Cargando…

Critical review of drug promotional literature using the World Health Organization guidelines

OBJECTIVE: Drug promotional literatures (DPLs) are used as a promotional tool to advertise new drugs entering the market to doctors. The objective of the present study is to evaluate the accuracy of DPLs by using the World Health Organization (WHO) criteria. METHODS: An observational study was condu...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ganashree, Puttaswamy, Bhuvana, Krishnaswamy, Sarala, Narayana
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4966233/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27512705
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/2279-042X.185711
_version_ 1782445349922668544
author Ganashree, Puttaswamy
Bhuvana, Krishnaswamy
Sarala, Narayana
author_facet Ganashree, Puttaswamy
Bhuvana, Krishnaswamy
Sarala, Narayana
author_sort Ganashree, Puttaswamy
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: Drug promotional literatures (DPLs) are used as a promotional tool to advertise new drugs entering the market to doctors. The objective of the present study is to evaluate the accuracy of DPLs by using the World Health Organization (WHO) criteria. METHODS: An observational study was conducted from March to August 2014. The DPLs were collected from various departments at R.L. Jalappa Hospital and Research Centre attached to Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College, Kolar, India. The literature was evaluated based on 11 criteria laid down by the WHO. FINDINGS: Two-hundred DPLs were evaluated. Cardiovascular drugs (34 [17%]) were promoted the most, followed by antidiabetic drugs (31 [15.5%]) and antimicrobial agents (29 [14.5%]). Single drug was promoted in 134 (67%) and fixed drug combination in 66 (33%) brochures. Manufacturer's name was mentioned in 194 (97%), but their address was mentioned in 109 (54.5%) claims only. Drug cost was revealed only in 12 (6%) DPLs. Each ingredient's generic name, brand name, and dosage form were mentioned in 197 (98%) brochures. Indication for use was stated in 193 (96.5%) claims. Contraindications, adverse effects, precautions, and drug interactions were listed in 68 (34.5%), 65 (32.5%), 65 (32.5%), and 58 (29%) advertisements. References were cited in 133 (66.5%) brochures. Only 63 (31.5%) literatures had relevant pictures of drugs being promoted and 59 (29.5%) had a graphical representation of pharmacological properties. A total of 131 (69%) DPLs followed 50% of the WHO criteria. CONCLUSION: Majority of DPLs satisfied only half of the WHO criteria for rational drug promotion and none of them fulfilled all the specified criteria. Incomplete or exaggerated information in DPLs may mislead and result in irrational prescription. Therefore, physicians should critically evaluate DPLs regarding updated scientific evidence required for quality patient care.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4966233
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-49662332016-08-10 Critical review of drug promotional literature using the World Health Organization guidelines Ganashree, Puttaswamy Bhuvana, Krishnaswamy Sarala, Narayana J Res Pharm Pract Original Article OBJECTIVE: Drug promotional literatures (DPLs) are used as a promotional tool to advertise new drugs entering the market to doctors. The objective of the present study is to evaluate the accuracy of DPLs by using the World Health Organization (WHO) criteria. METHODS: An observational study was conducted from March to August 2014. The DPLs were collected from various departments at R.L. Jalappa Hospital and Research Centre attached to Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College, Kolar, India. The literature was evaluated based on 11 criteria laid down by the WHO. FINDINGS: Two-hundred DPLs were evaluated. Cardiovascular drugs (34 [17%]) were promoted the most, followed by antidiabetic drugs (31 [15.5%]) and antimicrobial agents (29 [14.5%]). Single drug was promoted in 134 (67%) and fixed drug combination in 66 (33%) brochures. Manufacturer's name was mentioned in 194 (97%), but their address was mentioned in 109 (54.5%) claims only. Drug cost was revealed only in 12 (6%) DPLs. Each ingredient's generic name, brand name, and dosage form were mentioned in 197 (98%) brochures. Indication for use was stated in 193 (96.5%) claims. Contraindications, adverse effects, precautions, and drug interactions were listed in 68 (34.5%), 65 (32.5%), 65 (32.5%), and 58 (29%) advertisements. References were cited in 133 (66.5%) brochures. Only 63 (31.5%) literatures had relevant pictures of drugs being promoted and 59 (29.5%) had a graphical representation of pharmacological properties. A total of 131 (69%) DPLs followed 50% of the WHO criteria. CONCLUSION: Majority of DPLs satisfied only half of the WHO criteria for rational drug promotion and none of them fulfilled all the specified criteria. Incomplete or exaggerated information in DPLs may mislead and result in irrational prescription. Therefore, physicians should critically evaluate DPLs regarding updated scientific evidence required for quality patient care. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2016 /pmc/articles/PMC4966233/ /pubmed/27512705 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/2279-042X.185711 Text en Copyright: © 2016 Journal of Research in Pharmacy Practice http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Original Article
Ganashree, Puttaswamy
Bhuvana, Krishnaswamy
Sarala, Narayana
Critical review of drug promotional literature using the World Health Organization guidelines
title Critical review of drug promotional literature using the World Health Organization guidelines
title_full Critical review of drug promotional literature using the World Health Organization guidelines
title_fullStr Critical review of drug promotional literature using the World Health Organization guidelines
title_full_unstemmed Critical review of drug promotional literature using the World Health Organization guidelines
title_short Critical review of drug promotional literature using the World Health Organization guidelines
title_sort critical review of drug promotional literature using the world health organization guidelines
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4966233/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27512705
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/2279-042X.185711
work_keys_str_mv AT ganashreeputtaswamy criticalreviewofdrugpromotionalliteratureusingtheworldhealthorganizationguidelines
AT bhuvanakrishnaswamy criticalreviewofdrugpromotionalliteratureusingtheworldhealthorganizationguidelines
AT saralanarayana criticalreviewofdrugpromotionalliteratureusingtheworldhealthorganizationguidelines