Proposed Best Practice Guidelines for Scientific Response Documents: A Consensus Statement from phactMI
Tóm tắt
The Medical Information Department of a pharmaceutical manufacturer provides written scientific responses to unsolicited requests from healthcare providers for information on products that extends beyond the product labeling (off-label). These scientific response documents are non-promotional, evidence-based, and scientifically balanced, conforming with internal pharmaceutical manufacturer’s procedures and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Draft Guidance on Responding to Unsolicited Requests for Off-Label Information. Members of phactMI™ developed this proposal to offer best practices for content generation of scientific response documents. Scientific response documents review available literature to respond to an unsolicited request; therefore, they are similar in nature to systematic reviews. The sections and elements identified in this proposed best practice guidelines for scientific response documents are based on an adaptation of the sections and elements of systematic reviews. The sections of a scientific response document should include a restatement of the unsolicited request (title); a structured summary (abstract); approved indications, black box warnings, and background information when appropriate (introduction); the literature search information and study selection (methods); summation of data from clinical trials, meta-analysis, case reports, and/or real world evidence, as appropriate (results); treatment guidelines, if applicable and available (discussion); and references. Elements for each section should be included in a scientific response document as appropriate, as some elements are not necessary in some documents, based on the question. These elements were selected for inclusion to address any potential concerns of bias and transparency and reflect the intent that scientific response documents should be non-promotional, accurate, truthful, free of commercial bias, scientifically balanced, and evidence based.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Guidance for Industry - Responding to Unsolicited Requests for Off-Label Information About Prescription Drugs and Medical Devices - DRAFT GUIDANCE. US Food and Drug Administration. (2011 December). https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/responding-unsolicited-requests-label-information-about-prescription-drugs-and-medical-devices. Accessed 30 Aug 2019.
Albano D, Ferri S. A proposal to replace “SRL” as the common term for medical information response documents. Ther Innov Reg Sci. 2018;52:403–4. https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479018759663.
phactMI [Internet] West Point, PA: c2019. Code of Practice [about 1 screen]. https://www.phactmi.org/PortalCodeOfPractice. Accessed 30 Aug 2019.
Lau V. Study: One-third of docs trust pharma content on HCP sites. MM&M May 18, 2017. https://www.mmm-online.com/home/channel/media-news/study-one-third-of-docs-trust-pharma-content-on-hcp-sites/. Accessed 24 Feb 2020.
Manhattan Research. ePharma Physician® 2015 Survey. New York, NY.
Hermes-DeSantis ER. Standard response letters: What are healthcare providers looking for? Presented at the DIA 11th Annual European Medical Information and Communications Conference in Barcelona, Spain. November 15, 2017.
Albano D, Soloff A, Heim K, Mavila S. A theory on the relativity of factors impacting the utilization of medical information services from the pharmaceutical industry. Ther Innov Reg Sci. 2016;50(5):554–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479016640019.
Evers M, Hartmann J, Pradel C et al. How pharma manufacturers can enhance their medical information teams. McKinsey & Company. May 2018. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/pharmaceuticals-and-medical-products/our-insights/how-pharma-manufacturers-can-enhance-their-medical-information-teams. Accessed 24 Feb 2020.
Robinson P, Lowe J. Literature reviews vs systematic reviews. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2015;39(2):103. https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-6405.12393.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):97. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.
Fung SM, Sud C, Suchodolski M. Survey of customers requesting medical information: preferences and information needs of patients and health care professionals to support treatment decisions. Ther Innov Reg Sci. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479018815455.
American Medical Writers Association, European Medical Writers Association, International Society for Medical Publication Professionals. AMWA-EMWA-ISMPP joint statement against predatory publishing. Curr Med Res Opin. 2019;35(9):1657–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/03007995.2019.1646535.
Howick J, Chalmer I, Glasziou P, et al. Explanation of the 2011 Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) Level of Evidence (Background Document) [Internet]. Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. https://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=5653. Accessed 24 Feb 2020.
Howick J, Chalmers I, Glasziou P, et al. The 2011 Oxford CEBM Evidence Levels of Evidence (Introductory Document) [Internet]. Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. https://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=5653. Accessed 24 Feb 2020.
OCEBM Levels of Evidence Working Group. “The Oxford Levels of Evidence 2”. Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. https://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=5653. Accessed 24 Feb 2020.
Ingham-Broomfield B. A nurses’ guide to the hierarchy of research designs and evidence. Aust J Adv Nurs. 2016;33(3):38–433.
Physician Payments Sunshine Act, S.301, The House of Congress (2010).