Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 371
Filtrar
1.
N Engl J Med ; 2020 Apr 14.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32289216
2.
JAMA ; 323(2): 164-176, 2020 01 14.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31935033

RESUMO

Importance: US law requires testing of new drugs before approval to ensure that they provide a well-defined benefit that is commensurate with their risks. A major challenge for the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is to achieve an appropriate balance between rigorous testing and the need for timely approval of drugs that have benefits that outweigh their risks. Objective: To describe the evolution of laws and standards affecting drug testing, the use of new approval programs and standards, expansions of the role and authority of the FDA, and changes in the number of drugs approved from the 1980s to 2018. Evidence: Sources of evidence included principal federal laws and FDA regulations (1962-2018) and FDA databases of approved new drugs (1984-2018), generic drugs (1970-2018), biologics (1984-2018), and vaccines (1998-2018); special development and approval programs (Orphan drug [1984-2018], Fast-Track [1988-2018], Priority Review and its predecessors [1984-2018], Accelerated Approval [1992-2018], and Breakthrough Therapy [2012-2018]); expanded access (2010-2017) and Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (2008-2018); and user fees paid to the FDA by industry (1993-2018). Findings: From 1983 to 2018, legislation and regulatory initiatives have substantially changed drug approval at the FDA. The mean annual number of new drug approvals, including biologics, was 34 from 1990-1999, 25 from 2000-2009, and 41 from 2010-2018. New biologic product approvals increased from a median of 2.5 from 1990-1999, to 5 from 2000-2013, to 12 from 2014-2018. The median annual number of generic drugs approved was 136 from 1970 to the enactment of the Hatch-Waxman Act in 1984; 284 from 1985 to the enactment of the Generic Drug User Fee Act in 2012; and 588 from 2013-2018. Prescription drug user fee funding expanded from new drugs and biologics in 1992 to generic and biosimilar drugs in 2012. The amount of Prescription Drug User Fee Act fees collected from industry increased from an annual mean of $66 million in 1993-1997 to $820 million in 2013-2017, and in 2018, user fees accounted for approximately 80% of the salaries of review personnel responsible for the approval of new drugs. The proportion of drugs approved with an Orphan Drug Act designation increased from 18% (55/304) in 1984-1995, to 22% (82/379) in 1996-2007, to 41% (154/380) in 2008-2018. Use of Accelerated Approval, Fast-Track, and Priority Review for new drugs has increased over time, with 81% (48/59) of new drugs benefiting from at least 1 such expedited program in 2018. The proportion of new approvals supported by at least 2 pivotal trials decreased from 80.6% in 1995-1997 to 52.8% in 2015-2017, based on 124 and 106 approvals, respectively, while the median number of patients studied did not change significantly (774 vs 816). FDA drug review times declined from more than 3 years in 1983 to less than 1 year in 2017, but total time from the authorization of clinical testing to approval has remained at approximately 8 years over that period. Conclusions and Relevance: Over the last 4 decades, the approval and regulation processes for pharmaceutical agents have evolved and increased in complexity as special programs have been added and as the use of surrogate measures has been encouraged. The FDA funding needed to implement and manage these programs has been addressed by expanding industry-paid user fees. The FDA has increasingly accepted less data and more surrogate measures, and has shortened its review times.


Assuntos
Aprovação de Drogas/legislação & jurisprudência , Regulamentação Governamental , Legislação de Medicamentos/tendências , Preparações Farmacêuticas/normas , United States Food and Drug Administration , Aprovação de Drogas/economia , Aprovação de Drogas/estatística & dados numéricos , História do Século XX , Legislação de Medicamentos/história , Estados Unidos
4.
J Manag Care Spec Pharm ; 25(11): 1210-1224, 2019 Nov.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31663459

