Randomized Study of Providing Evidence Context to Mitigate Physician Misinterpretation Arising From Off-Label Drug Promotion.

BACKGROUND: Recent court decisions have thrown into question the Food and Drug Administration's rules limiting manufacturer promotion of prescription drugs for unapproved uses. We assessed how providing pro forma disclosures or more descriptive evidence context about the data supporting an off-label claim affected physicians' beliefs about drug efficacy. METHODS AND RESULTS: In online and mailed surveys, we randomized national samples of board-certified, clinically active cardiologists, internists, and endocrinologists to receive 1 of 3 information scenarios about a hypothetical drug derived verbatim from excerpts on the website for Vascepa, a prescription fish oil for which Food and Drug Administration specially permitted off-label promotion after a manufacturer lawsuit. The scenarios presented information about the approved on-label indication (severe hypertriglyceridemia), off-label claim + pro forma disclaimers (suggestive but not conclusive evidence for use as an add-on to a statin for patients reaching low-density lipoprotein goal but with persistent moderate hypertriglyceridemia), and off-label claim + evidence context (eg, reports on 3 trials failing to demonstrate cardiovascular benefit of other triglyceride-lowering drugs for such patients). Among 686 respondents (48% response rate), 29% reported receiving off-label information about Vascepa (ie, use as an add-on to a statin) from the manufacturer, and 16% had prescribed it off-label for this purpose. Off-label prescribing was 5 times higher among physicians who received such off-label information (38% versus 7%, P<0.001). For the hypothetical drug, the proportion of physicians endorsing the unproven claim that the drug reduced cardiovascular risk was similar among those randomized to the on-label and off-label claim + pro forma disclaimers scenarios (35% versus 37% [95% CI, -6% to 11%]), but substantially lower among those randomized to the off-label claim + evidence context scenario (21% [95% CI, -24% to 7%]). CONCLUSIONS: Physicians who received company information about the unapproved use of Vascepa were more likely to report prescribing it off-label. Supplementing off-label claims with evidence context improved the prescribers' knowledge and reduced enthusiasm for the unproven, off-label indication of reducing cardiovascular risk.

Design of the Rural LEAP randomized trial: An evaluation of extended-care programs for weight management delivered via group or individual telephone counseling.

Obesity is a major contributor to the greater prevalence of chronic disease morbidity and mortality observed in rural versus nonrural areas of the U.S. Nonetheless, little research attention has been given to modifying this important driver of rural/urban disparities in health outcomes. Although lifestyle treatments produce weight reductions of sufficient magnitude to improve health, the existing research is limited with respect to the long-term maintenance of treatment effects and the dissemination of services to underserved populations. Recent studies have demonstrated the feasibility of delivering lifestyle programs through the infrastructure of the U.S. Cooperative Extension Service (CES), which has >2900 offices nationwide and whose mission includes nutrition education and health promotion. In addition, several randomized trials have shown that supplementing lifestyle treatment with extended-care programs consisting of either face-to-face sessions or individual telephone counseling can improve the maintenance of weight loss. However, both options entail relatively high costs that inhibit adoption in rural communities. The delivery of extended care via group-based telephone intervention may represent a promising, cost-effective alternative that is well suited to rural residents who tend to be isolated, have heightened concerns about privacy, and report lower quality of life. The Rural Lifestyle Eating and Activity Program (Rural LEAP) is a randomized trial, conducted via CES offices in rural communities, targeted to adults with obesity (n = 528), and designed to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of extended-care programs delivered via group or individual telephone counseling compared to an education control condition on long-term changes in body weight.