ruskamp FM, et al. Impact of safety-related regulatory action on drug use in ambulatory care in the Netherlands. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2012;91(5):838–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dusetzina SB, Higashi AS, Dorsey ER, Conti R, Huskamp HA, Zhu S, et al. Impact of FDA drug risk communications on health care utilization and health behaviors: a systematic review. Med Care. 2012;50(6):466–78.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    The European Parliament and The European Council. Directive 2010/84/EU. 2010. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:348:0074:0099:en:pdf. Accessed 3 Jan 2013.
  5. 5.
    The European Parliament and The European Council. Regulation (EU) no 1235/2010. 2010. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:348:0001:0016:en:pdf. Accessed 3 Jan 2013.
  6. 6.
    Grol R, Grimshaw J. From best evidence to best practice: effective implementation of change in patients’ care. Lancet. 2003;362(9391):1225–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lee LY, Kortepeter CM, Willy ME, Nourjah P. Drug-risk communication to pharmacists: assessing the impact of risk-minimization strategies on the practice of pharmacy. J Am Pharm Assoc. 2008;48(4):494–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Piening S, Haaijer-Ruskamp FM, De Graeff PA, Straus SMJM, Mol PGM. Healthcare professionals self-reported experiences and preferences related to direct healthcare professional communications: a survey conducted in the Netherlands. Drug Saf. 2012;35(11):1061–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Morrato EH, Curbow B, Crum RM, Nowels C, Feinleib M. Communicating drug risk to physicians: challenges and opportunities. Int J Risk Saf Med. 2008;20(3):143–54.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Theophile H, Miremont-Salame G, Robinson P, Moore N, Begaud B, Haramburu F. Relevance of a “dear doctor letter” to alert healthcare providers to new recommendations for vitamin D administration. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2011;67(7):681–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency/Ipsos Mori. Risks and benefits of medicines and medical devices—perceptions, communication and regulation. Report on quantitative research among health professionals. 2006. http://www.mhra.gov.uk/Publications/Corporate/Research/index.htm. Accessed 3 Jan 2013.
  12. 12.
    Polimeni G, Russo A, Catania MA, Aiello A, Oteri A, Trifiro G, et al. Drug safety information through the internet: the experience of an Italian website. Drug Saf. 2009;32(3):245–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    McCullough JL, Ostrom TM. Repetition of highly similar messages and attitude change. J Appl Psychol. 1974;59(3):395–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    European Medicines Agency. Summary of product characteristics Macugen. 2012. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Product_Information/human/000620/WC500026214.pdf. Accessed 3 Jan 2013.
  15. 15.
    European Medicines Agency. Opinions on safety variations. Adopted at the CHPM meeting of 16–19 July 2012. 2012. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Other/2012/07/WC500130373.pdf. Accessed 3 Jan 2013.
  16. 16.
    Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board. Belangrijke risico informatie: risico op ernstige toename van de intraoculaire druk bij intravitreale injectie van de volume overmaat van het product Macugen (pegaptanib). 2012. http://www.cbg-meb.nl/NR/rdonlyres/E11AAE0D-0E90-4908-B321-8B139F2C6B45/0/MacugenDHPCNL13092012.pdf. Accessed 3 Jan 2013.
  17. 17.
    Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board. Summary of product characteristics Macugen [in Dutch]. 2012. http://www.cbg-meb.nl/NR/rdonlyres/5FF14AE5-F1E6-4419-975A-98DF9949A8A5/0/MACUGENSmPCNL24Aug2012.pdf. Accessed 3 Jan 2013.
  18. 18.
    Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board. Pictogram behorend bij DHPC Macugen. 2012. http://www.cbg-meb.nl/NR/rdonlyres/9EC641B9-F30B-4E67-BEBD-C3B638251D31/0/MacugenposterNL.pdf. Accessed 3 Jan 2013.
  19. 19.
    Cabana MD, Rand CS, Powe NR, Wu AW, Wilson MH, Abboud P-C, et al. Why don’t physicians follow clinical practice guidelines? A framework for improvement. J Am Med Assoc. 1999;282(15):1458–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lundgren RE, McMakin AH. Risk communication. A handbook for communicating environmental, safety, and health risks. 3rd ed. Columbus: Battelle Press; 2004.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Slovic P. Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. Risk Anal. 1993;13(6):675–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Berry DC. Risk, communication and health psychology. 1st ed. Berkshire: Open University Press; 2004.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lofstedt RE. The impact of the COX-2 inhibitor issue on perceptions of the pharmaceutical industry: content analysis and communication implications. J Health Commun. 2007;12(5):471–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Walaski P. Risk and crisis communications: methods and messages. Hoboken: Wiley; 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    McComas KA. Defining moments in risk communication research: 1996–2005. J Health Commun. 2006;11(1):75–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Subscribe to MedWatch safety alerts. 2011. http://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/ucm228488.htm. Accessed 3 Jan 2013.
