Unwarranted claims of drug efficacy in pharmaceutical sales visits: are drugs approved on the basis of surrogate outcomes promoted appropriately?

Undergraduate and postgraduate pharmacovigilance education: A proposal for appropriate curriculum content

BACKGROUND

Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are common, often preventable, and a leading cause of morbidity and mortality. Pharmacovigilance (PV) involves detection, assessment, understanding, and prevention of adverse effects or any other drug-related problem. Education of healthcare professionals (HCPs) involved in drug prescription, dispensing and administration is essential to help prevent and mitigate both ADRs and medication errors and has to be focused on 3 pivotal aspects: •Awareness: All medicines can produce adverse effects. ADRs should always be considered as part of the differential diagnosis if any new adverse condition, symptoms or signs appear after a drug administration or during or after pharmacological treatment. •Knowledge: HCPs must have a sound understanding of the most frequently prescribed drugs and over-the-counter medications, factors that make patients more likely to benefit or more susceptible to harm, as well as of causes of medication errors. •Reporting: HCPs should know how to report ADRs and the role of reporting on regulatory aspects and scientific knowledge. Undergraduate curricula must provide, at a minimum, sufficient skills that warrant the appropriate and safe prescription/dispensing/administration of medications in clinical practice, focusing both on therapeutic effects and prevention of harm. Clinical appraisal skills must include ADRs as differential diagnosis, taking accurate medication history, basic individual causality assessment, identification and proper management of ADRs, and informing patients of possible ADRs. Postgraduate periodic PV training should be mandatory as part of continuing education. Specialised postgraduate education should include advanced contents.

Unwarranted claims of drug efficacy in pharmaceutical sales visits: are drugs approved on the basis of surrogate outcomes promoted appropriately?

AIMS

This study compares physicians' recall of the claims of benefits on cardiovascular disease and diabetes made by pharmaceutical sales representatives for drugs approved on the basis of a surrogate outcome, i.e., an off-label claim, compared with those approved on the basis of a serious morbidity or mortality (clinical) outcome.

METHODS

Physicians in primary care practices in Montreal, Vancouver, Sacramento and Toulouse, who saw sales representatives as part of their usual practice and served a non-referral population, were contacted in blocks of 25 from a randomized list of all physicians practising in the relevant metropolitan area. We compared how frequently physicians reported that sales reps made claims of serious morbidity or mortality (clinically meaningful) benefits for drugs approved on the basis of surrogate outcomes vs. drugs approved on the basis of clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

There were 448 promotions for 58 unique brand name cardiovascular and diabetes drugs. Claims of clinically meaningful benefit were reported in 156 (45%) of the 347 promotions for surrogate outcome drugs, constituting unwarranted efficacy claims, i.e., off-label promotion. Claims of clinical benefit were reported in 72 of the 101 promotions (71%) for drugs approved on the basis of clinical outcomes, adjusted OR = 0.3 (95% CI 0.2, 0.6), P < 0.001.

CONCLUSIONS

Claims of efficacy made in sales visit promotions for drugs approved only on the basis of surrogate outcomes extended beyond the regulator-approved efficacy information for the product in almost half of promotions. Unapproved claims of drug efficacy constitute a form of off-label promotion and merit greater attention from regulators.