Communicating information concerning potential medication harms and benefits: What gist do numbers convey?

Verbal Descriptors of the Frequency of Side Effects: Implementation of EMA Recommendations in Patient Information Leaflets in Poland

Background

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) recommends a description of drug side effects based on the frequency format and the associated verbal description. Although the recommendations refer to English-speaking countries, in several non-English speaking states, official authorities have accepted the proposed recommendations on how the patient information leaflets should be designed for descriptions of side effect frequencies. The aim of the study was to examine how manufacturers of authorized medicines in Poland implement the EMA recommendations regarding the verbal descriptors of the frequency of side effects.

Methods

A qualitative study. As a first step, we identified which of the 150 pharmaceutical companies operating in Poland had the largest market share. Then, five manufacturers were selected at random from the list of the top fifteen drug manufacturers in Poland by market share of the pharmaceutical sector. Lists of medicinal products authorized for marketing in Poland were downloaded from manufacturers’ websites, and then five products from each manufacturer were selected based on random sampling. The study included only prescription medicines and excluded over-the-counter medicines and dietary supplements from the sample. Subsequently, for each of the 25 drugs relevant patient information leaflets were obtained from the manufacturers’ websites. We evaluated how information on the frequency of side effects was provided in each leaflet, including the use of EU-recommended terms (verbal descriptors such as "very common," "common," "uncommon," "rare," "very rare") and additional notes explaining their meanings.

Results

For all manufacturers, word labels of the frequencies of side effects selected for the study were the same but the additional notes explaining their meanings were different. There were various explanations of how to understand verbal descriptors of the frequency of side effects not only across different manufacturers but also across different medicines from one manufacturer.

Conclusions

There is no single standard in the Polish pharmaceutical industry for implementing the EMA recommendations into the written information about the frequency of side effects. The observed differences for an explanation of how to understand a given verbal term do not favor a uniform interpretation of the verbal frequency labels meaning by patients.

Rates and predictors of methotrexate-related adverse events in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis: results from a nationwide UK study

OBJECTIVES

To estimate prevalence rates and identify baseline predictors of adverse events (AEs) over the first year of treatment in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) starting methotrexate (MTX).

METHODS

Data came from the UK Rheumatoid Arthritis Medication Study (RAMS), a prospective cohort of patients with RA starting MTX. This analysis included patients aged ≥ 18 years with physician diagnosed RA and symptom duration ≤ two years, who were commencing MTX for the first time. AEs were recorded by interviewing patients at six- and twelve-month follow-up visits. The period prevalence rates of AEs are reported for 0-6 months, 6-12 months, and 0-12 months of follow-up. The associations between baseline characteristics and AEs were assessed using multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

A total of 1069 patients were included in the analysis. Overall, 77.5% experienced at least one AE. The most commonly reported AEs were: gastrointestinal (42.0%), neurological (28.6%), mucocutaneous (26.0%), pulmonary (20.9%), elevated alanine transaminase (18.0%) and haematologic AEs (5.6%).Factors associated with increased odds of AEs were: women vs men (gastrointestinal, mucocutaneous, neurological), and alcohol consumption (nausea, alopecia, mucocutaneous). Older age, higher estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate (eGFR), and alcohol consumption were associated with less reporting of haematologic AEs.

CONCLUSIONS

AEs were common among patients over the first year of MTX, although most were not serious. Knowledge of the rates and factors associated with AEs occurrence are valuable when communicating risks prior to commencing MTX. This can help patients make informed decisions whether to start MTX, potentially increasing adherence to treatment.

Statements considering intervention effects in Finnish clinical practice guidelines: Recommending interventions with non-numeric effect-sizes or unspecified outcomes

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Representation of benefits and harms associated with specific interventions in an understandable and comparable way is crucial for informed decision making that clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) aim to enhance. Therefore, we investigated how statements concerning the effects of interventions considered and described benefits and harms, magnitude of effect and its uncertainty, numeric and non-numeric information, and outcomes in Finnish CPGs.

METHODS

We selected 10 CPGs on common diseases and risk factors published by The Finnish Medical Society, Duodecim. All the statements which were graded with the level of evidence from high to very low (levels A-D) were included in analyses. From these statements, assessments were made regarding whether the statement considered benefits or harms, whether relative or absolute numeric measures were shown, whether the statement supported or was against the intervention considered, and what outcome was reported.

RESULTS

Of the 10 CPGs, 448 statements were assessed. Most of the statements of effects considered intervention benefits (87%) rather than harms. Half of the statements considering harms were represented in a way that supported the intervention. Most of the statements (94%) did not include numeric estimates of magnitude of the effect. When numeric estimates of magnitude of the effect were present, they were most frequently relative measures and were typically placed in a statement considering (a) intervention benefits with a primary outcome, (b) given the grade of A for level of evidence, and (c) that supported the use of intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

In the Finnish CPGs, the statements were rarely framed with both absolute and relative numeric measures of an intervention's effect. Harms were rarely reported with a grade indicating the level of evidence. The users of CPGs would benefit from more consistent and understandable framing of statements considering both benefits and harms of interventions.