  27. 27.
    Arzneimittelkommission der Deutschen Ärzteschaft. Drug safety mail—Risikoinformationen aktuell per E-mail. 2011. http://www.akdae.de/Arzneimittelsicherheit/DSM/index.html. Accessed 3 Jan 2013.
  28. 28.
    Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration. TGA safety information e-mail list. 2012. http://www.tga.gov.au/newsroom/subscribe-tga-safetyinfo.htm. Accessed 3 Jan 2013.
  29. 29.
    Health Canada. Drugs and health products. Stay informed—MedEffect Canada. 2012. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/medeff/subscribe-abonnement/index-eng.php#subscribe. Accessed 3 Jan 2013.
  30. 30.
    Sino CG, Munnik A, Schuurmans MJ. Knowledge and perspectives of Dutch home healthcare nurses regarding medication frequently used by older people. Int J Older People Nurs. 2013;8(2):131–8.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Crouch S, Robinson P, Pitts M. A comparison of general practitioner response rates to electronic and postal surveys in the setting of the National STI Prevention Program. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2011;35(2):187–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Suttle CM, Jalbert I, Alnahedh T. Examining the evidence base used by optometrists in Australia and New Zealand. Clin Exp Optom. 2012;95(1):28–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Goossens L, Knoester P. Rutten-Van Molken M. Avastin (bevacizumab), Macugen (pegaptanib) and Lucentis (ranibizumab): comparison of medication costs. Pharm Weekbl. 2008;143(16):75–9.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Prieto L, Spooner A, Hidalgo-Simon A, Rubino A, Kurz X, Arlett P. Evaluation of the effectiveness of risk minimization measures. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2012;21(8):896–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    European Commission. Volume 9A of the rules governing medicinal products in the European Union. Guidelines on pharmacovigilance for medicinal products for human use. 2008. http://ec.europa.eu/health/files/eudralex/vol-9/pdf/vol9a_09-2008_en.pdf. Accessed 3 Jan 2013.
  36. 36.
    Slovic P, Peters E, Grana J, Berger S, Dieck GS. Risk perception of prescription drugs: results of a national survey. Drug Inf J. 2007;41(1):81–100.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Edwards B, Chakraborty S. Risk communication and the pharmaceutical industry: what is the reality? Drug Saf. 2012;35(11):1027–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Fischhoff B, Brewer NT, Downs JS. Communicating risks and benefits. An evidence-based user’s guide. 2011. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Reports/UCM268069.pdf. Accessed 15 Feb 2013.
  39. 39.
    Fischhoff B. Why (cancer) risk communication can be hard. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1999;25:7–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Weatherby LB, Nordstrom BL, Fife D, Walker AM. The impact of wording in “dear doctor” letters and in black box labels. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2002;72(6):735–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Mazor KM, Andrade SE, Auger J, Fish L, Gurwitz JH. Communicating safety information to physicians: an examination of dear doctor letters. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2005;14(12):869–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Reber KC, Piening S, Wieringa JE, Straus SMJM, Raine JM, De Graeff PA, et al. When direct healthcare professional communications have an impact on inappropriate and unsafe use of medicines. A retrospective analysis of determinants of impact of safety warnings. Clin Pharm Ther. 2013;93(4):360–5.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kasperson RE, Renn O, Slovic P, Brown HS, Emel J, Goble R, et al. The social amplification of risk: a conceptual framework. Risk Anal. 1988;8(2):177–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Fischhoff B. Risk perception and communication unplugged—20 years of process. Risk Anal. 1995;15(2):137–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Bahri P. Public pharmacovigilance communication: a process calling for evidence-based, objective-driven strategies. Drug Saf. 2010;33(12):1065–79.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Deschepper R, Grigoryan L, Lundborg CS, Hofstede G, Cohen J, Kelen GV, et al. Are cultural dimensions relevant for explaining cross-national differences in antibiotic use in Europe? BMC Health Serv Res. 2008;8:123.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Grigoryan L, Burgerhof JGM, Degener JE, Deschepper R, Lundborg CS, Monnet DL, et al. Attitudes, beliefs and knowledge concerning antibiotic use and self-medication: a comparative European study. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2007;16(11):1234–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sigrid Piening
    • 1
  • Pieter A. de Graeff
    • 1
    • 2
  • Sabine M. J. M. Straus
    • 2
    • 3
  • Flora M. Haaijer-Ruskamp
    • 1
  • Peter G. M. Mol
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Clinical Pharmacology, FB20University of Groningen, University Medical Center GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Dutch Medicines Evaluation BoardUtrechtThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of Medical InformaticsErasmus Medical CenterRotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations