Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22266704›Full record

SynthesisMedical care2012

Impact of FDA drug risk communications on health care utilization and health behaviors: a systematic review.

Stacie B Dusetzina, Ashley S Higashi, E Ray Dorsey, Rena Conti, Haiden A Huskamp, Shu Zhu, Craig F Garfield, G Caleb Alexander

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Medical care, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 100 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
100citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

100 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

40 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Stacie B DusetzinaDepartment of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Ashley S Higashi
E Ray Dorsey
Rena Conti
Haiden A Huskamp
Shu Zhu
Craig F Garfield
G Caleb Alexander

Funding

Health Policy Training Program: Promoting Outcomes, Quality, Equity and Diffusion of AdvancesT32MH019733 · NIMH · HARVARD UNIVERSITY (MEDICAL SCHOOL) · PI Benjamin Le Cook, Haiden A Huskamp · 1993 to 2026
$7.0M
The University of Rochester's Clinical and Translational Science InstituteKL2RR024136 · NCRR · UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER · PI PEARSON, THOMAS ARTHUR · 2006 to 2011
$4.3M
Oncology R&D: Expanding the Role of Economics to Aid Public PolicyK07CA138906 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO · PI CONTI, RENA MARIE · 2009 to 2013
$672k
AHRQ HHS R01 HS0189960NCI NIH HHS K07 CA138906NCRR NIH HHS KL2 RR024136NIMH NIH HHS T32 MH019733NIMH NIH HHS T32MH019733-17
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo review literature on the impact of The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug risk communications on medication utilization, health care services use, and health outcomes. DATA SOURCES: The authors searched MEDLINE and the Web of Science for manuscripts published between January 1990 and November 2010 that included terms related to drug utilization, the FDA, and advisories or warnings. We manually searched bibliographies and works citing selected articles and consulted with experts to guide study selection. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were included if they involved an empirical analysis evaluating the impact of an FDA risk communication. DATA EXTRACTION: We extracted the drug(s) analyzed, relevant FDA communication(s), data source, analytical method, and main outcome(s) assessed.

resultsOf the 1432 records screened, 49 studies were included. These studies covered 16 medicines or therapeutic classes; one third examined communications regarding antidepressants. Most used medical or pharmacy claims and a few rigorously examined patient-provider communication, decision making, or risk perceptions. Advisories recommending increased clinical or laboratory monitoring generally led to decreased drug use, but only modest, short-term increases in monitoring. Communications targeting specific subpopulations often spilled over to other groups. Repeated or sequential advisories tended to have larger but delayed effects and decreased incident more than prevalent use. Drug-specific warnings were associated with particularly large decreases in utilization, although the magnitude of substitution within therapeutic classes varied across clinical contexts.

conclusionsAlthough some FDA drug risk communications had immediate and strong impacts, many had either delayed or had no impact on health care utilization or health behaviors. These data demonstrate the complexity of using risk communication to improve the quality and safety of prescription drug use, and suggest the importance of continued assessments of the effect of future advisories and label changes. Identifying factors that are associated with rapid and sustained responses to risk communications will be important for informing future risk communication efforts.

Indexed as

CommunicationHealth BehaviorDrug InteractionsDrug MonitoringDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsDrug UtilizationHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHealth ServicesHumansPatient SelectionRisk AssessmentRisk ManagementUnited StatesUnited States Food and Drug Administration

Identifiers

PMID22266704
PMCPMC3342472

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.