Identifying target areas of medicines information efforts to pregnant and breastfeeding women by reviewing questions to SafeMotherMedicine: A Norwegian web-based public medicines information service.

BACKGROUND: Online information about safety of medications during pregnancy and breastfeeding is shown to be conflicting, resulting in anxiety and abstaining from use. The aim of this study was to characterize questions to SafeMotherMedicine, a web-based medicines information service for pregnant and breastfeeding women, to identify target areas that could guide subsequent development of medicines information directed at pregnant and breastfeeding women. METHODS: The SafeMotherMedicine database contains all questions received through the web-based service and their corresponding answers. A retrospective database analysis of questions received from January 2016 to September 2018 was performed, using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: A total of 11 618 questions were received including 5 985 questions (51.5%) concerning pregnancy, 4 878 questions (42.0%) concerning breastfeeding, and 755 questions (6.5%) concerning both conditions. The medications in question represented all therapeutic groups with paracetamol (7.0%), ibuprofen (4.1%), cetirizine (3.3%), desloratadine (3.2%) and meclizine (2.8%) being the top five. The 20 medications most frequently asked about for either pregnancy, breastfeeding or both pregnancy and breastfeeding, constituted half of all questions and were used to identify target areas. These included both symptomatic relief of common complaints, such as pain, nausea, and rhinitis, as well as treatment of chronic conditions such as allergy, psychiatric disorders, and asthma. Analysis of a subset of questions showed that most of these questions were asked before use of medications in a current pregnancy (49%) or during breastfeeding (72%). The questions concerned use of medications in all stages of pregnancy and breastfeeding. For 81.6% of the questions concerning pregnancy, and for 84.2% of the questions concerning breastfeeding, information of no or low risk for the foetus or the breastfed infant was provided by SafeMotherMedicine. CONCLUSIONS: We found that target areas for medicines information directed at pregnant and breastfeeding women included both symptomatic relief of common complaints as well as treatment of chronic conditions. The questions concerned a wide range of medications and involved use in all stages of pregnancy and breastfeeding. Our findings indicate that developing medicines information addressing the identified target areas will meet the information need for a large proportion of this patient group.

Antiemetic treatment of hyperemesis gravidarum in 1,064 Norwegian women and the impact of European warning on metoclopramide: a retrospective cohort study 2002-2019.

BACKGROUND: Women suffering from severe nausea and vomiting during pregnancy, hyperemesis gravidarum, have poor quality of life and increased risk of potentially fatal maternal and fetal complications. There is increasing and reassuring knowledge about safety of antiemetics in pregnancy. In 2013, the European Medical Agency (EMA) issued a warning on metoclopramide limiting treatment to maximum five days. Metoclopramide was the most used antiemetic in pregnancy at the time the warning was implemented in the Norwegian hyperemesis guidelines (2014). We aimed at describing changes in the treatment of hyperemesis over time, including changes associated with the EMA warning. METHODS: Retrospective chart review of all women hospitalized for hyperemesis gravidarum with metabolic disturbances between 01/Jan/2002 and 31/Dec/2019 at a university hospital serving nearly 10% of the pregnant population in Norway. Time-series analysis described changes over time and interrupted time series analysis quantified changes in treatment and clinical outcomes related to the EMA warning. RESULTS: In total, 1,064 women (1.2% of the birthing population) were included. The use of meclizine, prochlorperazine, and ondansetron increased during 2002-2019. This led to a yearly increase in the percentage of women using any antiemetic of 1.5% (95%CI 0.6; 2.4) pre-hospital, 0.6% (95%CI 0.2; 1.1) during hospitalization, and 2.6% (95%CI 1.3; 3.8) at discharge. Overall, only 50% of the women received antiemetics pre-hospital. Following the EMA warning, prehospital use of metoclopramide dropped by 30% (95%CI 25; 36), while use of any antiemetic pre-hospital dropped by 20% (95%CI 5.7; 34). In timely association, we observed a decrease in gestational age (-3.8 days, 98.75%CI 0.6; 7.1) at first admission, as well as indication of increased rate of termination of pregnancy with an absolute increase of 4.8% (98.75%CI 0.9; 8.7) in 2014. CONCLUSION: During 2002-2019, the overall use of antiemetics in treatment of hyperemesis increased. The EMA-warning on metoclopramide in 2013 temporarily limited pre-hospital antiemetic provision associated with hospitalization at lower gestational length and indication of an increase in termination of pregnancy.

Perception of prescribing factors and purchase statistics of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in an orthopedic clinic.

