The impact of the boxed warning on the duration of use for depot medroxprogesterone acetate

Thinking Outside the Black Box: Current Perceptions on Breast Implant Safety and Utility

BACKGROUND

There is growing public concern surrounding breast implant safety. In fact, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently proposed changes to breast implant labeling, which include a boxed warning. Given such efforts to increase transparency on breast implant safety, this study assessed laywomen's perceptions of breast implant safety, and the impact of proposed changes to breast implant labeling on laywomen's decision-making regarding breast implants.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional investigation of women recruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk. Discrete choice modeling was used to query opinions on breast implants after viewing proposed labeling changes. Chi-square and analysis of variance were used for subgroup analyses, and McNemar analyses were used to assess changes in participants' responses.

RESULTS

The authors received 500 survey responses. At baseline, 353 participants (70.6 percent) considered breast implants to be at least somewhat safe. After viewing the proposed boxed warning, 252 participants (50.4 percent) responded that they would be less likely to receive implants. In fact, a significantly greater proportion of participants considered breast implants to be either unsafe or very unsafe after viewing suggested changes to implant labeling than at baseline (58.4 percent versus 28.8 percent; p = 0.001). By the end of the survey, willingness to consider alternative options for breast augmentation/reconstruction increased significantly from baseline.

CONCLUSIONS

Improved labeling can enhance laywomen's understanding of breast implant safety and can impact decision-making. However, greater scrutiny of breast implants should not prevent women who need implants from receiving them. Transparency and objectivity in the surgeon-patient dialogue can ensure the appropriate use of medical devices such as breast implants.

Do drug-related safety warnings have the expected impact on drug therapy? A systematic review

PURPOSE

The need for drug-related safety warnings is undisputed, and their impact should also be evaluated. This systematic review investigates and assesses the impact of safety warnings on drug therapy.

METHODS

Studies published in English between January 1998 and December 2018 were searched in EMBASE and MEDLINE, complemented by manual search. Randomised controlled trials, cohort studies with a before/after component, and case-control studies were included, selected to predefined criteria, and assessed for their reporting and methodological quality.

RESULTS

Out of 7454 references identified, 72 studies were included. A total of 28/72 (39%) studies described the impact of safety warnings on drug therapy as being effective, whereas 12/72 (17%) studies did not. Further, 26/72 (36%) studies described a partial implementation of the warnings (one part of the warning had an impact on drug therapy and another did not). Unintended effects were investigated in 6/72 (8%) studies. While 34 (47%) studies examined safety warnings on psychotropic drugs using an interrupted time series (ITS) design (53%), a before/after (26%), and a time series design (21%), 38 (53%) studied other substances using an ITS design (34%), a before/after (40%), and a time series design (26%). The proportion of an effective impact on drug therapy was lower in the "psychotropic drugs" group (23%) than in the "others" group (53%).

CONCLUSION

Drug-related safety warnings induce intended and unintended effects. The included studies are of broadly varying methodological quality. To better compare their effectiveness, studies should be conducted using standardised procedures.

Measuring the impact of medicines regulatory interventions - Systematic review and methodological considerations

AIMS

Evaluating the public health impact of regulatory interventions is important but there is currently no common methodological approach to guide this evaluation. This systematic review provides a descriptive overview of the analytical methods for impact research.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for articles with an empirical analysis evaluating the impact of European Union or non-European Union regulatory actions to safeguard public health published until March 2017. References from systematic reviews and articles from other known sources were added. Regulatory interventions, data sources, outcomes of interest, methodology and key findings were extracted.

RESULTS

From 1246 screened articles, 229 were eligible for full-text review and 153 articles in English language were included in the descriptive analysis. Over a third of articles studied analgesics and antidepressants. Interventions most frequently evaluated are regulatory safety communications (28.8%), black box warnings (23.5%) and direct healthcare professional communications (10.5%); 55% of studies measured changes in drug utilization patterns, 27% evaluated health outcomes, and 18% targeted knowledge, behaviour or changes in clinical practice. Unintended consequences like switching therapies or spill-over effects were rarely evaluated. Two-thirds used before-after time series and 15.7% before-after cross-sectional study designs. Various analytical approaches were applied including interrupted time series regression (31.4%), simple descriptive analysis (28.8%) and descriptive analysis with significance tests (23.5%).

CONCLUSION

Whilst impact evaluation of pharmacovigilance and product-specific regulatory interventions is increasing, the marked heterogeneity in study conduct and reporting highlights the need for scientific guidance to ensure robust methodologies are applied and systematic dissemination of results occurs.