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Step therapy policies that require prescribers to follow an ordered protocol for drug choices are widely used by public and private insurers to manage medication costs; however, the perceptions of prescribing physicians regarding these policies have not been studied. OBJECTIVE: To determine physician attitudes toward step therapy policies and the correlation of these beliefs with physician characteristics. METHODS: A sample of clinically active physicians specializing in internal medicine, cardiology, or endocrinology received a survey administered online or via mail. Five-point Likert scale questions assessed physicians' opinions of clinical, economic, and implementation elements of prior authorization policies; physician demographic characteristics; and the extent of their interactions with the pharmaceutical industry. RESULTS: 686 physicians (48%) responded to the survey, which was evenly divided among primary care physicians, endocrinologists, and cardiologists. Many respondents (70%) had interactions with industry, including receipt of meals or gifts and use of medication samples. Physicians reported that step therapy policies could improve the affordability of medication use (55% agree vs. 26% disagree) and its clinical appropriateness (59% agree vs. 19% disagree). By similar margins, however, physicians stated that step therapy policies were implemented inefficiently and inflexibly and often did not incorporate relevant patient-specific information. Physicians in subspecialties, especially endocrinology, and those who had interactions with the pharmaceutical industry were more likely to hold negative views of step therapy policies. CONCLUSIONS: Most physicians recognize the potential of step therapy to improve the quality and cost-effectiveness of prescribing, although interactions with industry may affect these opinions. Physician perception of ineffective implementation of these policies, however, undermines their acceptability. DISCLOSURES: The American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) funded the survey used in this study. The ABIM had no role in the design and conduct of the study or development and preparation of the manuscript. Survey honoraria was provided by the Consumers Union. Kesselheim and Avorn's work is funded by the Laura and John Arnold Foundation. Kesselheim is also supported by the Harvard-MIT Center for Regulatory Science, Arnold Ventures, and the Engelberg Foundation. Ross is employed by the ABIM. Fischer, Lu, and Tessema have nothing to disclose.

5.
BMJ ; 367: l5766, 2019 10 23.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31645328

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To determine the extent to which late stage development of new drugs relies on support from public funding. DESIGN: Cohort study. SETTING: All new drugs containing one or more new molecular entities approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) between January 2008 and December 2017 via the new drug application pathway. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patents or drug development histories documenting late stage research contributions by a public sector research institution or a spin-off company, as well as each drug's regulatory approval pathway and first-in-class designation. RESULTS: Over the 10 year study period, the FDA approved 248 drugs containing one or more new molecular entities. Of these drugs, 48 (19%) had origins in publicly supported research and development and 14 (6%) originated in companies spun off from a publicly supported research program. Drugs in these groups were more likely to receive expedited FDA approval (68% v 47%, P=0.005) or be designated first in class (45% v 26%, P=0.007), indicating therapeutic importance. CONCLUSIONS: A review of the patents associated with new drugs approved over the past decade indicates that publicly supported research had a major role in the late stage development of at least one in four new drugs, either through direct funding of late stage research or through spin-off companies created from public sector research institutions. These findings could have implications for policy makers in determining fair prices and revenue flows for these products.


Assuntos
Ensaios Clínicos como Assunto/economia , Aprovação de Drogas/economia , Setor Público/economia , Pesquisa Médica Translacional/economia , Ensaios Clínicos como Assunto/estatística & dados numéricos , Estudos de Coortes , Aprovação de Drogas/legislação & jurisprudência , Aprovação de Drogas/estatística & dados numéricos , Humanos , Patentes como Assunto/estatística & dados numéricos , Setor Público/estatística & dados numéricos , Pesquisa Médica Translacional/estatística & dados numéricos , Estados Unidos , United States Food and Drug Administration/legislação & jurisprudência , United States Food and Drug Administration/estatística & dados numéricos
6.
J Law Med Ethics ; 47(3): 430-441, 2019 Sep.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31560634

