Ethical and Practical Considerations in Removing Black Box Warnings from Drug Labels.

Boxed warnings-also known as "black box" warnings-can be a powerful tool in communicating drug risks to physicians and patients. The overall number of boxed warnings has grown in recent years as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved more drugs on the basis of limited pre-marketing information and as new safety issues for marketed drugs have been identified. Two recent manufacturers' petitions to remove boxed warnings on the drugs rosiglitazone (Avandia) and varenicline (Chantix) have led to divergent FDA decisions and revealed different considerations involved in boxed warning imposition and removal. For ethical and practical reasons, the FDA is justified in applying a higher standard for boxed warning removal than for imposition, as removal of a boxed warning may have unintended effects on physician and patient behavior. However, no guidelines on boxed warning removal currently exist. To promote safe use of approved prescription drugs, the FDA should adopt a uniform and transparent process governing decisions to impose or remove boxed warnings.

Moral responsibility to attain thorough pediatric drug labeling.

Many drugs used in children have not been labeled for pediatric use. While this was the standard for many years, recent regulations and incentives have improved the depth and breadth of pediatric drug labeling. Nonetheless, common pediatric drugs have not been adequately labeled, particularly generic and orphaned drugs and drugs that were approved for one age group but never tested in other age groups. Anesthesiologists have a moral responsibility to encourage government, pharmaceutical companies, and researchers to study drugs in children.

Promotional literature: how do we critically appraise?

There has been a tremendous increase in the number of new and generic drugs coming into the market. The busy practitioner obtains the information from various sources, of which promotional literature forms an important source. The promotional literature provided by the pharmaceutical companies cannot be entirely relied upon; moreover, very few physicians are equipped with the skills of critically appraising it. The new drug should be relevant to the clinician's practice in terms of population studied, the disease and the need for new treatment. The methodology of the study should be carefully judged to determine the authenticity of the evidence. The new drug should be preferred over the existing one if it offers clear advantages in terms of safety, tolerability, efficacy and price. Critical appraisal of promotional literature can provide valuable information to the busy physician to practice evidence-based medicine.

Critical evaluation of the claims made by pharmaceutical companies in drug promotional material in Pakistan.

BACKGROUND: In Pakistan, there is no mechanism to monitor the drug promotional campaign by pharmaceutical industry despite the fact that there is enough evidence that irrational pharmacotherapy is increasingly encountered even in the developed countries due to unethical practices of pharmaceutical promotion. Objectives. To audit the drug promotional claims made by the pharmaceutical companies in Pakistan. METHODS: Drug promotional pamphlets and brochures containing claims for the drugs, which were circulated by the pharmaceutical representatives were collected from 122 general practitioners (GPs) from Karachi and Larkana cities of the Sindh Province. The claims were critically analyzed and audited with the help of currently available evidence in the medical literature. RESULTS: 345 distinct advertisements covering 182 drugs from different manufacturers were critically analyzed for information content. Sixty two out of 345 (18%) of the reviewed advertisements were adjudged to be misleading / unjustifiable, which were again classified as, exaggerated (32%), ambiguous (21%), false (26%), and controversial (21%). The primary source of information (approximately 78%) about the newly launched drugs for the GPs was found to be the pharmaceutical representatives followed by hospital doctors (5%) and colleagues (5%). Furthermore, 110 (90%) GPs were of the view that the drug promotion has definitely an influence on their prescribing pattern. CONCLUSIONS: Since GPs in Pakistan rate pharmaceutical companies as their primary source of information regarding drugs, it can be anticipated that inappropriate advertisement claims would lead to irrational prescribing if physicians had no any other information to follow.