From prescription-only to over-the-counter medicines ('PoM to P'): time for an intermediate category

Regulation of Drug Prescribing Information in Latin America and the Caribbean

Objective

To describe the status of drug regulations in Latin America and the Caribbean, in force as of May 2021, and assess through a comparative exercise the differences between the countries under scope on prescribing information of drugs for human use.

Materials and Methods

A narrative review allowed the identification of the regulations concerning the prescribing information of drugs in 25 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean for the registration of prescription medications. On this basis, terms and concepts regarding this topic, the general provisions by the regulatory authorities for these products, applications for health registration and further amendments were identified for each country.

Results

The Latin American and the Caribbean countries included, manage and regulate drug prescribing information differently in terms of concepts, information publishing, structure for product information, among other criteria. Few health authorities publish product information on their website. Additionally, the patient information leaflet is not requested for prescription drugs in most of the studied countries. There is no standardized structure for drug product information within the region.

Conclusions

A poor level of harmonization among the regulations from these countries regarding the content and management (e.g. if physical package insert is required or not, if it is subject to notification or approval) of the prescribing information of human use drugs became evident. Also, there is a visible lack of standardization of concepts for referring to a specific document (e.g., package insert for healthcare professionals, patient information leaflet and technical information for the drug product) and in the content itself.

A survey of the views and capabilities of community pharmacists in Western Australia regarding the rescheduling of selected oral antibiotics in a framework of pharmacist prescribing

Background

Antibiotic misuse in the community contributes to antimicrobial resistance. One way to address this may be by better utilizing community pharmacists’ skills in antibiotic prescribing. The aims of this study were to examine the level of support for “down-scheduling” selected antibiotics and to evaluate factors determining the appropriateness of community pharmacist prescribing for a limited range of infections, including their decision to refer to a doctor.

Methods

Self-administered questionnaires, including graded case vignette scenarios simulating real practice, were sent to Western Australian community pharmacists. In addition to descriptive statistics and chi-square testing, a General Estimating Equation (GEE) was used to identify factors associated with appropriateness of therapy and the decision to refer, for each of the seven vignettes.

Results

Of the 240 pharmacists surveyed, 90 (37.5%) responded, yielding 630 responses to seven different case vignettes. There was more than 60% respondent support for expanded prescribing (rescheduling) of commonly prescribed antibiotics. Overall 426/630 (67.6%) chose to treat the patient while the remaining 204/630 (32.4%) referred the patient to a doctor. Of those electing to treat, 380/426 (89.2%) opted to use oral antibiotics, with 293/380 (77.2%) treating with an appropriate selection and regimen. The GEE model indicated that pharmacists were more likely to prescribe inappropriately for conditions such as otitis media (p = 0.0060) and urinary tract infection in pregnancy (p < 0.0001) compared to more complex conditions. Over 80% of all pharmacists would refer the patient to a doctor following no improvement within 3 days, or within 24 h in the case of community acquired pneumonia. It was more common for younger pharmacists to refer the patient to a doctor (p = 0.0165).

Discussion

This study adds further insight into community pharmacy/pharmacist characteristics associated with appropriateness of oral antibiotic selection and the decision to refer to doctors. These findings require consideration in designing pharmacist over-the-counter prescribing models for oral antibiotics.

Self-medication and non-prescription drug counseling: Illustrating profession uncertainty within Turkish pharmacy practice

BACKGROUND

Recommending effective minor ailment treatments and using non-prescription or over-the-counter (OTC) medicines is a pharmacist's duty. Although common in most European countries, self-medication counseling practices may differ from country to country.

OBJECTIVES

This study explored Turkish community pharmacists' attitudes concerning the present self-medication market, professional responsibilities toward patients' self-care, and the usefulness of e-learning for patients' counseling education.

METHODS

The study was comprised of three phases: initially, a document content analysis searched for relevant OTC regulatory and/or practice frameworks; secondly, qualitative individual interviews on self-medication with purposively selected Turkish community pharmacists were performed; finally, a focus group with practitioners and continuing education experts was conducted to deepen previous results. A thematic data analysis, based on the attitudinal theory, was conducted, supported by MAXQDA v12 software.

RESULTS

Sixteen documental sources allowed the extraction of three initial main themes: self-medication, classification of medicines and pharmacists' role. Individual interviews outlined four themes that informed the focus group discussion, which produced four new themes. Themes and their codes reflected dissimilar practitioners' cognitions towards OTCs, OTC usage and self-medication, particularly if compared to other European conceptualizations. Contradictory feelings towards the value of OTCs for professional development, e.g., patient counseling influenced by profit-based expectations, were identified.