RESUMO

Drug Safety Communications (DSCs) are used by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to inform health care providers, patients, caregivers, and the general public about safety issues related to FDA-approved drugs. To assess patient knowledge of the messaging contained in DSCs related to the sleep aids zolpidem and eszopiclone, we conducted a large, cross-sectional patient survey of 1,982 commercially insured patients selected by stratified random sampling from the Optum Research Database who had filled at least two prescriptions for either zolpidem or eszopiclone between July 1, 2012 and June 30, 2013. Among the 594 respondents (32.7% response rate), two-thirds reported hearing generally about drug safety information prior to starting a new drug, with the remaining one-third "rarely" or "never" hearing such information. Providers and pharmacists were primary sources of drug safety information. Two-thirds of zolpidem users and half of eszopiclone users reported having heard about the related DSC messages, ability to accurately identify the major factual messages was limited (overall median 2 correct out of 5, with men and those reporting higher educational level scoring higher [2/5 vs. 1/5, p=0.001]). Respondents reacted to new drug safety information about their sleep aids by reporting that they would want to learn about alternative ways to help them sleep (70%) and seek out more information about the safety of their specific sleeping pill (59-78%). Opportunities may exist for the FDA to work with providers and pharmacies to help ensure the DSC information is more widely received and is more fully understood by those taking the affected medications.

8.
Drug Saf ; 42(11): 1287-1295, 2019 11.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31302895

RESUMO

Because clinical trials conducted for US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval occur in carefully monitored settings and often have strict inclusion criteria for participation, new information about drug safety is commonly discovered once a medication is FDA approved and used by larger numbers of patients. The FDA issues Drug Safety Communications when new information arises about the safety of marketed drugs that may change decision making by healthcare providers and patients. Since their inception, over 250 Drug Safety Communications have been issued alerting consumers and prescribers in the USA about safety risks related to prescription and over-the-counter medications. Researchers at the Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston in conjunction with officials from the FDA undertook a multi-modal study of the content, dissemination, and uptake of FDA messaging, focusing on two 2013 Drug Safety Communications related to zolpidem (Ambien; Sanofi, Paris, France). Traditional and social media analyses note incomplete dissemination of key DSC messages. Surveys of patients and interviews of physicians and patients suggest important limitations in patient-provider communication that have hindered sharing of safety information with patients. Finally, pharmacoepidemiologic analyses of zolpidem dispensing patterns after the Drug Safety Communications were released suggest possible opportunities for enhancing uptake of new safety knowledge that may lead to changes in clinical practice, where appropriate.

9.
Patient ; 12(2): 235-246, 2019 04.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30242575

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: Preference weights derived from general population samples are often used for therapeutic decision making. In contrast, patients with cardiovascular disease may have different preferences concerning the benefits and risks of anticoagulant therapy. Using a discrete choice experiment, we compared preferences for anticoagulant treatment outcomes between the general population and patients with cardiovascular disease. METHODS: A sample of the general US population and a sample of patients with cardiovascular disease were selected from online panels. We used a discrete choice experiment questionnaire to elicit preferences in both populations concerning treatment benefits and risks. Seven attributes described hypothetical treatments: non-fatal stroke, non-fatal myocardial infarction, cardiovascular death, minor bleeding, major bleeding, fatal bleeding, and the need for monitoring. We measured preference weights and maximum acceptable risks in both populations. RESULTS: A total of 352 individuals from the general population and 341 patients completed the questionnaire. After propensity score matching, 284 from each group were included in the analysis. On average, the general population members valued a 1% increased risk of fatal bleeding as being the same as a 4.2% increase in a non-fatal myocardial infarction, a 2.8% increase in cardiovascular death, or a 14.1% increase in minor bleeding. Patients, in contrast, perceived a 1% increased risk of fatal bleeding as being the same as a 2.0% increase in a non-fatal myocardial infarction, a 3.2% increase in cardiovascular death, and a 16.7% increase in minor bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: The general population and patients with cardiovascular disease had slightly different preferences for treatment outcomes. The differences can potentially influence estimated benefits and risks and patient-centered treatment decisions.


Assuntos
Anticoagulantes/uso terapêutico , Comportamento de Escolha , Preferência do Paciente , Opinião Pública , Adulto , Feminino , Pesquisas sobre Serviços de Saúde , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Infarto do Miocárdio/prevenção & controle , Estados Unidos
10.
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci ; 74(8): 1271-1276, 2019 Jul 12.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30165612

