BACKGROUND: Journal advertising is used by pharmaceutical companies to disseminate medicine information to doctors. The quality of claims, references and the presentation of risk results in Australia and the US has been questioned in several studies. No recent evidence is available on the quality of claims, references and the presentation of risk results in journal advertising in Australia and the US and no Malaysian data have been published. The aim of this study was to compare the quality of claims, references and the presentation of risk results in journal advertising in these three countries.
METHODS: A consecutive sample of 85 unique advertisements from each country was selected from journal advertising published between January 2004 to December 2006. Claims, references and the presentation of risk results in medical journal advertising were compared between the three countries.
RESULTS: Less than one-third of the claims were unambiguous claims (Australia, 30%, Malaysia 17%, US, 23%). In Malaysia significantly less unambiguous claims were provided than in Australia and the US (P < 0.001). However, the unambiguous claims were supported by more references than other claims (80%). Most evidence was obtained from at least one randomized controlled trial, a systematic review or meta-analysis (Australia, 84%, Malaysia, 81%, US, 76%) with journal articles being the most commonly cited references in all countries. Data on file were significantly more likely to be cited in the US (17%) than in Australia (2%) and Malaysia (4%) (P < 0.001). Advertisements that provided quantitative information reported risk results exclusively as a relative risk reduction.
CONCLUSIONS: The majority of claims were vague suggesting poor quality of claims in journal advertising in these three countries. Evidence from a randomized controlled trial, systematic review or meta- analysis was commonly cited to support claims. However, the more frequent use of data that have not been published and independently reviewed in the US compared to Australia and Malaysia raises questions on the quality of references in the US. The use of relative rather than absolute benefits may overemphasize the benefit of medicines which may leave doctors susceptible to misinterpreting information.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the provision of medicines information in medical journal advertising in Australia, Malaysia and the United States.
METHODS: A consecutive sample of 85 unique advertisements from each country was selected from the advertisements published between January 2004 to December 2006 in three widely circulated medical journals and one prescribing reference manual. The availability of brand name and generic name, indication, contraindications, dosage, side-effects, warnings, interactions and precautions was compared between the three countries.
RESULTS: We examined 255 distinct advertisements for 136 pharmaceutical products. Journal advertising in Australia, Malaysia and the US usually provided brand names and generic names (range 96 -100%). Information on dosage was significantly less likely to be mentioned (32%) in the US than in Australia (92%) and Malaysia (48%) (P < 0.001). Warning information was significantly less likely to be provided in Australia (5%) than in the US (81%) and Malaysia (9%) (P < 0.001). Apart from information on brand name, generic name, warnings and dosage, other product information significantly less likely to be provided in journal advertising in Malaysia than in Australia and the US (P < 0.001). Similar trends in the provision of product information for the same medicines published in these countries were noted. Brand name and generic name were always provided in the three countries (100%). However, information on the negative effects of medicines was less frequently provided in Malaysia than in Australia and the US.
CONCLUSIONS: Journal advertising in Australia, Malaysia and the US failed to provide complete product information. Low quality of information provided in Malaysia indicates the need for effective regulation of provision of medicines information in journal advertising. Different standards of medicines information provided in these three countries suggest that pharmaceutical promotion needs to be better controlled at the international level.
KEYWORDS: Australia; Malaysia; Pharmaceutical advertisements; promotion; regulation
The potential for routine sequence symmetry analysis (SSA) signal detection in health claims databases to detect new safety signals of medicines is unknown.
BACKGROUND: Pharmaceutical representatives provide medicines information on their promoted products to doctors. However, studies have shown that the quality of this information is often low. No study has assessed the medicines information provided by pharmaceutical representatives to doctors in Malaysia and no recent evidence in Australia is present. We aimed to compare the provision of medicines information by pharmaceutical representatives to doctors in Australia and Malaysia.
METHODS: Following a pharmaceutical representative's visit, general practitioners in Australia and Malaysia who had agreed to participate, were asked to fill out a questionnaire on the main product and claims discussed during the encounter. The questionnaire focused on provision of product information including indications, adverse effects, precautions, contraindications and the provision of information on the Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme (PBS) listings and restrictions (in Australia only). Descriptive statistics were produced. Chi-square analysis and clustered linear regression were used to assess differences in Australia and Malaysia.
