The Additional Value of an E-Mail to Inform Healthcare Professionals of a Drug Safety Issue: A Randomized Controlled Trial in the Netherlands
- First Online:
- 184 Downloads
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
- 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.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.
- 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
- 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.
- 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.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.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.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.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.
- 20.Lundgren RE, McMakin AH. Risk communication. A handbook for communicating environmental, safety, and health risks. 3rd ed. Columbus: Battelle Press; 2004.Google Scholar
- 22.Berry DC. Risk, communication and health psychology. 1st ed. Berkshire: Open University Press; 2004.Google Scholar
- 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.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.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.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.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
- 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
- 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.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
- 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.
- 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
- 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