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: A claims-based frailty index (CFI) was developed based on a deficit-accumulation approach using self-reported health information. This study aimed to independently validate the CFI against physical performance and adverse health outcomes. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 3,642 community-dwelling older adults who had at least 1 health care encounter in the year prior to assessments of physical performance in the 2008 Health and Retirement Study wave. A CFI was estimated from Medicare claims data in the past year. Gait speed, grip strength, and the 2-year risk of death, institutionalization, disability, hospitalization, and prolonged (>30 days) skilled nursing facility (SNF) stay were evaluated for CFI categories (robust: <0.15, prefrail: 0.15-0.24, mildly frail: 0.25-0.34, moderate-to-severely frail: ≥0.35). RESULTS: The prevalence of robust, prefrail, mildly frail, and moderate-to-severely frail state was 52.7%, 38.0%, 7.1%, and 2.2%, respectively. Individuals with higher CFI had lower mean gait speed (moderate-to-severely frail vs robust: 0.39 vs 0.78 m/s) and weaker grip strength (19.8 vs 28.5 kg). Higher CFI was associated with death (moderate-to-severely frail vs robust: 46% vs 7%), institutionalization (21% vs 5%), activity of daily living disability (33% vs 9%), instrumental activity of daily living disability (100% vs 22%), hospitalization (79% vs 23%), and prolonged SNF stay (17% vs 2%). The odds ratios per 1-SD (=0.07) difference in CFI were 1.46-2.06 for these outcomes, which remained statistically significant after adjustment for age, sex, and a comorbidity index. CONCLUSION: The CFI is useful to identify individuals with poor physical function and at greater risks of adverse health outcomes in Medicare data.

12.
JAMA ; 320(7): 650-656, 2018 08 21.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30140875

RESUMO

Importance: Brand-name combination drugs can be more expensive than the sum of their components, especially when the constituent products are available as generic medications. The potential savings that could be achieved using generic components is not known. Objective: To estimate the additional cost to Medicare of prescribing brand-name combination medications instead of generic constituents. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective analysis for 2011 through 2016 using the Medicare data set of Part D beneficiaries prescribed any of the 1500 medications that accounted for the highest total spending in 2015. Brand-name combination drugs that had identical or therapeutically equivalent generic constituents were included. Exposures: Brand-name, oral combination medications with constituents available either as generic drugs or therapeutically equivalent generic substitutes. Main Outcomes and Measures: The estimated difference between the amount spent by Medicare on brand-name combination drugs and the estimated amount that would have been spent on substitutable generic components. Results: Among the 1500 medications evaluated, 29 brand-name combination medications were separated into 3 mutually exclusive categories: constituents available as generic medications at identical doses (n = 20), generic constituents at different doses (n = 3), and therapeutically equivalent generic substitutes (n = 6). For the constituents available as generic medications at identical doses category, total spending by Medicare in 2016 on the brand-name combination products was $303 million and the estimated spending for the generic constituents would have been $68 million, which is an estimated difference of $235 million. For the generic constituents at different doses category, total spending by Medicare in 2016 on the brand-name combination products was $232 million and the estimated spending for the generic constituents would have been $13 million, which is an estimated difference of $219 million. For the therapeutically equivalent generic substitutes category, total spending by Medicare in 2016 on the brand-name combination products was $491 million and the estimated spending for the generic constituents would have been $20 million, which is an estimated difference of $471 million. In 2016, the estimated spending for the generic constituents for these 29 drugs would have been $925 million less than the estimated spending for the brand-name combinations. For the 10 most costly combination products available during the entire study period, the listed Medicare spending could have been an estimated $2.7 billion lower between 2011 and 2016 if the generic constituents had been prescribed. Conclusions and Relevance: In 2016, the difference between the amount that the Medicare drug benefit program reported spending on brand-name combination medications and the estimated spending for generic constituents for the same number of doses was $925 million. Promoting generic substitution and therapeutic interchange through prescriber education and more rational substitution policies may offer important opportunities to achieve substantial savings in the Medicare drug benefit program.


