Communication of anticancer drug benefits and related uncertainties to patients and clinicians: document analysis of regulated information on prescription drugs in Europe

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the frequency with which relevant and accurate information about the benefits and related uncertainties of anticancer drugs are communicated to patients and clinicians in regulated information sources in Europe.

DESIGN

Document content analysis.

SETTING

European Medicines Agency.

PARTICIPANTS

Anticancer drugs granted a first marketing authorisation by the European Medicines Agency, 2017-19.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Whether written information on a product addressed patients' commonly asked questions about: who and what the drug is used for; how the drug was studied; types of drug benefit expected; and the extent of weak, uncertain, or missing evidence for drug benefits. Information on drug benefits in written sources for clinicians (summaries of product characteristics), patients (patient information leaflets), and the public (public summaries) was compared with information reported in regulatory assessment documents (European public assessment reports).

RESULTS

29 anticancer drugs that received a first marketing authorisation for 32 separate cancer indications in 2017-19 were included. General information about the drug (including information on approved indications and how the drug works) was frequently reported across regulated information sources aimed at both clinicians and patients. Nearly all summaries of product characteristics communicated full information to clinicians about the number and design of the main studies, the control arm (if any), study sample size, and primary measures of drug benefit. None of the patient information leaflets communicated information to patients about how drugs were studied. 31 (97%) summaries of product characteristics and 25 (78%) public summaries contained information about drug benefits that was accurate and consistent with information in regulatory assessment documents. The presence or absence of evidence that a drug extended survival was reported in 23 (72%) summaries of product characteristics and four (13%) public summaries. None of the patient information leaflets communicated information about the drug benefits that patients might expect based on study findings. Scientific concerns about the reliability of evidence on drug benefits, which were raised by European regulatory assessors for almost all drugs in the study sample, were rarely communicated to clinicians, patients, or the public.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this study highlight the need to improve the communication of the benefits and related uncertainties of anticancer drugs in regulated information sources in Europe to support evidence informed decision making by patients and their clinicians.

Experiences and Views of Medicine Information Among the General Public in Thailand

PURPOSE

Written and electronic medicine information are important for improving patient knowledge and safe use of medicines. Written medicine information in Thailand is mostly in the form of printed package inserts (PIs), designed for health professionals, with few medicines having patient information leaflets (PILs). The aim of this study was to determine practices, needs and expectations of Thai general public about written and electronic medicine information and attitudes towards PILs.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Cross-sectional survey, using self-completed questionnaires, was distributed directly to members of the general public in a large city, during January to March 2019. It explored experiences of using information, expectations, needs and attitudes, the latter measured using a 10-item scale. Differences between sub-groups were assessed, applying the Bonferroni correction to determine statistical significance.

RESULTS

Of the total 851 questionnaires distributed, 550 were returned (64.2%). The majority of respondents (88%) had received PIs, but only a quarter (26.2%) had received PILs. Most respondents (78.5%) had seen medicine information in online form. High educational level and income increased the likelihood of receiving PILs and electronic information. The majority of respondents (88.5%) perceived PILs as useful, but 70% considered they would still need information about medicines from health professionals. Indication, drug name and precautions were the most frequently read information in PIs and perceived as needed in PILs. Three-quarters of respondents would read electronic information if it were available, with more who had received a PIL having previously searched for such information compared to those who had not. All respondents had positive overall attitudes towards PILs.

CONCLUSION

Experiences of receiving PILs and electronic medicine information in Thailand are relatively limited. However, the general public considered PILs as a useful source of medicine information. Electronic medicine information was desired and should be developed to be an additional source of information for consumers.

The possible harms of statins: What do product labels, patient package inserts, and pharmacy leaflets tell us?

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the degree to which health care professionals and patients receive consistent messages regarding the possible harms of statins.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study of prescribing information (PI), patient package inserts (PPIs), and pharmacy leaflets for 8 statins approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Adminstration.

SETTING

Not applicable.

