0
Editorials |

Communicating Drug Benefits and Risks Effectively: There Must Be a Better Way FREE

Jerry Avorn, MD; and William H. Shrank, MD, MSHS
[+] Article and Author Information

From Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02120.


Potential Financial Conflicts of Interest:Consultancies: W.H. Shrank (Alosa Foundation). Grants received: J. Avorn, W.H. Shrank (to Brigham and Women's Hospital from the Attorney General Prescriber Education Program and CVS).

Requests for Single Reprints: Jerry Avorn, MD, Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 1620 Tremont Street, Suite 3030, Boston, MA 02120.

Current Author Addresses: Drs. Avorn and Shrank: Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 1620 Tremont Street, Suite 3030, Boston, MA 02120.


Ann Intern Med. 2009;150(8):563-564. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-150-8-200904210-00012
Text Size: A A A

The information that patients receive about the drugs we prescribe for them is in a sorry state. Patients are barraged by direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising in virtually every medium except cell phone ring-tones. In a health care system that rewards quantity over quality, rushed clinical encounters with physicians and pharmacists leave too little time to review drug risks and benefits, not to mention cost. Yet, public sector oversight of medication information has waned along with other federal regulatory activities, with similar unfortunate results. Occurring on the heels of several high-profile drug risk debacles, this problematic mix of overpromotion, undercommunication, and inadequate regulation has left many patients bewildered and mistrustful of the prescriptions we write, contributing to an unhealthy pattern of medication overuse, misuse, and underuse (1).

In this issue, Schwartz and colleagues (2) focus on an especially turbid area of medication information: the user-hostile welter of tiny print found in DTC drug advertisements. Federal law requires manufacturers to include this information along with the more compelling and seductive headlines and photos that promote a drug's benefits. In their current form, these barely legible sections are virtual museums of poor communication: The print is tiny; the prose is usually dull, stiff, and hard to understand; and vital facts are buried in a sea of less relevant data. All in all, these sections seem designed more to satisfy governmental requirements and ward off liability lawyers than to teach patients about the pros and cons of choosing a particular medicine. The format of the information can mask important side effects, as well as—ironically—numb the reader with so many worries that a perfectly worthy treatment may seem too toxic to take. Schwartz and colleagues, who know about far better ways to present complicated facts, designed their own “drug boxes” to replace this microprint overkill. They created new mock-ups of DTC ads for several commonly used drugs: clopidogrel, statins, histamine-2 (H2) antagonists, and proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs). They then performed a randomized, controlled trial to compare the quality of information transfer with conventional DTC ads for these products versus their own more intelligible creations.

The good news was that people assigned to receive the coherently designed drug box ads more accurately understood the benefits and risks of statins and clopidogrel than did those who viewed the information in the current conventional formats. For gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), patients who received the drug box ads were more likely to know that PPIs work better than H2-antagonists for severe chronic GERD.

However, the study raises some important concerns. Respondents shown the innovative ads reported that they were less willing to take the statin or platelet inhibitor advertised, even when one was needed—a worrisome outcome. And although it is true that PPIs are more powerful than H2-antagonists for severe GERD, they do not provide immediate relief, and many patients with milder or sporadic symptoms would probably be better off with the older drugs or a swig of liquid antacid as needed. The study did not address the vital cost component of the risk–benefit–cost triad, because most DTC ads do not mention costs at all. But affordability is a key issue for many patients who cannot afford to pay for their prescriptions. We still need a study exploring the presentation of data on the relative expense of competing alternatives and evaluating the effects of providing such cost information.

Despite these important limitations, Schwartz and colleagues have drawn our attention to the need for more creative thinking about how to communicate drug benefits and risks effectively, and the need to study possible solutions in a methodologically rigorous manner. Currently, DTC advertising consumes about $5 billion per year (as the authors point out, this amount is double the entire budget of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration [FDA]), but it is only one of the many fragmented sources of drug risk–benefit information that patients are exposed to. We need to consider Schwartz and colleagues' study in the context of other data that patients receive (or don't receive) about prescription drugs.

Neither the package inserts nor the container labels offer as much help as they should. Much discussion about drug information for lay people has focused on the package inserts; however, these documents are primarily written for physicians, not patients, and they are rarely inserted in the packages patients actually receive. Another source is the label affixed to the medication bottle. These communicate the name of the pharmacy in large type but vary greatly in their reporting of warnings (3) and instructions (4). When communicating essential safety information, container labels often use a font too small for many patients to read, and they often emphasize information more relevant to the pharmacist than the patient.

