Physician interpretation of information about prescription drugs in scientific publications vs. promotional pieces.

BACKGROUND: Physicians gain knowledge about medical product uses from a variety of information vehicles including FDA-approved labeling, peer-reviewed journal articles, compendia, continuing medical education (CME), and physician-directed promotion. The source of this information, the quality of the information, and environmental pressures such as lack of time may impact perceptions. OBJECTIVE: The authors tested the effect of three types of information sources (journal abstract, sales aid without graphics, sales aid with graphics), the presence or absence of time pressure to read the information, and two levels of methodological rigor (high, low) on perceptions of study quality, perceptions of product effectiveness and riskiness, and prescribing likelihood. METHODS: Primary care physicians (n = 630) were randomly assigned to view one version of a study abstract and then answered questions. RESULTS: Participants who viewed a high-methodological rigor study reported more perceived credibility and importance of the data (ps < .05), and less need for interpreting the study data with caution and less bias than those who viewed a low-rigor study. Those who were not under time pressure to read the stimuli rated the fictitious study description as more credible, rigorous, important, and had more confidence in study data than those who were under time pressure. Participants who had less time to review high-rigor journal abstracts and sales aids with graphics were less likely to agree the study data should be interpreted with caution than doctors who had more time with the stimuli. No effects of source type were observed. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that prominently disclosing methodological rigor helps the audience form an accurate perception of the presented information. This also further highlights the importance that any promotional communications should be truthful and non-misleading.

Complexity of Data Displays in Prescription Drug Advertisements for Healthcare Providers.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare providers (HCPs) often encounter clinical trial results in the form of data displays in prescription drug promotions. Information conveyed in data displays vary in their presentation and complexity. This study describes characteristics of data displays in prescription drug advertising targeted to HCPs. METHODS: This study characterized the content of 140 data displays in 98 unique print advertisements from 2009 to present and identified in AdPharm, an online database of pharmaceutical advertisements. Two reviewers independently coded the advertisements for characteristics (κ = 0.85) including complexity, format, and quality. RESULTS: About one-third (32%) of the advertisements contained multiple data displays (range 2 to 6) and 44% showed clinical data from oncology trials; other disease domains were mental and behavioral health (14%), rheumatology and autoimmune disorders (8%), endocrinology (7%), cardiology (6%), infectious disease (6%), pulmonology and allergy (4%), and others (< 2% each). About one-half (51%) of displays were classified as "simple" which included "pseudographs" and basic tables or charts. "Complex" displays appeared as survival curves, line graphs, or bar graphs with complex features. Most complex displays included a comparator drug (90%), plain language restatement of the key finding (93%) and disclosure statements (91%) with additional study details, although their placement varied. Complex displays were of high quality, according to our selected indicators; our analysis found no data distortion or errors. CONCLUSION: Data displays in prescription drug advertising are often highly complex. Future research assessing understanding of data displays and the potentially beneficial effect of disclosures and other features is warranted.

Influence of data disclosures on physician decisions about off-label uses: findings from a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Prescribing approved products for unapproved uses (off-label use) is not uncommon among physicians in certain medical specialties. Available evidence about an off-label use - both supportive and unsupportive - can influence prescribers' decisions about a drug's appropriateness for a particular case. The objectives of this study were: (1) to examine physician perceptions about off-label uses generally, including their awareness of unsupportive data; and (2) to explore the influence of disclosure information about unsupportive data on off-label prescribing decisions. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted between December 2019 and January 2020 with oncologists (n = 35) and primary care physicians (n = 35). Interviews explored general prescribing practices, understanding of and information sources for learning about off-label use of prescription drugs, awareness of unsupportive data related to off-label uses, and preferences and reactions to disclosure statements about the existence of unsupportive data related to an off-label use. RESULTS: Most participants reported prescribing drugs for off-label uses (with half reporting regular off-label prescribing). However, among those who prescribe off-label, approximately two-thirds had never seen unsupportive data about off-label uses. Physicians preferred a disclosure statement that provided a summary of the unsupportive data about the off-label use; this statement also led most physicians to say they were unlikely or less likely to prescribe the drug for that use. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that physicians' decision-making about prescribing for off-label uses of approved drugs may be influenced by awareness of unsupportive data. Our interviews also suggest that providing more information about unsupportive study findings may result in a reduction in reported prescribing likelihood.

Physician Perceptions of the FDA's Breakthrough Therapy Designation: An Update.