PARTICIPANTS

Not applicable.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

All passages describing 7 adverse events (diarrhea, arthralgia, dyspepsia, confusion, memory loss, rhabdomyolysis, and kidney failure) were extracted from PIs, PPIs, and pharmacy leaflets. For each type of information source and adverse event (drug-harm pair), 2 reviewers independently judged passages as indicating either a confirmed, unconfirmed, or mixed causal relationship between statin and adverse event (drug-harm pair). Disagreements were resolved through consensus, and the consistency between information sources was calculated.

RESULTS

PI and PPI consistently conveyed the relationship between a given statin and given adverse event (either both "confirmed" or both "unconfirmed") in 12 of 17 evaluable drug-harm pairs. PPIs and pharmacy leaflets were consistent in 10 of 10 evaluable drug-harm pairs. PIs indicated a confirmed, causal relationship in 15 drug-harm pairs that were not mentioned in pharmacy leaflets. Likewise, PPIs indicated a confirmed, causal relationship in 7 drug-harm pairs that were not listed in pharmacy leaflets.

CONCLUSION

Despite the widespread use of statins, we discovered considerable ambiguity in language used to describe the evidence concerning their possible harms and variable consistency between PIs, PPIs, and pharmacy leaflets. Further study is needed to understand the reason why pharmacy leaflets did not list, in 15 cases, adverse events that PIs indicated were causally related to the statin.

Development and evaluation of user-tested Thai patient information leaflets for non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: Effect on patients' knowledge

INTRODUCTION

Thai patients do not routinely receive patient information leaflets (PILs) with medicines, so awareness of safety issues is low. This study aimed: i) to develop Thai PILs for NSAIDs and subject these to user-testing, and ii) to assess the potential value of PILs from the patient perspective and effect on patient knowledge.

METHODS

Four PILs for NSAIDs were developed and subjected to multiple rounds of user-testing by the general public. Self-administered questionnaires were distributed to orthopaedic out-patients prescribed one of these NSAIDs, assessing knowledge before and after providing a PIL. The follow-up questionnaire also sought use of and views on the PILs using a visual analogue scale (VAS).

RESULTS

1,240 baseline questionnaires were completed; only 13.5% of patients had good knowledge. 688 patients returned follow-up questionnaires (55.5%), of whom75% had good knowledge. In patients completing both questionnaires, mean knowledge score increased from 6.22±1.40 to 8.42±1.41 (p<0.001). Patients with high educational levels had high baseline scores (OR = 2.728) and showed greatest improvement in knowledge (OR = 5.628). 90% (625) of follow-up respondents indicated they read all information in the PILs. All also agreed that these PILs should distributed to all patients taking NSAIDs. The median VAS score for usefulness was 9.3 (IQR 8.6-10.0).

CONCLUSIONS

User-testing of PILs was feasible in a Thai population and enabled the development of acceptable and desirable PILs. PILs could improve patients' knowledge about their medicine, particularly among those with higher educational level. User-tested PILS could meet the need for more written medicine information.

Readability and Comprehensibility of Patient Information Leaflets for Antidiabetic Medications in Qatar

Background:The readability and comprehensibility of the patient information leaflets (PILs) provided with antidiabetic medications are of questionable standards; this issue negatively affects adherence to drug therapy, especially in patients with limited literacy skills. Objective: To evaluate the readability and comprehensibility of PILs supplied with medications used for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in Qatar. Methods: All PILs of the antidiabetic medications in Qatar were evaluated using the Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) score for readability. The Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Gunning-Fog Index, and SMOG Grading were used to estimate the comprehensibility of PILs in terms of school grade levels. Results: A total of 45 PILs were evaluated: 32 (71.1%) PILs of brand-name products and 13 (28.9%) for generics. Nine (20%) of the PILs were in English only; 8 (17.8%) were in English, Arabic, and French; and 28 (62.2%) were in English and Arabic. The mean FRE score was 37.71 (±15.85), and the most readable PIL had FRE score of 62. The mean scores for the comprehensibility evaluations were 10.96 (±2.67), 15.02 (±2.52), and 11.41 (±1.6) for the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Gunning-Fog Index, and SMOG Grading, respectively. The most commonly used antidiabetic medication was metformin with 1372.9 (±552.9) as PILs' mean number of words. Conclusion: Only 2.2% of PILs had acceptable readability scores. All PILs could be comprehended by at least an 11th grade student, which exceeds the recommended grade level for health-related materials. Approximately 20% of these PILs were in English only and were not readable by most patients.