OBJECTIVES: Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS) are associated with concern of adverse drug reactions (ADRS) including gastrointestinal, cardiovascular, renal, and musculoskeletal. Non-selective and selective NSAIDS are proposed to differ with regard to their potential to cause ADRS. The aim of this pilot study was to compare perception of prescribing factors and purchase statistics of NSAIDS among physicians in a Norwegian orthopedic clinic. RESULTS: Forty-five (55%) of 82 invited physicians from the orthopedic clinic participated anonymous in a survey in February 2017. Effect and ADRS were rated as the most important factors for prescribing of NSAIDS. The participants were equally concerned about specific ADRS for prescription of non-selective and selective NSAIDS irrespective of type of ADR. They were generally more concerned about cardiovascular, gastrointestinal and renal ADRS than musculoskeletal. Purchase statistics from 2015 and 2016 showed that celecoxib, a selective NSAID, dominated in the orthopedic clinic. The discrepancy between perception of prescribing factors and purchase statistics of NSAIDS was possibly explained by a high degree of conformity to clinic guidelines. Our preliminary results indicate that perception of prescribing factors of NSAIDS among orthopedics should be surveyed in multicenter or multinational studies.

Questions about complementary and alternative medicine to the Regional Medicines Information and Pharmacovigilance Centres in Norway (RELIS): a descriptive pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Provision of clinically relevant information about complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) to health care professionals is not well described. The aim of the study was to assess questions about CAM to the Regional Medicines Information and Pharmacovigilance Centres in Norway (RELIS). METHODS: All question-answers pairs (QAPs) in the RELIS database indexed with alternative medicine from 2005-2010 constituted the study material. A randomly selected sample of 100 QAPs was characterized with regard to type of question (category, patient-specific or general), occupation and workplace of enquirer, the type of information search performed (simple or advanced), and if the answers contained information to provide factual or consultative replies (facts about or advice on clinical use of CAM, respectively). Proportions were compared with Fisher's exact test with significance at the 0.05 level. RESULTS: One thousand and thirty-eight (7.7%) out of 13 482 questions involved CAM. Eighty-two out of 100 questions concerned products containing one or more herbs, vitamins and minerals as well as other substances. Thirty-eight out of 100 questions concerned the category documentation (substance identification and/or literature reports about clinical effects), 36 interactions, 16 adverse effects, 9 pregnancy and lactation, and 1 question concerned contraindications. Sixty-three questions were patient-specific and 37 general. Fifty-four questions came from physicians, 33 from pharmacists and 13 from others (including nurses, midwives, students, CAM practitioners, and the public). Pharmacists asked more frequently about interactions while physicians asked more frequently about adverse effects (p < 0.05). Seventy-six of the questions came from outside hospital, mainly general practice and community pharmacies. Fifty-nine answers were based on a simple and 41 on an advanced information search. Thirty-three factual and 38 consultative answers were provided. In 29 answers, search provided no information. Lack of information to provide an answer was not significantly different between patient-specific (31.7%) and general questions (24.3%). CONCLUSIONS: General practice and community pharmacies are the main sources for questions about CAM to RELIS. Physicians are concerned about adverse effects while pharmacists are concerned about interactions. Lack of information to provide answers to patient-specific and general questions about CAM represents a problem.

Prescriptions from general practitioners and in hospital physicians requiring pharmacists' interventions.

PURPOSE: To study prescribing errors requiring pharmacists' interventions and to evaluate the potential clinical significance of the errors and omissions detected. METHODS: The pharmacists at ten community pharmacies and two out-patient hospital pharmacies recorded prescribing errors and corresponding interventions using a modified version of a previously developed registration scheme. Prescription errors with potential clinical significance were scored according to a modified version of Safety Assessment Code (SAC)-score RESULTS: During the study period 85,475 prescriptions were dispensed. A total of 2385 prescribing errors were detected on 2226 (2.6%) prescriptions. The proportion of prescriptions with errors and omissions was more than four times higher on prescriptions from hospital physicians (7.1%) than on prescriptions from general practitioners (1.5%). The information on the majority (62.2%) of the prescriptions with inaccuracies had to be clarified before the drug could be dispensed. About 1/4 of the errors and omissions were of potential importance for the drug therapy. An expert panel of physicians and pharmacists judged 85% of these errors and omissions to be clinically significant. Individual physicians and pharmacists judged the clinical importance of the detected prescribing errors somewhat differently. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacists intervened on 2.6% of prescriptions, and the majority of the potentially clinically significant prescribing errors were judged as significant to the patient's drug therapy and safety.