The US Food and Drug Administration developed the Breakthrough Therapy designation to expedite the development and review of drugs that show a clear advantage over available therapy for serious conditions. Prior research has shown that physicians tend to misunderstand that a drug may receive a Breakthrough Therapy designation based on preliminary clinical evidence (eg, effect on a surrogate endpoint or intermediate clinical endpoint that is likely to predict clinical benefit). The objective of this article is to examine whether physicians' familiarity with and interpretation of the Breakthrough Therapy designation have changed since a survey on the topic was published in 2016. We replicated three of the questions in that study and explored beliefs that a Breakthrough Therapy designation automatically qualifies a drug for accelerated approval. We also draw comparisons by specialization (oncologists vs. primary care physicians). In general, physicians remain more likely than not to misunderstand the Breakthrough Therapy designation.

Physician Interpretation of Data of Uncertain Clinical Utility in Oncology Prescription Drug Promotion.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about how physicians interpret data displays that depict preliminary or exploratory clinical data in physician-targeted sales aids for oncology drugs. Using three factorial experiments, we examined whether disclosures of data limitations and clinical uncertainty adequately communicate the limitations and practical utility of this type of data. SUBJECTS, MATERIALS, AND METHODS: The studies used a 2 (disclosure of data limitations: technical, nontechnical) × 2 (disclosure of clinical uncertainty: present, absent) + 1 (control: no disclosure) between-subjects experimental design to examine the impact of disclosures as they relate to presentations of preliminary or exploratory data in promotional communications for oncology products. In each experiment, we randomized oncologists and primary care physicians with oncology experience to view one version of a two-page sales aid. Following this exposure, physicians completed a web-based survey. The design was replicated in three concurrently conducted experiments using sales aids for different fictitious oncology drugs, each featuring one of three common data displays: a forest plot (n = 495), a Kaplan-Meier curve (n = 504), or a bar chart (n = 532). RESULTS: Results provide initial evidence that in some contexts disclosures can improve understanding of the clinical utility of certain information about a drug and the limitations of results presented in a data display. Disclosures can also temper perceptions of how much evidence is presented that supports a conclusion that the drug is an appropriate treatment. In terms of the language used in the disclosure of data limitations, physicians in all three experiments strongly preferred the nontechnical disclosures. CONCLUSION: The findings from the three experiments in this study suggest that disclosures have the potential to increase relevant knowledge, but more research is needed to establish best practice recommendations for using disclosures to convey contextual information relevant for interpreting data displays in promotional communications. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This article reports the results from three large, online experimental studies that address a growing concern that drug companies often share favorable clinical trial results with physicians in promotional materials that lack important context for physicians to interpret the data. This series of studies investigates whether strategic use of two types of disclosures (disclosure of data limitations and a disclosure of clinical uncertainty) improves understanding and reduces misinterpretations among physicians. The results from these studies help identify communication factors that impact how physicians critically appraise preliminary or exploratory clinical trial data to inform policy and regulatory efforts.

The FDA's Diverse and Dynamic Activities in the Social and Behavioral Sciences: Advancing and Supporting Health Equity.

The U.S. encompasses a heterogenous mix of people and health disparities exist for various subpopulations, such as minorities, women, people with limited English proficiency, those with low socioeconomic status, and other underserved groups. Differences in health outcomes arise in part due to inequalities and injustices rooted in biological, social, and structural factors. Because the origins of health disparities are multifactorial, the approaches to reduce, or even eliminate them, must be multifactorial as well. The social and behavioral sciences are well poised to address the myriad and complex factors that affect health outcomes, including those at the individual level (eg, individuals' behaviors, attitudes, and beliefs), the neighborhood level (eg, housing), the community level (eg, cultural values and norms), and the policy level (eg, public policies that influence healthcare funding and access to healthcare resources and educational materials). In addition, the social and behavioral sciences (1) help equip government agencies with the perspectives and tools needed to promote health equity and (2) contribute to rigorous, evidence-based solutions for public health issues, such as disparities found in childhood vaccination rates, childhood obesity, tobacco use, and access to health information technology. The FDA, in particular, actively conducts social and behavioral sciences research to guide the Agency's efforts to advance and support health equity.

Consumer responses to framing statements preceding the major risk statement in prescription drug DTC TV ads.