Development, piloting, and evaluation of an evidence-based informed consent form for total knee arthroplasty (EvAb-Pilot): a protocol for a mixed methods study

BACKGROUND

Practitioners frequently use informed consent forms to support the physician-patient communication and the informed consent process. Informed consent for surgery often focuses on risk centered information due to high liability risks for treatment errors. This may affect patients' anxiety of adverse events and the nocebo effect. This study focuses on the optimization of pre-surgical information on risks and complications, and at the same time reconciles these information with legal requirements.

METHODS

The development, piloting, and evaluation of evidence-based informed consent forms for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and related anesthesia procedures will follow the UK MRC Framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions. Conducting different sub-studies, we will (I) qualitatively explore the information acquisition and decision-making processes, (II) develop and pilot test evidence-based informed consent forms on the example of TKA and related anesthesia procedures, (III) conduct a monocentric interrupted time series (ITS) pilot study to evaluate the effects of evidence-based informed consent forms in comparison with standard consent forms, and (IV) perform a process evaluation to identify barriers and facilitators to the implementation of the intervention and to analyze mechanisms of impact.

DISCUSSION

The evidence-based and understandable presentation of risks in informed consent forms aims at avoiding distorted risk depiction and strengthening the patients' competencies to correctly assess the risks of undergoing surgery. This might reduce negative expectations and anxiety of adverse events, which in turn might reduce the nocebo effect. At the same time, the practitioners' acceptance of evidence-based informed consent forms meeting legal requirements could be increased.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04669483 . Registered 15 December 2020. German Clinical Trials Registry, DRKS00022571 . Registered 15 December 2020.

The Unintended Consequences of Adverse Event Information on Medicines' Risks and Label Content

Patients and prescribers need to be aware of adverse drug events to minimize the risk of their occurrence and the severity with which they appear. However, numerous studies show that being informed about adverse events can increase the possibility of suffering from them. Patients tend to overestimate the likelihood of experiencing the adverse events included in the label, and this can contribute to worsening the negative expectations which are at the root of the nocebo effect. In fact, patients can become anxious after reading the undesirable effects section of the leaflet and, in addition to suffering from the nocebo effect, might not take a drug they could benefit from due to the fear of experiencing adverse events. In addition, patients' attention can focus towards non-specific symptoms of daily living that can be misattributed to the drug and included in the labelling. This article proposes a number of suggestions to reduce the abovementioned unintended effects associated with labelling, namely, an increased focus on the excess risk of experiencing adverse events rather than crude incidence, using attribute framing to help patients to better understand the risk of experiencing adverse events, dividing the undesirable effect section of the leaflet into subsections according to the level of evidence supporting causal relationships and, finally, restricting the addition of non-specific adverse events that are also symptoms of daily living to only those where there is enough evidence to show they have been caused by the drug. More studies on how to minimize the nocebo effect induced by adverse event information should be performed, and these should be done in collaboration with health authorities, to reach a shared consensus on how to better present adverse event information in the label.

Communicating Uncertainty in Written Consumer Health Information to the Public: Parallel-Group, Web-Based Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Uncertainty is integral to evidence-informed decision making and is of particular importance for preference-sensitive decisions. Communicating uncertainty to patients and the public has long been identified as a goal in the informed and shared decision-making movement. Despite this, there is little quantitative research on how uncertainty in health information is perceived by readers.

Objective

The aim of this study was to examine the impact of different uncertainty descriptions regarding the evidence for a treatment effect in a written research summary for the public.

Methods

We developed 8 versions of a research summary on a fictitious drug for tinnitus with varying degrees (Q1), sources (Q2), and magnitudes of uncertainty (Q3). We recruited 2099 members of the German public from a web-based research panel. Of these, 1727 fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were randomly presented with one of these research summaries. Randomization was conducted by using a centralized computer with a random number generator. Web-based recruitment and data collection were fully automated. Participants were not aware of the purpose of the study and alternative presentations. We measured the following outcomes: perception of the treatment effectiveness (primary), certainty in the judgement of treatment effectiveness, perception of the body of evidence, text quality, and intended decision. The outcomes were self-assessed.

