Provision of information on regulatory authorities' websites.

BACKGROUND: Several organizations have raised concerns about the excessive secrecy maintained by regulatory authorities around the world, in particular in the European Union, France, UK, Canada and Australia. However, limited research has assessed the provision of information by regulatory authorities. This study aimed to assess the type and availability of information provided on the regulatory authorities' websites. METHODS: Regulatory authorities' websites in six countries (USA, Canada, UK, France, Australia and New Zealand) and at the European level (European Medicines Evaluation Agency) were surveyed by two reviewers between October 2005 and March 2006. The survey instrument included 16 criteria organized in 3 domains: information on marketed drugs, information on assessment of drugs and information on drug safety. RESULTS: There was a great variability in the level of information provided. Several medicine agencies did not provide basic information on marketed drugs, such as the summary of products' characteristics. Information on registration dossiers was scant on most websites except that of the US Food and Drug Administration. The European Medicines Evaluation Agency, the French agency and the Canadian agency released public assessment reports that contained only summarized information of registration data. Only one country, Canada, provided full access to pharmacovigilance data. The periodic safety update reports that companies have to provide regularly to regulatory authorities were not available in any country. CONCLUSION: Information on which regulatory authorities base their decisions for licensing new drugs and the rationales behind these decisions were often not publicly available.

High-dose methylprednisolone for acute closed spinal cord injury--only a treatment option.

BACKGROUND: A systematic review of the evidence pertaining to methylprednisolone infusion following acute spinal cord injury was conducted in order to address the persistent confusion about the utility of this treatment. METHODS: A committee of neurosurgical and orthopedic spine specialists, emergency physicians and physiatrists engaged in active clinical practice conducted an electronic database search for articles about acute spinal cord injuries and steroids, from January 1, 1966 to April 2001, that was supplemented by a manual search of reference lists, requests for unpublished additional information, translations of foreign language references and study protocols from the author of a Cochrane systematic review and Pharmacia Inc. The evidence was graded and recommendations were developed by consensus. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-seven citations that specifically addressed spinal cord injuries and methylprednisolone were retrieved and 64 reviewed. Recommendations were based on one Cochrane systematic review, six Level I clinical studies and seven Level II clinical studies that addressed changes in neurological function and complications following methylprednisolone therapy. CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to support the use of high-dose methylprednisolone within eight hours following an acute closed spinal cord injury as a treatment standard or as a guideline for treatment. Methylprednisolone, prescribed as a bolus intravenous infusion of 30 mg per kilogram of body weight over fifteen minutes within eight hours of closed spinal cord injury, followed 45 minutes later by an infusion of 5.4 mg per kilogram of body weight per hour for 23 hours, is only a treatment option for which there is weak clinical evidence (Level I- to II-1). There is insufficient evidence to support extending methylprednisolone infusion beyond 23 hours if chosen as a treatment option.

Do drug advertisements in Russian medical journals provide essential information for safe prescribing?

OBJECTIVE: To examine pharmaceutical advertisements in medical journals for their adequacy of information. METHODS: We selected a convenience sample of 5 major Russian medical journals covering different fields of medicine and different types of publications. We evaluated all the ads in all the issues of the selected journals published during 1998. We counted the number of appearances of trade, chemical, and generic names; indication and contraindication; pharmacologic group; safety warnings; and references. Counts in all categories were aggregated for each advertiser. RESULTS: There were 397 placements of 207 distinct advertisements. Only 154 placements (40%) mentioned the generic name, 177 (45%) mentioned any indication, 42 (11%) mentioned safety warnings and contraindications, 21 (5%) warned about drug interactions, and 8 (2%) provided references. The 6 companies responsible for the most ads on average provided less information than the other companies. CONCLUSIONS: Almost none of the drug ads published in Russian medical journals provide the basic information required for appropriate prescribing. This is despite the fact that in Russia, ads that omit essential information and that could lead consumers to misunderstandings about an advertised product are illegal. The arrival of drug advertising in Russia has brought little information and has been potentially damaging.

How patient outcomes are reported in drug advertisements.

OBJECTIVE: To examine how changes in outcomes are reported in drug advertisements in medical journals. QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: Advertisements from a convenience sample of 38 issues of Canadian Family Physician, Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia, Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, Canadian Medical Association Journal, and the New England Journal of Medicine. MAIN MESSAGE: Method of reporting changes in clinical outcomes (relative risk reduction [RRR], absolute risk reduction [ARR], number needed to treat [NNT]), name of product, and company marketing product were sought. In the 22 advertisements included in the analysis, 11 reported results as RRRs; two reported results as RRRs, but readers could calculate ARRs or NNTs from figures given in the advertisement; and nine gave no measure of results, but readers could calculate RRRs, ARRs, or NNTs from figures given. CONCLUSIONS: Most companies report changes in outcomes as RRRs, and this bias could influence the way physicians prescribe. Changes to the rules governing journal advertising and increased emphasis on critical appraisal skills would help mitigate this bias.