D It U G It E A e T I 0 N-S-

PEM response rates falling Promotional post marketing surveillance studies

that are conducted by the pharmaceutical industry have had 'a striking effect on PEM [prescription event monitoring],. say Professor William Inman and Gillian Pearce from the Drug Safety Research Unit (DSRU) in Southampton. UK.

The response rate to PEM has been falling in recent years. Data from PEM studies completed since 1984 on the prescribing patterns of 27 new drugs indicated an overall response rate of only 530', in terms of useful postmarketing information. Data also indicated that physicians who were heavy prescribers of new drugs were less likely to respond to PEM requests for postmarketing information on adverse reactions. The response rate for the hea\'iest 10% of prescribers was 44'1c and for the heaviest 17c of prescribers was only 349<. Non-UK­qualified doctors were more likely to be heavy prescribers of new drugs.

Prescribers influenced by new drug promotion A more detailed analysis of prescriptions from

doctors who were the heaviest prescribers of new drugs revealed that prescriptions for I. or some­times 2 or 3. new drugs accounted for a high proportion of their total prescribing (40-907c of all their prescriptions).

This information suggests that 'a minority of prescribers are strongly influenced by promotional techniques'. in the opinion of Professor Inman and Pearce. They are concerned that large numbers of patients are being exposed to potential risks during the early postmarketing phase of new drugs by expensive promotional postmarketing surveillance studies conducted by the industry as a means of increasing sales. Inman W. Pearce G. Pre,criber profile and p"'t-marketing surYeillance. Lancet ),)2: h:i~-661. II Scp I'N.1

ISSN 0156-270319310925-00211$1.00" Adis International Ltd

21

INPHARMA'"25 Sep 1993