Regulatory authority and clinical acceptability: physicians' responses to regulatory drug safety warnings

Alice L. Bhasale*, Ameet Sarpatwari, Wendy Lipworth, Mathias Møllebæk, Eliza J. McEwin, Nileesa Gautam, Adrian Santiago Ortiz, Barbara J. Mintzes

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

10 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Aims: Medicines regulators issue post-market safety warnings to advise of newly uncovered risks, but with mixed impacts. We aimed to identify factors influencing the use of regulatory warnings by primary care and specialist physicians in the US and Australia.

Methods: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were carried out with 40 primary care physicians, endocrinologists and other generalist specialists in Boston (USA) and Australia. Coding and analysis were performed inductively and iteratively to identify and examine key factors. Analysis centred around four areas: physicians' awareness of drug safety information, preferred information sources, opinion-forming and sharing of information with patients.

Results: Uncertainty, trust and clinical authority emerged as factors influencing use of advisories. Although regulators were trusted as authoritative institutions, they appeared to lack clinical authority, and physicians validated regulatory information against other trusted sources including evidence, expert opinion and experience. Specialists became aware of drug safety issues through specialised literature, using evidence and clinical consensus to form opinions. Primary care physicians, fielding high volumes of information, relied on convenient, accessible information sources including the media and the “clinical grapevine” for awareness, and on clinical colleagues, specialists and experience for interpretation. Communicating risk to patients was complicated by uncertainty; physicians tailored information to patients' health literacy and information needs. US physicians were more aware of their national regulator's post-market safety role than Australian physicians of theirs.

Conclusion: Drug safety warnings may not be optimally received or used. Regulators should consider strategies that increase trust, clinical relevance and accessibility, and address physicians' needs in communicating risk to patients.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)713-722
Number of pages10
JournalBritish Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
Volume88
Issue number2
Early online date1 Aug 2021
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Feb 2022
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • drug safety
  • pharmacovigilance
  • prescriber attitudes
  • qualitative methods
  • risk communication

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Regulatory authority and clinical acceptability: physicians' responses to regulatory drug safety warnings'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this