Prescribers have many sources of information to help them prescribe rationally. Although useful, they all have limitations (Box 2.1).
Box 2.1 Different types of sources of information for prescribers
Source |
Limitations |
Textbooks |
Take years to produce and are therefore liable to be out of date. |
Medical journals |
Difficult to get an overall view of the treatment options and a variable degree of influence on the content from biased sources. |
Local or national formularies |
Formularies vary in quality between different countries. They show the range of drugs that can be used for a practical purpose. Some explain how to make good choices from this range, but rarely have space for much background or comparative information. |
Guidelines |
Conclusions depend on the terms of reference of the organization producing the guidelines (see text below). |
Official prescribing information prepared by drug companies and approved by regulatory authorities (e.g. data sheet, summary of product characteristics) |
These are legal documents which vary a lot between countries and are much influenced by the power or the weaknesses of the national regulatory authority in regulating commercial promotion adequately. The information is often hard to use, partly because companies and regulatory agencies regard the documents as a protection against liability claims. |
Promotional information |
Primarily advocates the use and sale of a drug. |
The conclusions in most of the traditional resource materials will have some bias that may well distort the message. Early trials of new medicines are designed and reported almost exclusively by drug companies and the conclusions published are likely to favour the company’s product. Furthermore journals tend to prefer to publish papers with 'positive' results, a tendency that again favours the pharmaceutical industry. The advice given by secondary reviewing bodies, such as the UK's National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE), or the Cochrane Collaboration, depends on the terms of reference of the reviewing group. For example, NICE deals with efficacy and cost and essentially ignores safety; reviews by the Cochrane Collaboration tend to deal with efficacy and so far pay much less attention to safety or cost. The documents produced by national regulatory agencies and by the European Medicines Agency (EMEA) consider efficacy and safety but not a product’s cost, relative efficacy (“added therapeutic value”) or ease of use.