The federal government has attempted, with only limited success, to ensure more reliable sources of medication information. In the late 1970s, the FDA sought to implement a bold plan to ensure that patients would receive with each filled prescription a leaflet containing accurate, intelligible, and complete lay-language information (5). That plan was shelved when the Reagan administration took power, on the grounds that educating patients was not a proper role for government. The Reagan administration preferred the private sector to fill the informational void, with the invisible hand of the marketplace ensuring the quality and availability of the content of the leaflets, known as Consumer Medication Information (6).

In this instance, self-regulation appears to have worked no better for drug information than it has for financial instruments. An evaluation in 2003 found that the generally unregulated system of private-sector Consumer Medication Information left many gaps (7); a more recent assessment, which was due in 2006 but not completed until 2008, found that these materials met prespecified quality criteria only about 60% of the time, with legibility and comprehensibility getting the worst scores (8). In 1995, the FDA proposed a plan to ensure that patients receive standardized leaflets, called Medication Guides, for selected drugs believed to have the greatest potential for harm (9). These leaflets also turned out to be difficult for many patients to read (10), and pharmacies often fail to provide them with the prescription, even though it is required by law (3).

With new leadership in Washington, now is a good time to reassess all public sector efforts to ensure accurate, coherent patient drug information so we can maximize the effectiveness and safety of prescription medications. In addition to addressing the various uncoordinated sources of information that patients may or may not receive at the pharmacy, this reappraisal would consider the official “labeling” information document for physicians, the multitude of unregulated privately produced materials handed to patients in drugstores, and—as in the examples studied by Schwartz and colleagues—the flood of DTC information that inundates consumers. Many of us would like to see the end of DTC advertising, which is allowed in nearly no other industrialized country and was not permitted in the United States until 1997. However, for legal reasons, it may be hard to put that genie back in the bottle (11).

If we must live with this torrent of patient-directed drug infomercials, Schwartz and colleagues' study reminds us that we need to come up with more innovative ways of presenting that complex data and monitoring the cognitive effects of these well-intentioned experiments. This reappraisal should not stop with evaluating patient-directed materials. Physicians need to learn about benefit and safety data through sources that are more useful than the tiny-print overkill that now constitutes these official documents (1214). But as the work of Schwartz and colleagues points out, more than reformatting will be needed to create educational materials that guide physicians and patients in the right direction. As lay people and physicians increase their demands for coherent, evidence-based, unbiased drug information, we would all be well served by a comprehensive program to replace our current patchwork of bad communication and excessive promotion with a responsible national system of balanced, evidence-based, and user-friendly drug information.

Jerry Avorn, MD

William H. Shrank, MD, MSHS

Harvard Medical School

Boston, MA 02120

References

Avorn J.  Powerful Medicines: The Benefits, Risks, and Costs of Prescription Drugs. New York: Knopf; 2004.
 
Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Welch HG.  Using a drug facts box to communicate drug benefits and harms. Two randomized trials. Ann Intern Med. 2009; 150:516-27.
 
Shrank WH, Agnew-Blais J, Choudhry NK, Wolf MS, Kesselheim AS, Avorn J. et al.  The variability and quality of medication container labels. Arch Intern Med. 2007; 167:1760-5. PubMed
CrossRef
 
Wolf MS, Shekelle P, Choudhry NK, Agnew-Blais J, Parker RM, Shrank WH.  Variability in pharmacy interpretations of physician prescriptions. Med Care. 2009. PubMed
 
Shrank WH, Avorn J.  Educating patients about their medications: the potential and limitations of written drug information. Health Aff (Millwood). 2007; 26:731-40. PubMed
 
Steering Committee for the Collaborative Development of a Long-Range Action Plan for the Provision of Useful Prescription Medicine Information.  Action plan for the provision of useful prescription medicine information. Report submitted to The Honorable Donna E. Shalala, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, December 1996. Accessed athttp://www.fda.gov/cder/offices/ods/keystone.pdfon 19 February 2009.
 
Svarstad BL, Bultman DC, Mount JK.  Patient counseling provided in community pharmacies: effects of state regulation, pharmacist age, and busyness. J Am Pharm Assoc (2003). 2004; 44:22-9. PubMed
 
Kimberlin CL, Winterstein AG.  Expert and consumer evaluation of consumer medication information. Accessed athttp://www.fda.gov/cder/news/CMI/final_report.pdfon 16 February 2009.
 
Public Law 104-180. Title VI, Sec 601. Effective Medication Guides, 110 Stat 1593. 1996.
 
