Physicians' and pharmacists' perspective on clarity and clinical relevance of absolute contraindications in "Summaries of Product Characteristics".

IF 4.3 3区 材料科学 Q1 ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC
Wahram Andrikyan, Michael I Sponfeldner, Lea Jung-Poppe, Pauline Dürr, Melanie I Straubmeier, Anna K Schuster, Laura Weisbach, Katrin Farker, Michael Hartmann, Martin F Fromm, Renke Maas
{"title":"Physicians' and pharmacists' perspective on clarity and clinical relevance of absolute contraindications in \"Summaries of Product Characteristics\".","authors":"Wahram Andrikyan, Michael I Sponfeldner, Lea Jung-Poppe, Pauline Dürr, Melanie I Straubmeier, Anna K Schuster, Laura Weisbach, Katrin Farker, Michael Hartmann, Martin F Fromm, Renke Maas","doi":"10.1111/bcp.16331","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>Previous work has identified several limitations in \"Summaries of Product Characteristics\" (SmPCs), which are associated with risks for patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate pharmacists' and physicians' interpretation of contraindications in SmPCs and reasons for their nonadherence in clinical routine.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>For 20 commonly missed or ignored absolute contraindications, an anonymous online survey providing 24 clinical example cases (one or two per contraindication) for physicians and pharmacists was developed. Experts in medication safety were asked whether the respective case fulfilled the definition of the contraindication in the SmPC: (a) formally, irrespective of the clinical relevance of the contraindication (17 cases), and (b) whether the contraindication was deemed clinically relevant in each respective case (24 cases).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-seven pharmacists and 27 physicians completed the survey. For only one case (1/17; 5.8%) did all experts agree on the same answer option regarding the formal fulfilment of a given contraindication statement. Experts gave heterogeneous answers regarding the interpretation of a contraindication. For instance, among 10 predefined answer options for the contraindication \"active liver disease\" in the SmPC of simvastatin, every option was selected by at least six experts. In 17/24 (70.8%) clinical example cases a majority of experts agreed on the clinical relevance of a given contraindication. Key reasons for nonadherence to contraindications were \"patient monitoring possible\", \"lack of alternative treatment\" and \"acute/severe situations\".</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Experts' disagreement on the interpretation of contraindications in SmPCs using clinical example cases indicates that further efforts are needed to improve their usability in clinical routine.</p>","PeriodicalId":3,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/bcp.16331","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"材料科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aims: Previous work has identified several limitations in "Summaries of Product Characteristics" (SmPCs), which are associated with risks for patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate pharmacists' and physicians' interpretation of contraindications in SmPCs and reasons for their nonadherence in clinical routine.

Methods: For 20 commonly missed or ignored absolute contraindications, an anonymous online survey providing 24 clinical example cases (one or two per contraindication) for physicians and pharmacists was developed. Experts in medication safety were asked whether the respective case fulfilled the definition of the contraindication in the SmPC: (a) formally, irrespective of the clinical relevance of the contraindication (17 cases), and (b) whether the contraindication was deemed clinically relevant in each respective case (24 cases).

Results: Twenty-seven pharmacists and 27 physicians completed the survey. For only one case (1/17; 5.8%) did all experts agree on the same answer option regarding the formal fulfilment of a given contraindication statement. Experts gave heterogeneous answers regarding the interpretation of a contraindication. For instance, among 10 predefined answer options for the contraindication "active liver disease" in the SmPC of simvastatin, every option was selected by at least six experts. In 17/24 (70.8%) clinical example cases a majority of experts agreed on the clinical relevance of a given contraindication. Key reasons for nonadherence to contraindications were "patient monitoring possible", "lack of alternative treatment" and "acute/severe situations".

Conclusions: Experts' disagreement on the interpretation of contraindications in SmPCs using clinical example cases indicates that further efforts are needed to improve their usability in clinical routine.

医生和药剂师对 "产品特征概要 "中绝对禁忌症的明确性和临床相关性的看法。
目的:以往的研究已发现 "产品特征概要"(SmPCs)中的一些局限性会给患者带来风险。本研究旨在评估药剂师和医生对 SmPCs 中禁忌症的解释,以及临床常规中不遵守禁忌症的原因:方法:针对 20 个常被遗漏或忽视的绝对禁忌症,制定了一份匿名在线调查,为医生和药剂师提供 24 个临床案例(每个禁忌症一至两个)。用药安全专家被问及相关案例是否符合 SmPC 中禁忌症的定义:(a) 形式上,无论禁忌症的临床相关性如何(17 例);(b) 每个案例中的禁忌症是否被认为具有临床相关性(24 例):结果:27 名药剂师和 27 名医生完成了调查。只有一个病例(1/17;5.8%)的所有专家就是否正式符合某一禁忌声明的答案选项达成一致。对于禁忌症的解释,专家们给出了不同的答案。例如,在辛伐他汀 SmPC 中关于 "活动性肝病 "禁忌的 10 个预定义答案选项中,每个选项都至少有六位专家选择。在 17/24 个(70.8%)临床病例中,大多数专家就特定禁忌症的临床相关性达成了一致意见。不遵守禁忌症的主要原因是 "可能对患者进行监测"、"缺乏替代治疗 "和 "急性/严重情况":结论:专家们在利用临床实例解释 SmPCs 中的禁忌症方面存在分歧,这表明需要进一步努力提高 SmPCs 在临床常规中的可用性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
567
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信