Providing additional information about the benefits of statins in a leaflet for patients with coronary heart disease: a qualitative study of the impact on attitudes and beliefs

OBJECTIVE

To explore the impact of providing additional information about the potential benefits of simvastatin in a patient leaflet on attitudes and beliefs.

DESIGN

Interview-based study using a generic qualitative approach and framework analysis.

PARTICIPANTS

21 participants receiving a prescription for simvastatin were recruited from a general practitioner practice (from a total of 120). 8 participants were women; the age range was 55-92.

INTERVENTION

Participants were provided with leaflets showing one of 3 types of additional benefit information: (1) textual statement, (2) number needed to treat (NNT) or (3) natural frequency. Semistructured interviews explored patient's attitudes and beliefs.

RESULTS

A descriptive narrative of preferences for format suggested patients prefer textual as opposed to numerical benefit information. Significant barriers to the acceptance of numerical benefit information included difficulty in understanding the numbers. Patients overestimated the benefits of statins and expressed surprise at the numerical information.

CONCLUSIONS

Textual information was preferred but numerical information, in particular in the form of a natural frequency, may help patients make judgements about their medicines. NNTs were found to be very difficult to understand. This raises the prospect that some patients might reject medicines because of disappointment with the perceived low benefits of their medicines. The self-reported impact on behaviour appeared minimal with reports of intentions to 'do what the doctor tells me'. Further research is needed to explore the impact of such statements on people who are yet to be prescribed a statin.

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

OBJECTIVES

Fuzzy trace theory was used to examine the effect of information concerning medication benefits and side-effects on willingness to use a hypothetical medication.

METHODS

Participants (N=999) were recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk. Using 3×5 experimental research design, each participant viewed information about medication side effects in 1 of 3 formats and information about medication benefits in 1 of 5 formats. For both side-effects and benefits, one format presented only non-numeric information and the remaining formats presented numeric information.

RESULTS

Individuals in the non-numeric side-effect condition were less likely to take the medication than those in the numeric conditions (p<0.0001). In contrast, individuals in the non-numeric benefit condition were more likely to take the medication than those in the numeric conditions (p<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that non-numeric side-effect information conveys the gist that the medication can cause harm, decreasing willingness to use the medication; whereas non-numeric benefit information has the opposite effect.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Presenting side-effect and benefit information in non-numeric format appears to bias decision-making in opposite directions. Providing numeric information for both benefits and side-effects may enhance decision-making. However, providing numeric benefit information may decrease adherence, creating ethical dilemmas for providers.

Adherence to antiplatelet treatment with P2Y12 receptor inhibitors. Is there anything we can do to improve it? A systematic review of randomized trials

Antiplatelet therapy is the cornerstone of treatment for patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and/or undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions. Non-adherence to medication after ACS may lead to increased morbidity, mortality, and costs to the healthcare system due to elevated risk of stent thrombosis, myocardial infarction or death. Medication adherence is an issue of growing concern regarding the improvement of health system performance. Promoting medication adherence offers a rare opportunity to simultaneously improve health outcomes while reducing costs of treatment in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). The aim of this systematic review was to critically discuss adherence to antiplatelet treatment with P2Y12 receptor inhibitors in CAD patients. After a systematic investigation of the literature in databases including PubMed, CENTRAL and Google Scholar, using appropriate keywords, and considering clinical randomized, prospective observational and retrospective studies, reporting on adherence to treatment with inhibitors of P2Y12 platelet receptors or educational interventions aimed to improve medication adherence in patients with CAD, seven articles were considered eligible for inclusion in this systematic review. Reported adherence to clopidogrel, despite catastrophic consequences of its premature discontinuation, is low. We identified several determinants of low adherence and early discontinuation of clopidogrel. We also present data on the usefulness, utilization and credibility of different methods of medication adherence assessment, and suggest and critically discuss available interventions aimed at improvement of adherence to clopidogrel, still showing the need for innovative approaches to achieve enhanced medication adherence and improve health outcomes after acute myocardial infarction.

