Information for Adequate Prescribing to Older Patients

An Evaluation of the Product Information of 53 Recently Approved Medicines

Abstract

Background

Historically, older patients have been frequently excluded from clinical trials. This has a knock-on effect on the availability of relevant information from trials for health-care professionals prescribing medicines to older individuals in daily clinical practice.

Objective

To investigate the availability of information relevant to appropriate prescribing for older people in the summaries of product characteristics (SmPCs) of recently approved medicines.

Methods

An analysis was undertaken of the SmPCs and European public assessment reports (EPARs) of all non-generic medicines indicated for diseases that are common in older individuals and that were approved by the European Medicines Agency between January 2008 and December 2010. The EPARs were considered the second most complete, publicly available document after the pre-authorization dossier. The availability of information was evaluated for 19 items on the representation of and clinical experience in older people, as well as pharmacokinetic and drug–drug interaction studies. These items were derived from the ICH E7 guideline for studies involving geriatric populations in the SmPCs and EPARs. Information not included was classified as being essential or non-essential, based on the product characteristics.

Results

Fifty-three medicines were investigated. Overall, information on the ICH E7 items was available in 56 % of the SmPCs (EPARs 79 %); 41 % of the SmPCs (EPARs 24 %) did not provide information that should have been included. Twenty-seven percent of the SmPCs, but 78 % of the EPARs, provided information about the number of patients included. Moreover, 2 % of the SmPCs (EPARs 51 %) provided information about the exclusion of patients with common comorbidities, and 14 % of the SmPCs, but 81 % of the EPARs, provided information about exclusion based on age.

Conclusions

SmPCs, unlike EPARs, do not sufficiently provide adequate information about older individuals. Consequently, it is not clear whether the information about efficacy and safety applies to the frail older patients often seen in daily practice. The SmPC is intended for use by health-care professionals in daily clinical practice and provides basic information for safe and effective prescribing. As the EPAR describes regulatory considerations relevant to drug approval and is too long for daily use, the information about older individuals included in the SmPCs should be improved.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  1. 1.

    Bartlett C, Davey P, Dieppe P, et al. Women, older persons, and ethnic minorities: factors associated with their inclusion in randomised trials of statins 1990 to 2001. Heart. 2003;89(3):327–8.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Cherubini A, Del Signore S, Ouslander J, et al. Fighting against age discrimination in clinical trials. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2010;58(9):1791–6.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Dodd KS, Saczynski JS, Zhao Y, et al. Exclusion of older adults and women from recent trials of acute coronary syndromes. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2011;59(3):506–11.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    McMurdo ME, Witham MD, Gillespie ND. Including older people in clinical research. BMJ. 2005;331(7524):1036–7.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    McMurdo ME, Roberts H, Parker S, et al. Improving recruitment of older people to research through good practice. Age Ageing. 2011;40(6):659–65.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Witham MD, McMurdo ME. How to get older people included in clinical studies. Drugs Aging. 2007;24(3):187–96.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Limb M. Excluding older patients from trials is “bad science”, conference hears. BMJ. 2011;29(343):d6305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Cho S, Lau SWJ, Tandon V, et al. Geriatric drug evaluation: where are we now and where should we be in the future? Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(10):937–40.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Leendertse AJ, Egberts AC, Stoker LJ, et al. Frequency of and risk factors for preventable medication-related hospital admissions in the Netherlands. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(17):1890–6.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Carrasco-Garrido P, de Andres LA, Barrera VH, et al. Trends of adverse drug reactions related-hospitalizations in Spain (2001–2006). BMC Health Serv Res. 2010;13(10):287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Pirmohamed M, James S, Meakin S, et al. Adverse drug reactions as cause of admission to hospital: prospective analysis of 18 820 patients. BMJ. 2004;329(7456):15–9.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    European Medicines Agency (EMA). International conference on harmonization of technical requirements for registration of pharmaceuticals for human use (ICH) topic E7—Note for guidance on studies in support of special populations: geriatrics (CPMP/ICH/379/95) [online]. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2009/09/WC500002875.pdf. Accessed 2012 Dec 17.

  13. 13.

    Hutchins LF, Unger JM, Crowley JJ, et al. Underrepresentation of patients 65 years of age or older in cancer-treatment trials. N Engl J Med. 1999;341(27):2061–7.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Giron MS, Fastbom J, Winblad B. Clinical trials of potential antidepressants: to what extent are the elderly represented: a review. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2005;20(3):201–17.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Committee for medicinal products for human use (CHMP). Adequacy of guidance on the elderly regarding medicinal products for human use [online]. 2012. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2010/01/WC500049541.pdf. Accessed 2012 Dec 17.

  16. 16.

    European Commission. A guideline on summary of product characteristics [online]. 2012. http://ec.europa.eu/health/files/eudralex/vol-2/c/smpc_guideline_rev2_en.pdf. Accessed 2012 Dec 17.

  17. 17.

    European Medicines Agency (EMA). Website European Medicines Agency—European public assessment reports [online]. 2012. http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/medicines/landing/epar_search.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac058001d124. Accessed 2012 Dec 17.

  18. 18.

    Committee for medicinal products for human use (CHMP). Guideline on investigation of drug interactions—draft [online]. 2012. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2010/05/WC500090112.pdf. Accessed 2012 Dec 17.

  19. 19.

    Committee for medicinal products for human use (CHMP). Guideline on evaluation of the pharmacokinetics of medicinal products in patients with impaired hepatic function [online]. 2012. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2009/09/WC500003122.pdf. Accessed 2012 Dec 17.

  20. 20.

    Committee for medicinal products for human use (CHMP). Guideline on evaluation of the pharmacokinetics of medicinal products in patients with impaired renal function [online]. 2012. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2009/09/WC500003123.pdf. Accessed 2012 Dec 17.

  21. 21.

    Committee for medicinal products for human use (CHMP). Guideline on pharmacokinetic studies in man [online]. 2012. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2009/09/WC500003127.pdf. Accessed 2012 Dec 17.

  22. 22.

    Committee for medicinal products for human use (CHMP). EMA geriatric medicines strategy [online]. 2012. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Other/2011/02/WC500102291.pdf. Accessed 2012 Dec 17.

  23. 23.

    Committee for medicinal products for human use (CHMP). ICH topic E7 studies in support of special populations: geriatrics; questions and answers [online]. 2012. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2009/10/WC500005218.pdf. Accessed 2012 Dec 17.

  24. 24.

    Steinmetz KL, Coley KC, Pollock BG. Assessment of geriatric information on the drug label for commonly prescribed drugs in older people. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53(5):891–4.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Witham MD. Drug trials and older people: time to embrace the complexity of age. Drugs Aging. 2011;28(8):679–80.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Erna Beers has received a grant from the Dutch Society of Clinical Pharmacology & Biopharmacy (NVKF&B) for her training in clinical pharmacology and therapeutics. This manuscript was written in the context of her training. The Expertise Centre Pharmacotherapy in Old Persons (EPHOR) is financially supported by The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMW). The authors’ work was independent of the NVKF&B and ZonMW.

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest that are relevant to the content of this study.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Erna Beers.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOC 64 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Beers, E., Egberts, T.C.G., Leufkens, H.G.M. et al. Information for Adequate Prescribing to Older Patients. Drugs Aging 30, 255–262 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40266-013-0059-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Healthcare Professional
  • Medicinal Product
  • European Medicine Agency
  • Daily Clinical Practice
  • Marketing Authorization