RESULTS: Significantly more approved product information sheets were provided in Malaysia (78%) than in Australia (53%) (P < 0.001). In both countries, general practitioners reported that indications (Australia, 90%, Malaysia, 93%) and dosages (Australia, 76%, Malaysia, 82%) were frequently provided by pharmaceutical representatives. Contraindications, precautions, drug interactions and adverse effects were often omitted in the presentations (range 25% - 41%). General practitioners in Australia and Malaysia indicated that in more than 90% of presentations, pharmaceutical representatives partly or fully answered their questions on contraindications, precautions, drug interactions and adverse effects. More general practitioners in Malaysia (85%) than in Australia (60%) reported that pharmaceutical representatives should have mentioned contraindications, precautions for use, drug interaction or adverse effects spontaneously (P < 0.001). In 48% of the Australian presentations, general practitioners reported the pharmaceutical representatives failed to mention information on PBS listings to general practitioners.
CONCLUSIONS: Information on indications and dosages were usually provided by pharmaceutical representatives in Australia and Malaysia. However, risk and harmful effects of medicines were often missing in their presentations. Effective control of medicines information provided by pharmaceutical representatives is needed.
Critical to the successful implementation of a national medicines strategy is evaluation of the policy and ongoing monitoring of medicine use. Methods for monitoring medicines use within countries vary depending on the country and its stage of medicines policy development and implementation. In this paper, we provide four case studies on monitoring medicines use to support national medicines policy development and implementation. Cases come from Bhutan, Indonesia, Malaysia and the Republic of Korea.
It is known that younger patients treated with antipsychotics are at increased risk of metabolic events; however, it is unknown how this risk varies according to ethnicity, the class of antipsychotic and the specific product used, and by age group. We conducted a multinational sequence symmetry study in Asian populations (Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Thailand) and non-Asian populations (Australia and Denmark) to evaluate the metabolic events associated with antipsychotics in both Asian and non-Asian populations, for typical and atypical antipsychotics, and by the subgroups of children and adolescents, and young adults. Patients aged 6-30 years newly initiating oral antipsychotic drugs were included. We defined a composite outcome for metabolic events which included dyslipidemia, hypertension and hyperglycemia. We calculated the sequence ratio (SR) by dividing the number of people for whom a medicine for one of the outcome events was initiated within a 12-month period after antipsychotic initiation by the number before antipsychotic initiation. This study included 346,904 antipsychotic initiators across seven countries. Antipsychotic use was associated with an increased risk of composite metabolic events with a pooled adjusted SR (ASR) of 1.22 (95% CI 1.00-1.50). Pooled ASRs were similar between Asian (ASR, 1.22; 95% CI 0.88-1.70) and non-Asian populations (ASR, 1.22; 95% CI 1.04-1.43). The pooled ASR for typical and atypical antipsychotics was 0.98 (95% CI 0.85-1.12) and 1.24 (95% CI 0.97-1.59), respectively. No difference was observed in the relative effect in children and adolescents compared to young adults. The risk of metabolic events associated with antipsychotics use was similar in magnitude in Asian and non-Asian populations despite the marked difference in drug utilization patterns.
This study describes the availability and characteristics of databases in Asian-Pacific countries and assesses the feasibility of a distributed network approach in the region.
This study examined the use of potentially inappropriate medicines that may affect cognition (PIMcog) in people with dementia and its associated factors. Medical records of all outpatients with dementia attending a tertiary hospital in Vietnam between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2016, were examined. Medicine use was assessed against a list of PIMcog. Variables associated with having a PIMcog were assessed using a multiple logistic regression. Of the 128 patients, 41% used a PIMcog, 39.1% used cholinesterase inhibitors (CEIs) concomitantly with anticholinergics, and 18% used antipsychotics. The number of hospital visits (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02-1.16) and number of treating specialists (adjusted OR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.45-0.83) were associated with PIMcog use. This study highlights a high-level use of medicines that can further impair cognition or reduce the effectiveness of CEIs in people with dementia. Efforts to improve quality use of medicines for this population are warranted.