Preparation of Direct Healthcare Professional Communication: An Exploratory Study on the Experiences and Perceptions of European Pharmaceutical Companies and the EMA

Abstract

Background:

Despite the regulatory requirement for cooperation between marketing authorization holders (MAHs) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) in the direct healthcare professional communication (DHPC) preparation, no literature has explored DHPCs from an industry-regulator perspective. This constitutes a significant knowledge gap as any possibility of improving current DHPC effectiveness depends on decisions in the cooperative preparation phase. Thus, this EU-centered study explores differences in perceptions and experiences of DHPCs of European MAHs and EMA.

Methods:

European MAHs (n = 6) and EMA representatives (n = 2) were interviewed. The verbatim transcripts were coded into themes using NVivo software. Interview analysis was performed following a phenomenological approach of meaning condensation.

Results:

The DHPC process was perceived as burdensome by the industry. One company stated the process was time-consuming either due to EMA’s internal lengthy approval process or the translation activities with local company affiliates and national competent authorities. Three companies stated that DHPCs were not effective. One company stated that DHPCs are sent out due to legal obligations and not because of their use as a risk minimization measure (RMM). Newly emerged safety concerns were found difficult to phrase. Optimization proposals included improved timelines, scrutinization of healthcare professionals and better communication tools in clinical practice.

Conclusion:

DHPCs were not perceived as optimal, although the most effective intervention as it targets healthcare professionals directly. Continuous evaluation by EMA of DHPCs and evaluation on how to reach healthcare professionals are necessary. It is believed that industry perceptions from this study can support EMA with improved regulatory decision making to benefit public health.

Keywords

direct healthcare professional communication risk minimization pharmaceutical industry regulatory authority safety communication

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Edwards

Chakraborty

. Risk communication and the pharmaceutical industry—what is the reality? Drug Saf. 2012;35(11):1027–1040.

SCOPE Joint Action. SCOPE Work Package 6 Healthcare Professional Survey: medicines safety communications and their effectiveness. http://www.scopejointaction.eu/_assets/files/WP6-HCP-Survey-Report(1).pdf. Published 2016. Accessed May 27, 2019.

European Medicines Agency, Guideline on good pharmacovigilance practices (GVP). Module XV - Safety communication. (Rev 1). http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2013/01/WC500137666.pdf. Accessed January 29, 2019.

European Medicines Agency. European medicines regulatory network. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/about-us/how-we-work/european-medicines-regulatory-network. Accessed January 25, 2019.

de Vries

van der Sar

MJM

Cupelli

, et al. Communication on Safety of Medicines in Europe: current practices and general practitioners’ awareness and preferences. Drug Saf. 2017;40(8):729–742.

Joosse

de Bruin

Hallgreen

The impact of the new pharmacovigilance legislation on the harmonisation of Direct Healthcare Professional Communication across Europe [abstract]. Paper presented at: International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology meeting; April 6-9, 2018; Rome. https://cors.ku.dk/documents/IrisJoosse_ISPE_midyear2019.pdf. Accessed May 21, 2019.

European Medicines Agency. Good pharmacovigilance practices. http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/regulation/document_listing/document_listing_000345.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac058058f32c. Accessed March 2, 2018.

Reber

Piening

Wieringa

, et al. When direct health-care professional communications have an impact on inappropriate and unsafe use of medicines. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2013;93(4):360–365.

Weatherby

Nordstrom

Fife

Walker

. The impact of wording in “Dear doctor” letters and in black box labels. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2002;72(6):735–742.

10.

Piening

Haaijer-Ruskamp

de Graeff

Straus

Mol

. Healthcare professionals’ self-reported experiences and preferences related to direct healthcare professional communications: a survey conducted in the Netherlands. Drug Saf. 2012;35(11):1061–1072.

11.

Urushihara

Kobashi

Masuda

, et al. Pharmaceutical company perspectives on current safety risk communications in Japan. SpringerPlus. 2014;3:51.

12.

Møllebæk

Kaae

De Bruin

Callréus

Jossan

Hallgreen

. The effectiveness of direct to healthcare professional communication—a systematic review of communication factor studies. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2019;15(5):475–482.

13.

Kaae

Traulsen

. Pharmacy practice research methods. In: Babar

ZUD

, ed. Qualitative Methods in Pharmacy Practice Research. Switzerland: Springer International; 2015:49–68.

14.

Kvale

. InterView - En introduktion til det kvalitative forskningsinterview [An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing]. København [Copenhagen]: Hans Reitzels Forlag a/s; 1997.

15.

Launsø

Olsen

Rieper

. Forskningstyper. In: Munksgård , ed. Forskning om og med mennesker - forskningstyper og forskningsmetoder i samfundsforskning [Research on and about people - Research types and Research methods in Social Science] . Copenhagen: Munksgaard; 2017:254.

16.

Stenver

DI.

The new pharmacovigilance legislation: Are we prepared for transparency?

Regul Rapport. 2012;9(3):7–9.

17.

Council of Canadian Academies, 2015. Health Product Risk Communication: Is the Message Getting Through? Ottawa (ON): The Expert Panel on the Effectiveness of Health Product Risk Communication. https://cca-reports.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/riskfullreporten.pdf. Accessed May 27, 2019.

18.

Alvesson

. Beyond neopositivists, romantics, and localists: a reflexive approach to interviews in organizational research. Acad Manag Rev. 2003;28(1):13–33.

19.

Nielsen

Parker

. Mixed motives: economic, social, and normative motivations in business compliance. Law Policy. 2012;34(4):428–462.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.36 MB