Advertisement

Drug Safety

, Volume 26, Issue 15, pp 1065–1074 | Cite as

Issues Related to Monitoring the Safety of Over-The-Counter (OTC) Medicines

  • Christine Bond
  • Philip Hannaford
Leading Article

Abstract

Pharmaceutical advances over the past 50 years have benefited many people in terms of disease prevention and management. However, probably without exception, most pharmaceutical products can cause adverse consequences of varying severity and frequency.

In the last 10 years, many medicines that were originally prescription only have now become available over the counter (OTC), either from pharmacies or other general retail outlets. The volume and value of OTC medicine sales have increased accordingly. These switches have been well regulated and based on clear criteria and evidence of safety. Benefits of the changes include increased convenience to patients, greater self-management of minor ailments and a reduction in government drug expenditure.

However, there are important differences between medicines supplied OTC and on medical prescription. With OTC medicines there is generally less health-care professional input into the recommendation or ongoing monitoring of use. There is an absence of records per se, or linkage to other medication records elsewhere, and most countries allow direct-to-consumer advertising of the product. Taken together these differences can result in inappropriate expectations, demand and use of the OTC medicines, with limited opportunity for ongoing patient follow-up and monitoring of safety.

Methodologies for pharmacy-based epidemiological studies of OTC medicines need to be developed. Studies should be large enough to detect associations that might exist, and to consider other explanations for associations such as chance, bias or confounding. There have already been some pilot studies with encouraging results with respect to follow-up rates. Outcome data however have usually been self-reported and the studies have lacked a suitable comparison group.

Methodologies for pharmacy-based epidemiological studies of OTC medicines need to be developed. Studies should be large enough to detect associations that might exist, and to consider other explanations for associations such as chance, bias or confounding. There have already been some pilot studies with encouraging results with respect to follow-up rates. Outcome data however have usually been self-reported and the studies have lacked a suitable comparison group.

While available OTC medicines are perceived to be generally safe, problems have occasionally arisen with some earlier switched products (e.g. terfenadine). There have also been concerns about some traditional herbal and homeopathic remedies such as St John’s wort. While such adverse events are rare, they emphasise the need for healthcare professionals and the public to understand and manage such risks. Many doctors are unaware of the range of OTC preparations available, and therefore do not consider them as a possible cause of presenting symptoms. Neither do they take them into account when making a new prescribing decision. The public need to be aware that OTC medicines should be treated with the same care as prescribed medicines, and that advice on recommended dose, contraindications and interactions should be adhered to.

Keywords

Terfenadine Royal Jelly Pharmacoepidemiological Study Suitable Comparison Group Conventional Pharmaceutical Product 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Professors Bond and Hannaford are employed full time by the University of Aberdeen. They have research interest in pharmacovigilance. They have no potential conflicts of interest relevant to the content of this paper.