Results

For the primary outcome, we did not find a global effect for Q1 and Q2 (P=.25 and P=.73), but we found a global effect for Q3 (P=.048). Pairwise comparisons showed a weaker perception of treatment effectiveness for the research summary with 3 sources of uncertainty compared to the version with 2 sources of uncertainty (P=.04). Specifically, the proportion of the participants in the group with 3 sources of uncertainty that perceived the drug as possibly beneficial was 9% lower than that of the participants in the group with 2 sources of uncertainty (92/195, 47.2% vs 111/197, 56.3%, respectively). The proportion of the participants in the group with 3 sources of uncertainty that considered the drug to be of unclear benefit was 8% higher than that of the participants in the group with 2 sources of uncertainty (72/195, 36.9% vs 57/197, 28.9%, respectively). However, there was no significant difference compared to the version with 1 source of uncertainty (P=.31). We did not find any meaningful differences between the research summaries for the secondary outcomes.

Conclusions

Communicating even a large magnitude of uncertainty for a treatment effect had little impact on the perceived effectiveness. Efforts to improve public understanding of research are needed to improve the understanding of evidence-based health information.

Trial Registration

German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00015911, https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00015911

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

RR2-10.2196/13425

The effect of tailored consumer medicine information on patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A randomised controlled interventional study

INTRODUCTION

In patients with diabetes, better health communication is associated with better health outcomes including medication adherence and glycaemic control. The conventional patient information leaflet does not consider the cultural and behavioral perspectives of diverse patient populations. Consumer medicine information (CMI) is a written information about the prescription drugs developed by organisations or individuals other than a drug manufacturer that is intended for distribution to consumers at the time of medication dispensing.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the impact of CMI on medication adherence and glycaemic control among patients with type 2 diabetes in Qatar.

METHODS

We developed and customised CMI for all the anti-diabetic medications used in Qatar. A randomised controlled trial in which the intervention group patients (n = 66) received the customised CMI with usual care, while the control group patients (n = 74) received usual care only, was conducted. Self-reported medication adherence and haemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c ) were the primary outcome measures. Glycaemic control and medication adherence parameters were measured at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months in both groups. Medication adherence was measured using the 8-item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS-8).

RESULTS

Although the addition of CMI resulted in better glycaemic control, this did not reach statistical significance, possibly because of the short-term follow-up. The median MMAS-8 score improved from baseline (6.6 [IQR = 1.5]) to 6-month follow-up (7.0 [IQR = 1.00]) in the intervention group. In addition, there was a statistically significant difference between the intervention and the control groups in terms of MMAS-8 score at the third visit (7.0 [IQR = 1.0]) vs 6.5 (IQR = 1.25; P-value = .010).

CONCLUSION

CMI for anti-diabetic medications when added to usual care has the potential to improve medication adherence and glycaemic control among patients with type 2 diabetes. Therefore, providing better health communication and CMI to patients with diabetes is recommended.

A systematic review of factors associated with side-effect expectations from medical interventions

BACKGROUND

Fear of side-effects can result in non-adherence to medical interventions, such as medication and chemotherapy. Side-effect expectations have been identified as strong predictors of later perception of side-effects. However, research investigating predictors of side-effect expectations is disparate.

OBJECTIVE

To identify factors associated with side-effect expectations.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We systematically searched Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, Global Health, PsycARTICLES, PsycINFO, Web of Science and Scopus.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

Studies were included if they investigated associations between any predictive factor and expectations of side-effects from any medical intervention.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

We extracted information about participant characteristics, medication, rates of side-effects expected and predictors of side-effect expectations. Data were narratively synthesized.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified sixty-four citations, reporting on seventy-two studies. Predictors fell into five categories: personal characteristics, clinical characteristics, psychological traits and state, presentation format of information, and information sources used. Using verbal risk descriptors (eg 'common') compared to numerical descriptors (eg percentages), having lower quality of life or well-being, and currently experiencing symptoms were associated with increased side-effect expectations.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Decreasing unrealistic side-effect expectations may lead to decreased experience of side-effects and increased adherence to medical interventions. Widespread communications about medical interventions should describe the incidence of side-effects numerically. Evidence suggests that clinicians should take particular care with patients with lower quality of life, who are currently experiencing symptoms and who have previously experienced symptoms from treatment. Further research should investigate different clinical populations and aim to quantify the impact of the media and social media on side-effect expectations.

Nocebo effects of a simplified package leaflet compared to unstandardised oral information and a standard package leaflet: a pilot randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The term "nocebo effect" describes the phenomenon that the mere knowledge and anticipation of possible negative consequences of an intervention can increase the probability of experiencing these consequences. Our objective was to assess whether different information presentations on adverse events (AEs) in package information leaflets (PILs) could influence the nocebo effect.

METHODS

We included patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery in this pilot randomised controlled trial (pRCT). Patients were assigned by random, computerised and centralised allocation to one of three groups: Simplified-PIL, No-PIL or Standard-PIL on ibuprofen. The Simplified-PIL was written in plain language, and AEs were reported with a focus on avoiding biased risk perception. Only the outcome assessment was blinded.

