Dataset Information

The Effectiveness of an Educational Brochure as a Risk Minimization Activity to Communicate Important Rare Adverse Events to Health-Care Professionals.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Educational brochures are an important tool for communicating risk to health-care professionals. It is important to evaluate the impact of any risk minimization tool to understand the effectiveness of the strategy. The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness (i.e., respondents' awareness and understanding of the communication) of a targeted educational brochure distributed to health-care professionals (HCPs) as a risk minimization strategy for the communication of new rare and important adverse events (AEs).

Methods

A prospective, non-interventional, online survey was performed following distribution of a specifically designed brochure highlighting new and important adverse events to a targeted HCP population, consisting of known users of the target medicine, as represented by a commercial database. Predefined multiple-choice survey questions assessed overall HCP awareness of the brochure and understanding and retention of information in those HCPs who reported receiving the brochure.

Results

The educational brochure was sent to a total of 565 HCPs; 121 (21.4%) responded to the survey. The majority of respondents (95.0%) had previously prescribed or dispensed the target medicine. In all, 88 (72.7%) respondents said they had received the educational brochure, of whom 95.5% stated they had at least scanned the main points. More participants who had received the brochure (86.4% to 96.6%) answered the five individual survey questions correctly compared with those who did not (51.5% to 97.0%); this was significant for four out of five questions (P ≤ 0.005). Significantly more HCPs who received the brochure achieved the predefined pass rate (at least four of five questions answered correctly) compared with HCPs who did not receive the brochure (93.2% vs 57.6%, respectively; P = 0.000003).

Conclusions

Distribution of targeted educational brochures may be an effective risk minimization strategy to raise HCP awareness of new rare and important AEs; educational brochures may also be an effective channel for sharing information on how these AEs can be best managed and on the importance and means of reporting AEs.

Funding

Celgene Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia.

SUBMITTER: Bester N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4769727 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundLack of adequate detail compromises analysis of reported suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs). We investigated how comprehensively Ugandan healthcare professionals (HCPs) described their most recent previous-month suspected ADR, and determined the characteristics of HCPs who provided comprehensive ADR descriptions. We also identified rare, serious, and unanticipated suspected ADR descriptions with medication safety-alerting potential.MethodsDuring 2012/13, this survey was conducted in purposively selected Ugandan health facilities (public/private) including the national referral and six regional referral hospitals representative of all regions. District hospitals, health centres II to IV, and private health facilities in the catchment areas of the regional referral hospitals were conveniently selected. Healthcare professionals involved in prescribing, transcribing, dispensing, and administration of medications were approached and invited to self-complete a questionnaire on ADR reporting. Two-thirds of issued questionnaires (1,345/2,000) were returned.ResultsNinety per cent (241/268) of HCPs who suspected ADRs in the previous month provided information on five higher-level descriptors as follows: body site (206), drug class (203), route of administration (127), patient age (133), and ADR severity (128). Comprehensiveness (explicit provision of at least four higher-level descriptors) was achieved by at least two-fifths (46%, 124/268) of HCPs. Received descriptions were more likely to be comprehensive from HCPs in private health facilities, regions other than central, and those not involved in teaching medical students. Overall, 106 serious and 51 rare previous-month suspected ADRs were described. The commonest serious and rare ADR was Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS); mostly associated with oral nevirapine or cotrimoxazole, but haemoptysis after diclofenac analgesia and paralysis after quinine injection were also described.ConclusionSurveyed Ugandan HCPs who had suspected at least one ADR in the previous month competently provided comprehensive ADR descriptions: more, indeed, than are received per annum nationally. Properly analyzed, and with local feed-back, voluntary ADR reports by HCPs could be an essential alerting tool for identifying rare and serious suspected ADRs in Uganda.

Project description:BackgroundThere is limited capacity to assess the comparative risks of medications after they enter the market. For rare adverse events, the pooling of data from multiple sources is necessary to have the power and sufficient population heterogeneity to detect differences in safety and effectiveness in genetic, ethnic and clinically defined subpopulations. However, combining datasets from different data custodians or jurisdictions to perform an analysis on the pooled data creates significant privacy concerns that would need to be addressed. Existing protocols for addressing these concerns can result in reduced analysis accuracy and can allow sensitive information to leak.ObjectiveTo develop a secure distributed multi-party computation protocol for logistic regression that provides strong privacy guarantees.MethodsWe developed a secure distributed logistic regression protocol using a single analysis center with multiple sites providing data. A theoretical security analysis demonstrates that the protocol is robust to plausible collusion attacks and does not allow the parties to gain new information from the data that are exchanged among them. The computational performance and accuracy of the protocol were evaluated on simulated datasets.ResultsThe computational performance scales linearly as the dataset sizes increase. The addition of sites results in an exponential growth in computation time. However, for up to five sites, the time is still short and would not affect practical applications. The model parameters are the same as the results on pooled raw data analyzed in SAS, demonstrating high model accuracy.ConclusionThe proposed protocol and prototype system would allow the development of logistic regression models in a secure manner without requiring the sharing of personal health information. This can alleviate one of the key barriers to the establishment of large-scale post-marketing surveillance programs. We extended the secure protocol to account for correlations among patients within sites through generalized estimating equations, and to accommodate other link functions by extending it to generalized linear models.

Project description:Background/aimsRegulatory approval of a drug or device involves an assessment of not only the benefits but also the risks of adverse events associated with the therapeutic agent. Although randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for evaluating effectiveness, the number of treated patients in a single RCT may not be enough to detect a rare but serious side effect of the treatment. Meta-analysis plays an important role in the evaluation of the safety of medical products and has advantage over analyzing a single RCT when estimating the rate of adverse events.MethodsIn this article, we compare 15 widely used meta-analysis models under both Bayesian and frequentist frameworks when outcomes are extremely infrequent or rare. We present extensive simulation study results and then apply these methods to a real meta-analysis that considers RCTs investigating the effect of rosiglitazone on the risks of myocardial infarction and of death from cardiovascular causes.ResultsOur simulation studies suggest that the beta hyperprior method modeling treatment group-specific parameters and accounting for heterogeneity performs the best. Most models ignoring between-study heterogeneity give poor coverage probability when such heterogeneity exists. In the data analysis, different methods provide a wide range of log odds ratio estimates between rosiglitazone and control treatments with a mixed conclusion on their statistical significance based on 95% confidence (or credible) intervals.ConclusionIn the rare event setting, treatment effect estimates obtained from traditional meta-analytic methods may be biased and provide poor coverage probability. This trend worsens when the data have large between-study heterogeneity. In general, we recommend methods that first estimate the summaries of treatment-specific risks across studies and then relative treatment effects based on the summaries when appropriate. Furthermore, we recommend fitting various methods, comparing the results and model performance, and investigating any significant discrepancies among them.