The Drug Facts Box: Improving the communication of prescription drug information

Communication about prescription drugs ought to be a paragon of public science communication. Unfortunately, it is not. Consumers see $4 billion of direct-to-consumer advertising annually, which typically fails to present data about how well drugs work. The professional label—the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) mechanism to get physicians information needed for appropriate prescribing—may also fail to present benefit data. FDA labeling guidance, in fact, suggests that industry omit benefit data for new drugs in an existing class and for drugs approved on the basis of unfamiliar outcomes (such as depression rating scales). The medical literature is also problematic: there is selective reporting of favorable trials, favorable outcomes within trials, and “spinning” unfavorable results to maximize benefit and minimize harm. In contrast, publicly available FDA reviews always include the phase 3 trial data on benefit and harm, which are the basis of drug approval. However, these reviews are practically inaccessible: lengthy, poorly organized, and weakly summarized. To improve accessibility, we developed the Drug Facts Box: a one-page summary of benefit and harm data for each indication of a drug. A series of studies—including national randomized trials—demonstrates that most consumers understand the Drug Facts Box and that it improves decision-making. Despite calls from their own Risk Communication Advisory Committee and Congress (in the Affordable Care Act) to consider implementing boxes, the FDA announced it needs at least 3–5 y more to make a decision. Given its potential public health impact, physicians and the public should not have to wait that long for better drug information.

[1]  王林,et al.  CONSORT , 2011 .

[2]  Amal Mudallali Statement , 1988, Definitions.

[3]  Robert Fletcher,et al.  Registration of clinical trials still moving ahead--September 2008 update to Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals. , 2008, Croatian medical journal.

[4]  Lisa Bero,et al.  Factors Associated with Findings of Published Trials of Drug–Drug Comparisons: Why Some Statins Appear More Efficacious than Others , 2007, PLoS medicine.

[5]  M. Hollon Direct-to-consumer marketing of prescription drugs: creating consumer demand. , 1999, JAMA.

[6]  Steven Woloshin,et al.  Using a Drug Facts Box to Communicate Drug Benefits and Harms Two Randomized Trials , 2009, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[7]  M. Chren,et al.  Narrative Review: The Promotion of Gabapentin: An Analysis of Internal Industry Documents , 2006, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[8]  Douglas G Altman,et al.  Reporting and interpretation of randomized controlled trials with statistically nonsignificant results for primary outcomes. , 2010, JAMA.

[9]  Paul M Ridker,et al.  Reported outcomes in major cardiovascular clinical trials funded by for-profit and not-for-profit organizations: 2000-2005. , 2006, JAMA.

[10]  A. F. Holmer,et al.  Direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising builds bridges between patients and physicians. , 1999, JAMA.

[11]  Kristy Rahimi,et al.  Communicating Data about the Benefits and Harms of Treatment: A Randomized Trial , 2011 .

[12]  John A. Baron,et al.  The framing effect of relative and absolute risk , 1993, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[13]  Steven Woloshin,et al.  The Drug Facts Box: Providing Consumers with Simple Tabular Data on Drug Benefit and Harm , 2007, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[14]  C D Naylor,et al.  Measured Enthusiasm: Does the Method of Reporting Trial Results Alter Perceptions of Therapeutic Effectiveness? , 1992, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[15]  R. Berman,et al.  The efficacy and safety of aripiprazole as adjunctive therapy in major depressive disorder: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. , 2007, The Journal of clinical psychiatry.

[16]  Lisa M. Schwartz,et al.  Communicating uncertainties about prescription drugs to the public: a national randomized trial. , 2011, Archives of internal medicine.

[17]  R. Kravitz,et al.  Direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising and the public , 1999, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[18]  M. Fava,et al.  The Efficacy and Safety of Aripiprazole as Adjunctive Therapy in Major Depressive Disorder: A Second Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study , 2008, Journal of clinical psychopharmacology.

[19]  Christian Gluud,et al.  Association of funding and conclusions in randomized drug trials: a reflection of treatment effect or adverse events? , 2003, JAMA.

[20]  A. Hrõbjartsson,et al.  Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. , 2004, JAMA.

[21]  Ermenegyldo Munhoz Junior Requisitos uniformes para manuscritos submetidos a periódicos biomédicos: escrevendo e editando para publicações biomédicas , 2006 .

[22]  Rahman Azari,et al.  Influence of patients' requests for direct-to-consumer advertised antidepressants: a randomized controlled trial. , 2005, JAMA.

[23]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  Communicating Risks and Benefits: An Evidence Based User's Guide , 2012 .

[24]  Kay Dickersin,et al.  Outcome reporting in industry-sponsored trials of gabapentin for off-label use. , 2009, The New England journal of medicine.

[25]  D. Blumenthal,et al.  Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act , 2010 .

[26]  R. Rosenthal,et al.  Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy. , 2008, The New England journal of medicine.

[27]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias , 2008, PloS one.

[28]  J. PérezMartín,et al.  [International Committee of Medical Journal Editors]. , 2008, Revista alergia Mexico.

[29]  R M Arnold,et al.  Absolutely relative: how research results are summarized can affect treatment decisions. , 1992, The American journal of medicine.

[30]  S. Ross The CONSORT statement. , 1996, JAMA.

[31]  R. Kravitz,et al.  The educational value of consumer-targeted prescription drug print advertising. , 2000, The Journal of family practice.

[32]  Veronica Yank,et al.  Financial ties and concordance between results and conclusions in meta-analyses: retrospective cohort study , 2007, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[33]  S. W. Washington,et al.  MINUTES OF THE RISK COMMUNICATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE, FDA , 2009 .

[34]  Steven Woloshin,et al.  Lost in transmission--FDA drug information that never reaches clinicians. , 2009, The New England journal of medicine.

[35]  Mark V. Williams,et al.  Direct-to-Consumer Drug Advertisements on Network Television: An Exploration of Quantity, Frequency, and Placement , 2004, Journal of health communication.

[36]  Lisa M. Schwartz,et al.  Direct-to-consumer advertisements for prescription drugs: what are Americans being sold? , 2001, The Lancet.

[37]  J. R. Williams,et al.  Direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs. , 1995, Journal of health care marketing.

[38]  Kenneth F. Schulz,et al.  The CONSORT Statement , 1996 .

[39]  D. Solís US Food and Drug Administration , 2010 .

[40]  S. Golder,et al.  Is there evidence for biased reporting of published adverse effects data in pharmaceutical industry-funded studies? , 2008, British journal of clinical pharmacology.

[41]  黄亚明(整理),et al.  ICMJE , 2012 .

[42]  Lisa M. Schwartz,et al.  The value of benefit data in direct-to-consumer drug ads. , 2004, Health affairs.

[43]  Lisa M. Schwartz,et al.  How the FDA forgot the evidence: the case of donepezil 23 mg , 2012, BMJ : British Medical Journal.