RESULTS

We included 35, 33 and 34 patients in the Simplified-PIL, No-PIL and Standard-PIL groups, respectively. All patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Six patients in the Simplified-PIL, four in the No-PIL and eight in the Standard-PIL group reported an AE. This corresponds to relative risks of 0.80 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27-1.90) for the Simplified-PIL and 0.50 (95% CI 0.14-1.46) for the No-PIL compared with the Standard-PIL group. The Simplified-PIL increased knowledge, reduced anxiety and improved adherence, although statistical uncertainty was high for all of these outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

This pRCT provides the first hints on the way information on AEs is reported in PILs can affect the nocebo effect. This pRCT shows that a definitive RCT is feasible. If the results are confirmed in a definitive large RCT, a revision of the current practice for designing PILs should be considered.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03428035. Registered 2 February 2018.

Communicating risk of medication side-effects: role of communication format on risk perception

Background:

Medication side-effects often arouse fear in the minds of consumers and therefore need to be communicated in a manner such that the intended message is clearly understood, without causing undue fear.

Objectives:

Considering the message format and contextual factors that influence perceptions of risk, this study aimed at assessing the interaction effects of message format and contextual factors (rate of occurrence and severity) on risk perception of medication side-effects.

Methods:

Using Rhormann’s risk communication process model, a 2 (message format: words-only vs. words + numeric) X 2 (rate of occurrence: high vs low) X 2 (severity: mild vs severe) experimental factorial study was designed. Participants were presented with four of eight possible combinations of the three factors and were asked to indicate the risk perception with the associated side-effects. Repeated measures analysis was conducted while adjusting for control variables.

Results:

A total of 196 completed surveys were collected. Communication format did not have significant main effect on risk perception (P=0.4237) but demonstrated a significant interaction with rate of occurrence (P=0.0001). As compared to words-only format, least square means for words + numeric format were lower among low-rate side-effects but were higher among high-rate side-effects. Rate of occurrence (P<0.0001) and severity (P<0.0001) had significant main effects on risk perception as well as interaction effect with each other (P<0.0001).

Conclusions:

The results indicated that effect of communication format on risk perception of side-effect is dependent on the underlying rate of occurrence of side-effect. Healthcare providers should therefore carefully construct risk communication messages for effective communication with patients.

The effect of counseling on willingness to use a hypothetical medication and perceptions of medication safety

BACKGROUND

Poor medication adherence is an ongoing issue, and contributes to increased hospitalizations and healthcare costs. Although most adverse effects are rare, the perceived risk of adverse effects may contribute to low adherence rates.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to determine how adverse effect likelihood and pharmacist counseling on adverse effect prevention affects individuals': (1) willingness to use a hypothetical medication and (2) perceptions of medication safety.

METHODS

This study used a 3 × 3 experimental design. Participants (n = 601) viewed a hypothetical scenario asking them to imagine being prescribed an anti-asthma medication that could cause fungal infections of the throat. Participants were randomized to 1 of 9 scenarios that differed on: probability of developing an infection (5%, 20%, no probability mentioned) and whether they were told how to reduce the risk of infection (no prevention strategy discussed, prevention strategy discussed, prevention strategy discussed with explanation for how it works). Participants were recruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk.

RESULTS

Participants were less willing to take the medication (F = 12.86, p < 0.0001) and considered it less safe (F = 13.11, p < 0.0001) when the probability of fungal infection was presented as 20% compared to 5% or when no probability information was given. Participants were more willing to take the medication (F = 11.78, p < 0.0001) and considered it safer (F = 11.17, p < 0.0001) when a prevention strategy was given. Finally, there was a non-statistically significant interaction between the probability and prevention strategy information such that provision of prevention information reduced the effect of variation in the probability of infection on both willingness to use the medication and perceived medication safety.

CONCLUSIONS

Optimal risk communication involves more than informing patients about possible adverse effects. Pharmacists could potentially improve patient acceptance of therapeutic recommendations, and allay medication safety concerns, by counseling about strategies patients can implement to reduce the perceived risk of adverse effects.

Medication Risk Communication in Rheumatology: Where Are We and Where Do We Go from Here?

This paper reviews findings from recent research examining issues related to the risk communication process within the context of rheumatologic conditions. Five specific questions are addressed. First, to what extent do patients with rheumatic disorders exhibit adequate knowledge relevant to disease and medication risks and risk management? Second, what sources do patients use when attempting to find information about disease and medication risks and risk management? Third, what types of information about disease and medication risks and risk management do rheumatologists provide during routine office visits. Fourth, what governmental regulations attempt to increase consumer access to information about medication risks and risk management? Finally, what other educational resources are available to facilitate patient-provider communication concerning disease and medication risks and risk management? The findings reported identify gaps in patient knowledge concerning medication risks and risk management, highlight areas for improvement, and identify resources that may enhance medication risk communication.