BACKGROUND: Research on the major risk statement in direct-to-consumer (DTC) prescription drug television ads has shown that risk severity and actionability can affect consumers' risk comprehension and perceptions. A framing statement presented just before the major risk statement may serve as a cue that directs attention to the risk statement that follows, or it may guide consumers' interpretation of the severity of the risks that follow. OBJECTIVE: Examine how the use of different framing statements (severe, life-threatening; serious; or basic) that precede the major risk statement in DTC television ads affect consumers' risk perceptions, risk recognition, benefit perceptions, interest in the drug, and other relevant outcomes. METHODS: An online experiment was conducted using a 1 × 3 between-subjects design to compare three different framing statements, which was replicated across three different DTC television ads that focused on different medical conditions (arthritis, lung cancer, and type 2 diabetes). A sample of US adults (N = 1961) was randomly assigned to view one of nine television ads and asked to respond to a questionnaire. RESULTS: The type of framing statement had significant effects on perceived risk severity, perceived utility of risk and benefit information, fear of risks, and perceived likelihood of explicit and implicit benefits. CONCLUSIONS: Consumers pay attention to and use cues to process and interpret the risk information presented to them in DTC television ads. Using lead-in language that describes risk severity, particularly for products with severe, life-threatening risks, may better allow consumers to make evaluative judgments on risk severity in DTC ads than stating the drug can cause serious reactions or simply that reactions are possible. More work is needed to examine the factors that affect people's understanding of the nature of risk severity, particularly with regard to risk recognition.

Quantitative Information on Oncology Prescription Drug Websites.

Our objective was to determine whether and how quantitative information about drug benefits and risks is presented to consumers and healthcare professionals on cancer-related prescription drug websites. We analyzed the content of 65 active cancer-related prescription drug websites. We assessed the inclusion and presentation of quantitative information for two audiences (consumers and healthcare professionals) and two types of information (drug benefits and risks). Websites were equally likely to present quantitative information for benefits (96.9 %) and risks (95.4 %). However, the amount of the information differed significantly: Both consumer-directed and healthcare-professional-directed webpages were more likely to have quantitative information for every benefit (consumer 38.5 %; healthcare professional 86.1 %) compared with every risk (consumer 3.1 %; healthcare professional 6.2 %). The numeric and graphic presentations also differed by audience and information type. Consumers have access to quantitative information about oncology drugs and, in particular, about the benefits of these drugs. Research has shown that using quantitative information to communicate treatment benefits and risks can increase patients' and physicians' understanding and can aid in treatment decision-making, although some numeric and graphic formats are more useful than others.

Disease Information in Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Print Ads.

Direct-to-consumer (DTC) prescription drug advertisements sometimes include information about the disease condition in addition to information about the advertised product. Although the intent of such information is to educate about the disease condition, in some cases consumers may mistakenly assume that the drug will address all of the potential consequences of the condition mentioned in the ad. We investigated the effects of adding disease information to DTC prescription drug print ads on consumer product perceptions and understanding. Participants (4,064 adults) viewed 1 of 15 DTC print ads for fictitious prescription drugs indicated to treat chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, anemia, or lymphoma that varied in disease information presence, type, and format. Participants answered questions that assessed risk and benefit memory, perception, and behavioral intention. Results indicate that exposure to disease information as part of DTC prescription drug ads can promote the impression that the drug addresses consequences of the condition that are not part of the drug's indication.

Awareness of the Food and Drug Administration's Bad Ad Program and Education Regarding Pharmaceutical Advertising: A National Survey of Prescribers in Ambulatory Care Settings.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Bad Ad program educates health care professionals about false or misleading advertising and marketing and provides a pathway to report suspect materials. To assess familiarity with this program and the extent of training about pharmaceutical marketing, a sample of 2,008 health care professionals, weighted to be nationally representative, responded to an online survey. Approximately equal numbers of primary care physicians, specialists, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners answered questions concerning Bad Ad program awareness and its usefulness, as well as their likelihood of reporting false or misleading advertising, confidence in identifying such advertising, and training about pharmaceutical marketing. Results showed that fewer than a quarter reported any awareness of the Bad Ad program. Nonetheless, a substantial percentage (43%) thought it seemed useful and 50% reported being at least somewhat likely to report false or misleading advertising in the future. Nurse practitioners and physician assistants expressed more openness to the program and reported receiving more training about pharmaceutical marketing. Bad Ad program awareness is low, but opportunity exists to solicit assistance from health care professionals and to help health care professionals recognize false and misleading advertising. Nurse practitioners and physician assistants are perhaps the most likely contributors to the program.