Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Communicating Drug Benefits and Risks Effectively: There Must Be a Better Way

2009; American College of Physicians; Volume: 150; Issue: 8 Linguagem: Inglês

10.7326/0003-4819-150-8-200904210-00012

1539-3704

Jerry Avorn,

Pharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes

Editorials21 April 2009Communicating Drug Benefits and Risks Effectively: There Must Be a Better WayFREEJerry Avorn, MD and William H. Shrank, MD, MSHSJerry Avorn, MDFrom Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02120.Search for more papers by this author and William H. Shrank, MD, MSHSFrom Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02120.Search for more papers by this authorAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-150-8-200904210-00012 SectionsAboutVisual AbstractPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail The information that patients receive about the drugs we prescribe for them is in a sorry state. Patients are barraged by direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising in virtually every medium except cell phone ring-tones. In a health care system that rewards quantity over quality, rushed clinical encounters with physicians and pharmacists leave too little time to review drug risks and benefits, not to mention cost. Yet, public sector oversight of medication information has waned along with other federal regulatory activities, with similar unfortunate results. Occurring on the heels of several high-profile drug risk debacles, this problematic mix of overpromotion, undercommunication, and inadequate regulation has left many patients bewildered and mistrustful of the prescriptions we write, contributing to an unhealthy pattern of medication overuse, misuse, and underuse (1).In this issue, Schwartz and colleagues (2) focus on an especially turbid area of medication information: the user-hostile welter of tiny print found in DTC drug advertisements. Federal law requires manufacturers to include this information along with the more compelling and seductive headlines and photos that promote a drug's benefits. In their current form, these barely legible sections are virtual museums of poor communication: The print is tiny; the prose is usually dull, stiff, and hard to understand; and vital facts are buried in a sea of less relevant data. All in all, these sections seem designed more to satisfy governmental requirements and ward off liability lawyers than to teach patients about the pros and cons of choosing a particular medicine. The format of the information can mask important side effects, as well as—ironically—numb the reader with so many worries that a perfectly worthy treatment may seem too toxic to take. Schwartz and colleagues, who know about far better ways to present complicated facts, designed their own “drug boxes” to replace this microprint overkill. They created new mock-ups of DTC ads for several commonly used drugs: clopidogrel, statins, histamine-2 (H2) antagonists, and proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs). They then performed a randomized, controlled trial to compare the quality of information transfer with conventional DTC ads for these products versus their own more intelligible creations.The good news was that people assigned to receive the coherently designed drug box ads more accurately understood the benefits and risks of statins and clopidogrel than did those who viewed the information in the current conventional formats. For gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), patients who received the drug box ads were more likely to know that PPIs work better than H2-antagonists for severe chronic GERD.However, the study raises some important concerns. Respondents shown the innovative ads reported that they were less willing to take the statin or platelet inhibitor advertised, even when one was needed—a worrisome outcome. And although it is true that PPIs are more powerful than H2-antagonists for severe GERD, they do not provide immediate relief, and many patients with milder or sporadic symptoms would probably be better off with the older drugs or a swig of liquid antacid as needed. The study did not address the vital cost component of the risk–benefit–cost triad, because most DTC ads do not mention costs at all. But affordability is a key issue for many patients who cannot afford to pay for their prescriptions. We still need a study exploring the presentation of data on the relative expense of competing alternatives and evaluating the effects of providing such cost information.Despite these important limitations, Schwartz and colleagues have drawn our attention to the need for more creative thinking about how to communicate drug benefits and risks effectively, and the need to study possible solutions in a methodologically rigorous manner. Currently, DTC advertising consumes about $5 billion per year (as the authors point out, this amount is double the entire budget of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration [FDA]), but it is only one of the many fragmented sources of drug risk–benefit information that patients are exposed to. We need to consider Schwartz and colleagues' study in the context of other data that patients receive (or don't receive) about prescription drugs.Neither the package inserts nor the container labels offer as much help as they should. Much discussion about drug information for lay people has focused on the package inserts; however, these documents are primarily written for physicians, not patients, and they are rarely inserted in the packages patients actually receive. Another source is the label affixed to the medication bottle. These communicate the name of the pharmacy in large type but vary greatly in their reporting of warnings (3) and instructions (4). When communicating essential safety information, container labels often use a font too small for many patients to read, and they often emphasize information more relevant to the pharmacist than the patient.The federal government has attempted, with only limited success, to ensure more reliable sources of medication information. In the late 1970s, the FDA sought to implement a bold plan to ensure that patients would receive with each filled prescription a leaflet containing accurate, intelligible, and complete lay-language information (5). That plan was shelved when the Reagan administration took power, on the grounds that educating patients was not a proper role for government. The Reagan administration preferred the private sector to fill the informational void, with the invisible hand of the marketplace ensuring the quality and availability of the content of the leaflets, known as Consumer Medication Information (6).In this instance, self-regulation appears to have worked no better for drug information than it has for financial instruments. An evaluation in 2003 found that the generally unregulated system of private-sector Consumer Medication Information left many gaps (7); a more recent assessment, which was due in 2006 but not completed until 2008, found that these materials met prespecified quality criteria only about 60% of the time, with legibility and comprehensibility getting the worst scores (8). In 1995, the FDA proposed