CONCLUSION

Turkish community pharmacists and their minor ailments treatment competences have yet to thrive as a relevant professional intervention. There are risks of missing the best pharmacy practice standards, thus losing their contribution to rational self-care. Besides weakening the societal recognition of the profession to help individuals' everyday health decisions and well-being, there might be a reduced active role in public health.

Analysis of licensed over-the-counter (OTC) antibiotics in the European Union and Norway, 2012

Antimicrobial resistance is recognised as a growing problem that seriously threatens public health and requires prompt action. Concerns have therefore been raised about the potential harmful effects of making antibiotics available without prescription. Because of the very serious concerns regarding further spread of resistance, the over-the-counter (OTC) availability of antibiotics was analysed here. Topical and systemic OTC antibiotics and their indications were determined across 26 European Union (EU) countries and Norway by means of a European survey. We identified a total of 48 OTC products containing 20 different single antibiotics and three antibiotic combinations as active substances, used mainly as topical preparations in short treatment courses. Given the relevance of these medicines and the increasing risk of antimicrobial resistance, it is important to limit the availability of OTC antibiotics and to monitor their use.

Why does increasing public access to medicines differ between countries? Qualitative comparison of nine countries

Objective

To identify factors associated with differences between developed countries in reclassifying (switching) medicines from prescription to non-prescription availability.

Methods

Cross-national qualitative research using a heuristic approach in the US, UK, Japan, Australia and New Zealand, supplemented by data from Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands and Singapore. In-depth interviews with 80 key informants (65 interviews) explored and compared factors in terms of barriers and enablers to reclassification of medicines in each country. Document analysis supplemented interview data.

Results

Each country had a unique mix of enablers and barriers to reclassification. Enablers included government policy (particularly in UK), pharmacist-only scheduling (particularly in Australia and New Zealand) and large market size (particularly in the US and Europe). Local barriers included limited market potential in small countries, the cost of a reclassification (particularly in the US), competition from distributors of generic medicines, committee inconsistency and consumer behavior. UK had more enablers than barriers, whereas in Australia the opposite was true.

Conclusions

Different factors limit or enable reclassification, affecting consumer access to medicines in different countries. For countries attempting to reduce barriers to reclassification, solutions may include garnering government support for reclassification, support and flexibility from the medicines regulator, having a pharmacy-only and/or pharmacist-only category, providing market exclusivity, ensuring best practice in pharmacy, and minimizing the cost and delays of reclassification.

Role of community pharmacists in patients' self-care and self-medication

This review highlights the growing prominence of self-care and explores the contribution of community pharmacy. Firstly, background to self-care is discussed, followed by placing self-care in context with regard to the general public and accessing community pharmacy. From this perspective the contribution community pharmacy currently makes is assessed, paying particular attention to the factors that negatively impact on the ability of community pharmacy to facilitate self-care.

Toward standardized reporting of drug interactions: the READI checklist for anecdotal reports

Anecdotal reports contribute 30% of the literature on adverse drug reactions and interactions. However, the quality of such reports has not been uniformly high. Standardized reporting of clinical studies is of increasing interest, including the CARE guidelines on reporting anecdotal cases in general. Although there are guidelines on evaluating and managing drug-drug interactions, there are none recommending methods for reporting suspected drug interactions. Here, based on published guidelines for reporting suspected adverse drug reactions, I propose a checklist for reporting details of suspected drug interactions, the REporting Anecdotal Drug Interactions (READI) checklist, hoping to stimulate discussion and improve reporting of suspected drug interactions. The checklist includes items relating, among others, to the patient affected, the drugs involved, and the outcome.

Widening consumer access to medicines: a comparison of prescription to non-prescription medicine switch in Australia and New Zealand

Background

Despite similarities in health systems and Trans-Tasman Harmonization of medicines scheduling, New Zealand is more active than Australia in ‘switching’ (reclassifying) medicines from prescription to non-prescription.

Objectives

To identify and compare enablers and barriers to switch in New Zealand and Australia.

Methods

We conducted and analyzed 27 in-depth personal interviews with key participants in NZ and Australia and international participants previously located in Australia, and analyzed records of meetings considering switches (2000–2013). Analysis of both sets of data entailed a heuristic qualitative approach that embraced the lead researcher’s knowledge and experience.