Assuntos
Custos de Medicamentos , Medicamentos Genéricos/economia , Gastos em Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Medicare Part D/economia , Medicamentos sob Prescrição/economia , Estudos Retrospectivos , Estados Unidos
13.
J Am Geriatr Soc ; 66(8): 1491-1498, 2018 08.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30125337

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate temporal trends and between-hospital variation in off-label antipsychotic medication (APM) use in older adults undergoing cardiac surgery. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: National administrative database including 465 U.S. hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals aged 65 and older without known indications for APMs who underwent cardiac surgery from 2004 to 2014 (N=293,212). MEASUREMENTS: Postoperative exposure to any APMs and potentially excessive dosing were examined. Hospital-level APM prescribing intensity was defined as the proportion of individuals newly treated with APMs in the postoperative period. RESULTS: The rate of APM use declined from 8.8% in 2004 to 6.2% in 2014 (p<.001). Use of haloperidol (parenteral 7.0% to 4.5%, p<.001; oral: 1.9% to 0.5%, p<.001), and risperidone (1.1% to 0.3%, p<.001) declined, whereas quetiapine use tripled (0.6% to 1.9%, p=.03). Hospital APM prescribing intensity varied widely, from 0.3% to 35.6%, across 465 hospitals. Treated individuals at higher-prescribing hospitals were more likely to receive APMs on the day of discharge (highest vs lowest quintile: 15.1% vs 9.6%; p<.001) and for a longer duration (4.8 vs 3.7 days; p<.001) than those at lower-prescribing hospitals. Delirium was the strongest risk factor for APM exposure (odds ratio=9.73, 95% confidence interval=9.02-10.5), whereas none of the hospital characteristics were significantly associated. The rate of potentially excessive dosing declined (60.7% to 44.9%, p<.001), and risk factors for potentially excessive dosing were similar to those for any APM exposure. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest highly variable prescribing cultures and raise concerns about inappropriate use, highlighting the need for better evidence to guide APM prescribing in hospitalized older adults after cardiac surgery.


Assuntos
Antipsicóticos/uso terapêutico , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Cardíacos/psicologia , Prescrições de Medicamentos/estatística & dados numéricos , Alta do Paciente/tendências , Complicações Pós-Operatórias/tratamento farmacológico , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Delírio/tratamento farmacológico , Delírio/etiologia , Feminino , Humanos , Estudos Longitudinais , Masculino , Complicações Pós-Operatórias/etiologia , Estudos Retrospectivos , Fatores de Risco , Estados Unidos
18.
BMJ Open ; 8(2): e018320, 2018 02 10.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29440155

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: This review investigates characteristics of implemented adaptive design clinical trials and provides examples of regulatory experience with such trials. DESIGN: Review of adaptive design clinical trials in EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Registry of Controlled Clinical Trials, Web of Science and ClinicalTrials.gov. Phase I and seamless Phase I/II trials were excluded. Variables extracted from trials included basic study characteristics, adaptive design features, size and use of independent data monitoring committees (DMCs) and blinded interim analyses. We also examined use of the adaptive trials in new drug submissions to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) and recorded regulators' experiences with adaptive designs. RESULTS: 142 studies met inclusion criteria. There has been a recent growth in publicly reported use of adaptive designs among researchers around the world. The most frequently appearing types of adaptations were seamless Phase II/III (57%), group sequential (21%), biomarker adaptive (20%), and adaptive dose-finding designs (16%). About one-third (32%) of trials reported an independent DMC, while 6% reported blinded interim analysis. We found that 9% of adaptive trials were used for FDA product approval consideration, and 12% were used for EMA product approval consideration. International regulators had mixed experiences with adaptive trials. Many product applications with adaptive trials had extensive correspondence between drug sponsors and regulators regarding the adaptive designs, in some cases with regulators requiring revisions or alterations to research designs. CONCLUSIONS: Wider use of adaptive designs will necessitate new drug application sponsors to engage with regulatory scientists during planning and conduct of the trials. Investigators need to more consistently report protections intended to preserve confidentiality and minimise potential operational bias during interim analysis.