a plan to ensure that patients receive standardized leaflets, called Medication Guides, for selected drugs believed to have the greatest potential for harm (9). These leaflets also turned out to be difficult for many patients to read (10), and pharmacies often fail to provide them with the prescription, even though it is required by law (3).With new leadership in Washington, now is a good time to reassess all public sector efforts to ensure accurate, coherent patient drug information so we can maximize the effectiveness and safety of prescription medications. In addition to addressing the various uncoordinated sources of information that patients may or may not receive at the pharmacy, this reappraisal would consider the official “labeling” information document for physicians, the multitude of unregulated privately produced materials handed to patients in drugstores, and—as in the examples studied by Schwartz and colleagues—the flood of DTC information that inundates consumers. Many of us would like to see the end of DTC advertising, which is allowed in nearly no other industrialized country and was not permitted in the United States until 1997. However, for legal reasons, it may be hard to put that genie back in the bottle (11).If we must live with this torrent of patient-directed drug infomercials, Schwartz and colleagues' study reminds us that we need to come up with more innovative ways of presenting that complex data and monitoring the cognitive effects of these well-intentioned experiments. This reappraisal should not stop with evaluating patient-directed materials. Physicians need to learn about benefit and safety data through sources that are more useful than the tiny-print overkill that now constitutes these official documents (12–14). But as the work of Schwartz and colleagues points out, more than reformatting will be needed to create educational materials that guide physicians and patients in the right direction. As lay people and physicians increase their demands for coherent, evidence-based, unbiased drug information, we would all be well served by a comprehensive program to replace our current patchwork of bad communication and excessive promotion with a responsible national system of balanced, evidence-based, and user-friendly drug information.Jerry Avorn, MDWilliam H. Shrank, MD, MSHSHarvard Medical SchoolBoston, MA 02120References1. Avorn J. Powerful Medicines: The Benefits, Risks, and Costs of Prescription Drugs. New York: Knopf; 2004. Google Scholar2. Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Welch HG. Using a drug facts box to communicate drug benefits and harms. Two randomized trials. Ann Intern Med. 2009;150:516-27. LinkGoogle Scholar3. Shrank WH, Agnew-Blais J, Choudhry NK, Wolf MS, Kesselheim AS, Avorn J, et al. The variability and quality of medication container labels. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167:1760-5. [PMID: 17846395] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar4. Wolf MS, Shekelle P, Choudhry NK, Agnew-Blais J, Parker RM, Shrank WH. Variability in pharmacy interpretations of physician prescriptions. Med Care. 2009;:. [PMID: 19194338] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar5. Shrank WH, Avorn J. Educating patients about their medications: the potential and limitations of written drug information. Health Aff (Millwood). 2007;26:731-40. [PMID: 17485751] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar6. Steering Committee for the Collaborative Development of a Long-Range Action Plan for the Provision of Useful Prescription Medicine Information. Action plan for the provision of useful prescription medicine information. Report submitted to The Honorable Donna E. Shalala, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, December 1996. Accessed at www.fda.gov/cder/offices/ods/keystone.pdf on 19 February 2009. Google Scholar7. Svarstad BL, Bultman DC, Mount JK. Patient counseling provided in community pharmacies: effects of state regulation, pharmacist age, and busyness. J Am Pharm Assoc (2003). 2004;44:22-9. [PMID: 14965149] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar8. Kimberlin CL, Winterstein AG. Expert and consumer evaluation of consumer medication information. Accessed at www.fda.gov/cder/news/CMI/final_report.pdf on 16 February 2009. Google Scholar9. Public Law 104-180. Title VI, Sec 601. Effective Medication Guides, 110 Stat 1593. 1996. Google Scholar10. Wolf MS, Davis TC, Shrank WH, Neuberger M, Parker RM. A critical review of FDA-approved Medication Guides. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;62:316-22. [PMID: 16884888] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar11. Kesselheim AS, Avorn J. Pharmaceutical promotion to physicians and First Amendment rights. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:1727-32. [PMID: 18420505] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar12. www.RxFacts.org. Accessed 18 February 2009. Google Scholar13. Hensley S. As drug bill soars, some doctors get an “unsales” pitch. Wall Street Journal. 2006;13 March:1. Google Scholar14. Editorial: countering the drug salesmen. New York Times. 2008;20 March. Accessed at www.nytimes.com on 22 February 2009. Google Scholar Comments0 CommentsSign In to Submit A Comment Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAffiliations: From Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02120.Disclosures:Consultancies: W.H. Shrank (Alosa Foundation). Grants received: J. Avorn, W.H. Shrank (to Brigham and Women's Hospital from the Attorney General Prescriber Education Program and CVS).Corresponding Author: Jerry Avorn, MD, Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 1620 Tremont Street, Suite 3030, Boston, MA 02120.Current Author Addresses: Drs. Avorn and Shrank: Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 1620 Tremont Street, Suite 3030, Boston, MA 02120. PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsSee AlsoUsing a Drug Facts Box to Communicate Drug Benefits and Harms Two Randomized Trials Lisa M. Schwartz , Steven Woloshin , and H. Gilbert Welch Metrics Cited ByPatients' knowledge and opinions regarding osteoporosis, osteoporosis treatment, and oral health careReadability and Suitability of COPD Consumer InformationThe assessment of patient clinical outcome: A literature discussionDirect-to-Consumer Drug Advertisements and the Informed Patient: A Legal, Ethical, and Content AnalysisThe role of numeracy in moderating the influence of statistics in climate change messagesPsychotropic medication discussions in older adults’ primary care office visits: So much to do, so little timeInforming PatientsHow Patients' Lack of Knowledge About Oral Bisphosphonates Can Interfere With Medical and Dental CarePatients' Benefit-Risk Preferences for Chronic Idiopathic Thrombocytopenic Purpura TherapiesCancer Care: A Microcosm of the Problems Facing All of Health CareJennifer Fisher Wilson 21 April 2009Volume 150, Issue 8Page: 563-564KeywordsCreativityDrug informationDrugsGastroesophageal reflux diseasePharmacistsPharmacoeconomicsPharmacoepidemiologySafetyStatins ePublished: 21 April 2009 Issue Published: 21 April 2009 CopyrightCopyright © 2009 by American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.PDF DownloadLoading ...