Wolf MS, Davis TC, Shrank WH, Neuberger M, Parker RM.  A critical review of FDA-approved Medication Guides. Patient Educ Couns. 2006; 62:316-22. PubMed
 
Kesselheim AS, Avorn J.  Pharmaceutical promotion to physicians and First Amendment rights. N Engl J Med. 2008; 358:1727-32. PubMed
 
http://www.RxFacts.org. Accessed 18 February 2009.
 
Hensley S.  As drug bill soars, some doctors get an “unsales” pitch. Wall Street Journal. 2006;13 March:1.
 
Editorial: countering the drug salesmen. New York Times. 2008;20 March. Accessed athttp://www.nytimes.comon 22 February 2009.
 

Figures

Tables

References

Avorn J.  Powerful Medicines: The Benefits, Risks, and Costs of Prescription Drugs. New York: Knopf; 2004.
 
Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Welch HG.  Using a drug facts box to communicate drug benefits and harms. Two randomized trials. Ann Intern Med. 2009; 150:516-27.
 
Shrank WH, Agnew-Blais J, Choudhry NK, Wolf MS, Kesselheim AS, Avorn J. et al.  The variability and quality of medication container labels. Arch Intern Med. 2007; 167:1760-5. PubMed
CrossRef
 
Wolf MS, Shekelle P, Choudhry NK, Agnew-Blais J, Parker RM, Shrank WH.  Variability in pharmacy interpretations of physician prescriptions. Med Care. 2009. PubMed
 
Shrank WH, Avorn J.  Educating patients about their medications: the potential and limitations of written drug information. Health Aff (Millwood). 2007; 26:731-40. PubMed
 
Steering Committee for the Collaborative Development of a Long-Range Action Plan for the Provision of Useful Prescription Medicine Information.  Action plan for the provision of useful prescription medicine information. Report submitted to The Honorable Donna E. Shalala, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, December 1996. Accessed athttp://www.fda.gov/cder/offices/ods/keystone.pdfon 19 February 2009.
 
Svarstad BL, Bultman DC, Mount JK.  Patient counseling provided in community pharmacies: effects of state regulation, pharmacist age, and busyness. J Am Pharm Assoc (2003). 2004; 44:22-9. PubMed
 
Kimberlin CL, Winterstein AG.  Expert and consumer evaluation of consumer medication information. Accessed athttp://www.fda.gov/cder/news/CMI/final_report.pdfon 16 February 2009.
 
Public Law 104-180. Title VI, Sec 601. Effective Medication Guides, 110 Stat 1593. 1996.
 
Wolf MS, Davis TC, Shrank WH, Neuberger M, Parker RM.  A critical review of FDA-approved Medication Guides. Patient Educ Couns. 2006; 62:316-22. PubMed
 
Kesselheim AS, Avorn J.  Pharmaceutical promotion to physicians and First Amendment rights. N Engl J Med. 2008; 358:1727-32. PubMed
 
http://www.RxFacts.org. Accessed 18 February 2009.
 
Hensley S.  As drug bill soars, some doctors get an “unsales” pitch. Wall Street Journal. 2006;13 March:1.
 
Editorial: countering the drug salesmen. New York Times. 2008;20 March. Accessed athttp://www.nytimes.comon 22 February 2009.
 

Letters

NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).

Comments

Submit a Comment
Submit a Comment

Supplements

Summary for Patients

Clinical Slide Sets

Terms of Use

The In the Clinic® slide sets are owned and copyrighted by the American College of Physicians (ACP). All text, graphics, trademarks, and other intellectual property incorporated into the slide sets remain the sole and exclusive property of the ACP. The slide sets may be used only by the person who downloads or purchases them and only for the purpose of presenting them during not-for-profit educational activities. Users may incorporate the entire slide set or selected individual slides into their own teaching presentations but may not alter the content of the slides in any way or remove the ACP copyright notice. Users may make print copies for use as hand-outs for the audience the user is personally addressing but may not otherwise reproduce or distribute the slides by any means or media, including but not limited to sending them as e-mail attachments, posting them on Internet or Intranet sites, publishing them in meeting proceedings, or making them available for sale or distribution in any unauthorized form, without the express written permission of the ACP. Unauthorized use of the In the Clinic slide sets will constitute copyright infringement.

Toolkit

Want to Subscribe?

Learn more about subscription options

Advertisement
Related Articles
Topic Collections
Forgot your password?
Enter your username and email address. We'll send you a reminder to the email address on record.
(Required)
(Required)