How much information about the benefits of medicines is included in patient leaflets in the European Union? – A survey

Introduction

Patient information leaflets (PILs) are required with all licensed medicines throughout the European Union (EU) and they must include information about all side effects and their likelihood. This has led to criticism of a lack of balance, with little information included about potential benefits. Recent European Medicines Agency guidance proposed the inclusion of benefit information, and this study examined the current prevalence and type of such information in PILs in the EU.

Methods

A survey and content analysis of the English translation of PILs in the EUwas carried out. Random quota sampling was used on the most frequently dispensed (n = 50) and newly licensed medicines (n = 50) in 2011/2. Leaflets were searched for benefit information meeting predefined criteria, and data synthesised and categorised into 10 categories.

Results

Eighty-five (85%) leaflets described how the medicine works, with 45 providing information about the rationale for treatment (more commonly for newly licensed (32/50) than most commonly dispensed medicines (13/50; P &lt; 0.001). Nearly half (47) did not describe whether the medicine was curative, symptomatic or preventative. The terms used to communicate uncertainty were imprecise (such as ‘may help’). None communicated numerical benefit information.

Conclusion

Current PILs do not appropriately communicate information about benefit. At the basic level, around a half did not include information about treatment rationale or whether the treatment was to treat symptoms, curative or preventative. However, for true informed decision making, patients need quantitative information about benefits and none of the leaflets provided this.

Consumer interpretation of ramipril and clopidogrel medication risk information - implications for risk communication strategies

PURPOSE

Side effects and side-effect risk information can be provided using written medicine information. However, challenges exist in effectively communicating this information to consumers. This study aimed to explore broad consumer profiles relevant to ramipril and clopidogrel side-effect risk information interpretation.

METHODS

Three focus groups were conducted (n=18 consumers) exploring consumer perspectives, understanding and treatment decision making in response to ramipril and clopidogrel written medicine information leaflets containing side effects and side-effect risk information. All discussions were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed to explore consumer profiles pertaining to side-effect risk appraisal.

RESULTS

Three consumer profiles emerged: glass half-empty, glass half-full, and middle-of-the-road consumers, highlighting the influence of perceived individual susceptibility, interpretation of side-effect risk information, and interindividual differences, on consumers' understanding of side-effect risk information. All profiles emphasized the importance of gaining an understanding of individual side-effect risk when taking medicines.

CONCLUSION

Written side-effect risk information is not interpreted uniformly by consumers. Consumers formulated their own construct of individual susceptibility to side effects. Health care professionals should consider how consumers interpret side-effect risk information and its impact on medication use. Existing risk communication strategies should be evaluated in light of these profiles to determine their effectiveness in conveying information.

Words or numbers? Communicating risk of adverse effects in written consumer health information: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Various types of framing can influence risk perceptions, which may have an impact on treatment decisions and adherence. One way of framing is the use of verbal terms in communicating the probabilities of treatment effects. We systematically reviewed the comparative effects of words versus numbers in communicating the probability of adverse effects to consumers in written health information.

METHODS

Nine electronic databases were searched up to November 2012. Teams of two reviewers independently assessed studies.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

randomised controlled trials; verbal versus numerical presentation; context: written consumer health information.

RESULTS

Ten trials were included. Participants perceived probabilities presented in verbal terms as higher than in numeric terms: commonly used verbal descriptors systematically led to an overestimation of the absolute risk of adverse effects (Range of means: 3% - 54%). Numbers also led to an overestimation of probabilities, but the overestimation was smaller (2% - 20%). The difference in means ranged from 3.8% to 45.9%, with all but one comparison showing significant results. Use of numbers increased satisfaction with the information (MD: 0.48 [CI: 0.32 to 0.63], p < 0.00001, I2 = 0%) and likelihood of medication use (MD for very common side effects: 1.45 [CI: 0.78 to 2.11], p = 0.0001, I2 = 68%; MD for common side effects: 0.90 [CI: 0.61 to 1.19], p < 0.00001, I2 = 1%; MD for rare side effects: 0.39 [0.02 to 0.76], p = 0.04, I2 = not applicable). Outcomes were measured on a 6-point Likert scale, suggesting small to moderate effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Verbal descriptors including "common", "uncommon" and "rare" lead to an overestimation of the probability of adverse effects compared to numerical information, if used as previously suggested by the European Commission. Numbers result in more accurate estimates and increase satisfaction and likelihood of medication use. Our review suggests that providers of consumer health information should quantify treatment effects numerically. Future research should focus on the impact of personal and contextual factors, use representative samples or be conducted in real life settings, measure behavioral outcomes and address whether benefit information can be described verbally.