Results

The key themes identified were conservatism and political influences in Australia, and an open attitude, proactivity and flexibility in NZ. Pharmacist-only medicine schedules and individuals holding a progressive attitude were proposed to facilitate switch in both countries. A pharmacy retail group drove many switches in NZ (‘third-party switch’), unlike Australia. Barriers to switch in both countries included small market sizes, funding of prescription medicines and cost of doctor visits, and lack of market exclusivity. In Australia, advertising limitations for pharmacist-only medicines reportedly discouraged industry from submitting switch applications. Perceptions of pharmacy performance could help or hinder switches.

Conclusion

Committee and regulator openness to switch, and confidence in pharmacy appear to influence consumer access to medicines. The pharmacist-only medicine schedule in Australasia and the rise of third-party switch and flexibility in switch in NZ could be considered elsewhere to enable switch.

Five years of non-prescription oseltamivir: effects on resistance, immunization and stockpiling

Objectives

In 2007 New Zealand (NZ) became the first country to make oseltamivir (Tamiflu®) available off-prescription. This study investigated the extent of pharmacist supply of oseltamivir over 5 years, including during the influenza A(H1N1) pandemic, and the impact of pharmacist supply of oseltamivir on influenza virus oseltamivir susceptibility, personal stockpiling and influenza vaccine uptake.

Methods

Randomly selected community pharmacies in NZ reported oseltamivir provision by prescription and through pharmacist supply from 1 January 2007 to 15 September 2011. Oseltamivir resistance data on influenza viruses isolated during influenza surveillance from 2008 to 2011 were obtained, along with influenza vaccine uptake data from 2005 to 2011 and influenza detection data.

Results

Seventy of 85 eligible pharmacies completed the study (82% response rate). Most supplies of oseltamivir throughout the 5 years were dispensed against a prescription rather than pharmacist supplied, with pharmacist supply responsible for 11% of supplies during the pandemic years (2009–10) versus 27% and 31% during 2007 and 2008, respectively. Pharmacist-supplied oseltamivir did not appear to be associated with the development of resistance, with identified likely stockpiling or with a decline in influenza immunization. Pharmacist supplies largely matched the timing of influenza in the community and peaked in June 2009, as did prescription supplies.

Conclusions

Five years of non-prescription oseltamivir in NZ has resulted in no significant change in the development of resistance or rates of influenza immunization. Supplies remained modest and significant consumer stockpiling through pharmacist supply has not occurred, even during the influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 pandemic in 2009 and 2010. Pharmacists could be better utilized in ensuring fast distribution of antivirals to influenza sufferers during a pandemic.

A new model of prescription to nonprescription reclassification: the calcipotriol case study

BACKGROUND

Medicines reclassification from prescription to nonprescription (switch) has slowed in some countries, including the United States. New thinking may be necessary to drive this area, including third-party reclassification and better use of the pharmacist, collaborative care, or innovative technologies.

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to describe a recent, successful, third-party reclassification of topical calcipotriol, a treatment for psoriasis, including the process, challenges, and solutions.

METHODS

This case study used multiple sources of information, including an application to the Medicines Classification Committee (MCC) in New Zealand, the response letter from the MCC, published minutes of the relevant MCC meeting, and interview data. A heuristic qualitative approach was used that embraces the involvement and experiences of the lead researcher.

RESULTS

The third-party reclassification of topical calcipotriol generated challenges, mainly due to initial manufacturer opposition. The greatest hurdle was an inability to change the label. However, requiring mandatory pharmacist consultation, with supply under specified conditions, overcame the barriers. Such conditions included supply only to adults with mild to moderate psoriasis, limits on weekly usage and pack size supplied, and the use of a collaborative care approach requiring previous physician diagnosis and advising the physician of usage. An algorithm for supply was developed. The flexibility of the MCC, an advisory committee, and the medicines regulator, both in considering a third-party approach and in allowing an exemption to prescription supply under specific conditions, was vital to the success of the reclassification.

CONCLUSIONS

Third-party reclassification may be possible in some countries, particularly where supply can be limited to pharmacists only. A flexible approach may be needed from the committee and regulator to assist such reclassification. Given the multiple beneficiaries of reclassification, removing reliance on the pharmaceutical companies to drive reclassification and/or using new models of supply may provide impetus to the reclassification arena.