Labelling and 'Dear Doctor' letters: are they noncommittal?

Abstract

Over the past few years, a number of drugs have been withdrawn for safety reasons, either by drug approval authorities, or by the manufacturer. A recent example is the withdrawal of cerivastatin in connection with rhabdomyolysis. Several other drugs have also been taken off the market as a security measure, not because the nature of the risk involved was unknown but because the risk had proved apparently uncontainable. It seems that the inclusion of a warning or contraindication in the Summary of Product Characteristics (SPC) or sending a 'Dear Doctor' letter is insufficient to ensure compliant prescription behaviour. There appears to be a discrepancy between the careful use of evidence underpinning the SPC content and formal warnings and changes to the SPC and the effect they have on the prescription and dispensing of the drugs involved. This results in undue loss or damage for both the manufacturer and the patient. There are no easy solutions to tackle this problem; the ineffectiveness of labelling and 'Dear Doctor' letters has ramifications for the whole regulatory/ industrial/educational complex. We discuss briefly four possible strategies for improving the current situation, with the emphasis on the place the prescriber has in this process. The first strategy is education-based. Clinicians need to know about the comparative merits of the effectiveness and risk of drugs, as well as how they work pharmacologically, toxicologically, and what interactions they have with each other. The second strategy involves improving the information available for clinicians. Frequently, physicians do not consult the SPC for verification, leaving aside whether they have taken notice of the contents of the official SPC in the first place. It is recommended that the accessibility of SPCs is enhanced for doctors and pharmacists, drawing attention specifically to any changes. There needs to be a single body of information that covers every drug. The third strategy involves communication. There is much to be done in this area both in terms of follow-up and understanding of health professional's behaviour and how to empower best practise. The final strategy involves professional freedom. It goes without saying that doctors who issue off-label prescriptions may need to justify their actions. Deviating from the SPC should always be a considered decision and health professionals need to be aware of the additional responsibilities associated with such a decision. The dispensing pharmacist can play an important role in the implementation of warnings and contraindications.