Pharmacist, general practitioner and consumer use of written medicine information in Australia: are they on the same page?

BACKGROUND

Providing written medicine information to consumers enables them to make informed decisions about their medicines, playing an important role in educating and improving health literacy. In Australia, standardized written medicine information called Consumer Medicine Information (CMI) is available for medicines as package inserts, computer prints, or leaflets. Consumers want and read CMI, but may not always ask for it. General practitioners (GPs) and pharmacists are an important source of written medicine information, yet may not always provide CMI in their practice.

OBJECTIVE

To examine and compare the awareness, use and provision of CMI by consumers, pharmacists and general practitioners (GPs).

METHODS

Based on previous studies, structured questionnaires were developed and administered to a national sample of consumers (phone survey); community pharmacists and GPs (postal surveys) about utilization of CMI. Descriptive, comparative and logistic regression analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

The respondents comprised of 349 pharmacists, 181 GPs and 1000 consumers. Two-thirds of consumers, nearly all (99%) pharmacists and 90% of GPs were aware of CMI. About 88% of consumers reported receiving CMI as a package insert, however most pharmacists (99%) and GPs (56%) reported providing computer-generated CMI. GPs' and pharmacists' main reason for providing CMI was on patient request. Reasons for not providing were predominantly because consumers were already taking the medicine, concerns regarding difficulty understanding the information, or potential non-adherence. Of the 691 consumers reportedly reading CMI, 35% indicated concerns after reading. Factors associated with reading included gender, type of CMI received and frequency of provision.

CONCLUSION

Consumers want and read information about their medicines, especially when received from their GP or pharmacist. Healthcare professionals report usually discussing CMI when providing it to patients, although continued improvements in dissemination rates are desirable. Regular use of CMI remains a challenge, and ongoing strategies to promote CMI use are necessary to improve uptake of CMI in Australia.

European Public Assessment Report (EPAR) summaries for the public: are they fit for purpose? A user-testing study

OBJECTIVES

Apply 'user testing' methodology to test the readability of a European Public Assessment Report (EPAR) summary-which describes how the decision was made by the European Medicines Agency to approve a medicine.

DESIGN

User testing uses mixed methods (questionnaire and semistructured interview), applied iteratively, to assess document performance-can people find and understand key points of information.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Testing was undertaken with 40 members of the public in four consecutive rounds of 10. Inclusion criteria, matched across rounds, included range of ages and educational attainment.

TESTED DOCUMENTS

In round 1 we tested 19 key points of information in a printed version of the EPAR summary for Bondronat (a cancer medicine). This was then revised to address the findings, and tested in round 2. In round 3 we tested the summary on-screen, and in round 4, tested a revised on-screen version, after addressing findings from both rounds 1 and 3.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE

The target followed European guidance for medicine leaflets: for each point of information 90% of participants should be able to find, and of those, 90% able to show understanding of the point.

RESULTS

For the original EPAR summary, 6 of the 19 points of information reached the target (both paper-based and on-screen). After revisions to format and content, using good practice in information writing and design, 14 and 16 points, respectively, met the target. The problems related to both finding (dependent on layout, headings and design) and understanding (words and sentences used, as well as design). We devised a new heading structure, increased use of bullet points, replaced difficult and technical words and divided long sentences.

CONCLUSIONS

People had difficulty finding and understanding key messages in the summary, but user testing identified the problems, and application of good practice resulted in a revised format which performed well.