Poster Presentations
- PDF / 1,546,843 Bytes
- 1 Pages / 504.57 x 720 pts Page_size
- 107 Downloads / 230 Views
ABSTRACTS
© 2007 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved.
Poster Presentations P.101 Impact of a Dear Doctor letter 1,4 G. Miremont-Salame, ´ ´ 1,4 N. Moore,1,2,3,4 H. Theophile, F. Haramburu1,4 1 Centre de Pharmacovigilance, Bordeaux, France; 2 Inserm ´ Victor Segalen, U657, Bordeaux, France; 3 Universite Bordeaux, France; 4 Hˆ opital Pellegrin, Bordeaux, France Background: Some severe cases of malaise were reported after administration of an oral solution of vitamin D or A, D, E and C (Uvesterol®) to premature infants, newborns or children. A too rapid administration directly to the oropharynx was probably the cause of these malaises. On the request of the French drug agency, the manufacturer sent a letter to all French paediatricians (n=5290), pharmacists (n=22610) and some general practitioners (n=553) in order to diffuse new recommendations for administration and to inform that a new pipette supposed to reduce the risk would be made available shortly. Objective: Evaluate the efficiency of a Dear Doctor letter to communicate pharmacovigilance information. Methods: The Bordeaux pharmacovigilance centre, in charge of the national survey, sent a questionnaire to a random sample of 145 private paediatricians, 680 general practitioners (GPs) and 230 community pharmacists. Results: The response rate for paediatricians, GPs and pharmacists was 31%, 37% and 40% respectively. Considering participating paediatricians, 44% were informed by the manufacturer letter, 20% by another source (15% by both) and 67% prescribed these vitamins. Of the 16 paediatricians aware of the alert and who prescribed the vitamins (35 % of those participating), 50% changed their prescription practice or advice. Considering participating GPs, 42% were informed by the letter, 16% by another source (11% by both) and 50% prescribed these vitamins. Of the 68 GPs aware of the alert and who prescribed these vitamins (27% of those participating), 66% changed their prescription advice or practice (3% stopped prescribing the brand name), 31% did not modify their prescription patterns (3% already gave advice in accordance with the new recommendations). Of the participating pharmacists, 64% were informed by the letter, 24% by another source (21% by both). Of the 62 pharmacists aware of the alert (67% of those participating), 67% modified their recommendations at dispensation, 17% did not change their recommendations and 16% had not sold the specialties concerned since the warning. Conclusion: Diffusion of a pharmacovigilance alert by a Dear Doctor letter has little impact on clinical practice: sent to all paediatricians and pharmacists, few read it and many of those who did failed to modify their practice. Each letter should have a distinctive envelope to identify important pharmacovigilance information. Furthermore, multiplying the means of communication and implicating the major health actors (such as pharmacy wholesale distributors for pharmacists) could improve both the transmission and the reaction to new recommendations.
Data Loading...