References

  1. 1.
    Boersma E, Mercado N, Poldermans D, et al. Acute myocardial infarction. Lancet 2003; 361: 847–58PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    EEC Directive 2001/83/EECGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Potts M, Denny C. Safety implications of transferring the oral contraceptive from prescription only to over the counter status. Drug Saf 1995; 13(6): 333–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    China Concept Consulting: the OTC market — ready for take-off [online]. Available from URL: http://www.chinaconcept.com [Accessed 2002 Oct 3]
  5. 5.
    Effect of herb medicine regulation on industry likely to be minimal [abstract]. Pharm J 2002; 269: 560Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    IMS data global self medication market 1997 [online]. Available from URL:http://www.otc-bulletin.com [Accessed Oct 3]
  7. 7.
    UK to regulate and control all alternative health therapies. Available from URL:http://www.lightnet.co.uk/informer/health/20001127.htm [Accessed 2002 Oct 3]
  8. 8.
    British Medical Association. Complementary medicine: new approaches to good practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993: 9–36Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Barnes J, Abbot N. Experiences with complementary remedies: a survey of community pharmacists [abstract]. Pharm J 1999; 263: R37Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bond CM. Prescribing in community pharmacy: barriers and opportunities [PhD thesis] University of Aberdeen, 1995Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bissell P, Ward PR, Noyce PR. Consumer preceptions of the risks and benefits of deregulated medicines [abstract]. Pharm J 1999; 263: R28–9Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bond CM, Sinclair HK, Taylor RJ, et al. Community pharmacists’ attitudes to the deregulation of medicines and to their extended role. Int J Pharm Pract 1993; 2: 26–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Largue G. B Med Sci [dissertation]. University of Aberdeen, 2000Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sinclair HK, Bond CM, Hannaford PC. Over the counter ibuprofen: how and why is it used. Int J Pharm Pract 2000; 8: 121–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Layton D, Sinclair HK, Bond CM, et al. Pharmacovigilance of over-the-counter products based in community pharmacy: methodological issues from pilot work conducted in Hampshire and Grampian, UK. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2002; 11: 503–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hannaford PC. Combined oral contraceptive use and venous thromboembolism. Gynecolog Endocrinol 1996; 10Suppl. 2: 13–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Strom BL. Sample size considerations for pharmacoepidemiologic studies. In: Strom BL, editor. Pharmacoepidemiology. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1989: 27–37Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Strom BL. Choosing among the available approaches for pharmacoepidemiologic studies. In: Strom BL, editor. Pharmacoepidemiology. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1989: 245–56Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Baum C, Annello C. The spontaneous reporting system in the United Sates. In: Strom BL, editor. Pharmacoepidemiology. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1989: 107–18Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jarernsiripornkul N, Krska J, Capps PAG, et al. Patient reporting of potential adverse drug reactions: a methodological study. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2002; 53: 318–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Egberts TCG, Smulders M, de Koning FHP, et al. Can adverse drug reactions be detected earlier? A comparison of reports by patients and professionals. BMJ 1996; 313: 530–1PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Committee on Safety of Medicines. Aspirin and Reyes syndrome in children up to and including 15 years of age. Current Problems in Pharmacovigilance 2002 Apr; 28: 5Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Committee on Safety of Medicines and Medicines Control Agency. Ventricular arrhythmias due to terfenadine and astemizole. Current Problems in Pharmacovigilance 1992 Nov; 35: 1Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Terfenadine switches back to POM. Pharm J 1997; 259: 316Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    POM-to-P shift proposed for budesonide and P-to-POM for carbaryl. Pharm J 1995; 255: 138Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kernan WN, Viscoli CM, Brass LM, et al. Phenyl propanolamine and haemorrhagic stroke. N Engl J Med 2000; 348: 1826–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Meckstroth S, Schwartz M, Agrawal N. NSAIDS: safety implications of over the counter availability. Drug Saf 1992; 7(4): 241–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Singh G. Gastro intestinal complications of prescription and over-the-counter non-steroidal anti inflammatory drugs: a view from the ARMIS database. Am J Ther 2000; 7: 115–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Moore N, Van Ganse E, Le Parc JM, et al. The PAIN study: paracetamol, aspirin and ibuprofen new tolerability study. Clin Drug Invest 1999; 18(2): 89–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rantucci M, Segal H. Over-the-counter medication: outcome and effectiveness of patient counselling. J Soc Admin Pharm 1986; 3(3): 81–91Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sihvo S, Klaukka T, Martikainen J, et al. Frequency of daily over the counter drug use and potentially clinically significant over the counter prescription drug interactions in the Finnish adult population. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2000; 56: 495–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Perharic L, Shaw D, Colbridge M, et al. Toxicological problems resulting from exposure to traditional remedies and food supplements. Drug Saf 1994; 11(4): 284–94PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Palmer ME, Haller C, McKinney PE, et al. Adverse events associated with dietary supplements: an observational study. Lancet 2003; 361: 101–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Breckenridge A. CSM advice on liver toxicity associated with kava-kava and proposed regulatory action by the government Committee on Safety of Medicines CEM/CMO/2002/10Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Committee on Safety of Medicines. Reminder: St John’s wort Interactions. Current Problems in Pharmacovigilance 2000 May; 26: 5Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hanlon JT, Fillenbaum GG, Fuby CM, et al. Epidemiology of over-the-counter drug use in community dwelling elderly: United States perspective. Drugs Aging 2001; 18(2): 123–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Pitkala KH, Strandberg E, Tilvis RS. Is it possible to reduce polypharmacy in the elderly? A randomised controlled trial. Drugs Aging 2001; 18: 143–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Simon HK, Weinkle DA. Over the counter medications. Arch Paediatr Adolesc Med 1997; 151: 654–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    The Pharmacy Plan Department of Health 2000, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    The Right Medicine. A strategy for pharmaceutical care in Scotland. Scottish Executive 2002Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Porteous T, Bond C, Hannaford P, et al. Electronic transfer of prescription related information: comparing the views of patients, GPs and pharmacists. Br J Gen Pract 2003; 53: 204–9PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of General Practice and Primary CareUniversity of Aberdeen, Forester Health CentreAberdeenScotland

Personalised recommendations