Assuntos
Ensaios Clínicos Adaptados como Assunto/métodos , Projetos de Pesquisa/tendências , Humanos , Estatística como Assunto
19.
J Gen Intern Med ; 33(5): 759-763, 2018 05.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29450684

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: A run-in phase is often employed prior to randomization in a clinical trial to exclude non-adherent patients, placebo responders, active drug non-responders, or patients who do not tolerate the active drug. This may impact the generalizability of trial results. OBJECTIVE: To determine if clinical outcomes differed between randomized controlled trials with run-in phases compared with randomized controlled trials of the same medication without run-in phases. DESIGN, PARTICIPANTS: From 2006 to 2014, the Food and Drug Administration approved 258 new medications. Sitaglitpin, saxagliptin, linagliptin, and alogliptin were among the only drugs with a common mechanism of action that each had multiple clinical trials, some of which had run-in phases and some of which did not. We identified all published randomized controlled trials for these four medications from MEDLINE and EMBASE as well as prior systematic reviews. MAIN MEASURES: We extracted key measures of medication efficacy (reduction in hemoglobin A1C) and safety (serious adverse events) from qualifying trials. Study results were pooled for each medication using random effects meta-analysis. KEY RESULTS: We identified 106 qualifying trials for DPP4 inhibitors, of which 88 had run-in phases and 18 did not. The average run-in phase duration was 4.0 weeks (range 1-21), and 73% of run-in phases administered placebo rather than active drug. The reduction in hemoglobin A1C compared to baseline was similar for trials with and without run-in phases (0.70%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.65-0.75 vs 0.76%, 95% CI 0.69-0.84, p = 0.27). The proportion of patients with serious adverse events was also similar for trials with and without run-in phases (4%, 95% CI: 3-5% vs 3%, 95% CI: 1-4%, p = 0.35). CONCLUSION: Trials with run-in phases provided similar estimates for medication efficacy and safety compared to trials without run-in phases. Because run-in phases are costly and time-consuming, these results call their utility into question for clinical trials of short duration.


Assuntos
Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Projetos de Pesquisa , Desenvolvimento de Medicamentos/métodos , Humanos
20.
JMIR Public Health Surveill ; 4(1): e1, 2018 Jan 05.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29305342

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issues drug safety communications (DSCs) to health care professionals, patients, and the public when safety issues emerge related to FDA-approved drug products. These safety messages are disseminated through social media to ensure broad uptake. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the social media dissemination of 2 DSCs released in 2013 for the sleep aid zolpidem. METHODS: We used the MedWatcher Social program and the DataSift historic query tool to aggregate Twitter and Facebook posts from October 1, 2012 through August 31, 2013, a period beginning approximately 3 months before the first DSC and ending 3 months after the second. Posts were categorized as (1) junk, (2) mention, and (3) adverse event (AE) based on a score between -0.2 (completely unrelated) to 1 (perfectly related). We also looked at Google Trends data and Wikipedia edits for the same time period. Google Trends search volume is scaled on a range of 0 to 100 and includes "Related queries" during the relevant time periods. An interrupted time series (ITS) analysis assessed the impact of DSCs on the counts of posts with specific mention of zolpidem-containing products. Chow tests for known structural breaks were conducted on data from Twitter, Facebook, and Google Trends. Finally, Wikipedia edits were pulled from the website's editorial history, which lists all revisions to a given page and the editor's identity. RESULTS: In total, 174,286 Twitter posts and 59,641 Facebook posts met entry criteria. Of those, 16.63% (28,989/174,286) of Twitter posts and 25.91% (15,453/59,641) of Facebook posts were labeled as junk and excluded. AEs and mentions represented 9.21% (16,051/174,286) and 74.16% (129,246/174,286) of Twitter posts and 5.11% (3,050/59,641) and 68.98% (41,138/59,641) of Facebook posts, respectively. Total daily counts of posts about zolpidem-containing products increased on Twitter and Facebook on the day of the first DSC; Google searches increased on the week of the first DSC. ITS analyses demonstrated variability but pointed to an increase in interest around the first DSC. Chow tests were significant (P<.0001) for both DSCs on Facebook and Twitter, but only the first DSC on Google Trends. Wikipedia edits occurred soon after each DSC release, citing news articles rather than the DSC itself and presenting content that needed subsequent revisions for accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: Social media offers challenges and opportunities for dissemination of the DSC messages. The FDA could consider strategies for more actively disseminating DSC safety information through social media platforms, particularly when announcements require updating. The FDA may also benefit from directly contributing content to websites like Wikipedia that are frequently accessed for drug-related information.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA