Comparative Analysis of Patient Package Inserts of Local and Imported Anti-Infective Agents in Palestine

Article English OPEN
AF, Sawalha ; WM, Sweileh ; SH, Zyoud ; SW, Jabi (2008)
  • Publisher: Co-Action Publishing
  • Journal: Libyan Journal of Medicine (issn: 1819-6357)
  • Related identifiers: doi: 10.3402/ljm.v3i4.4790

Background and Objective: The patient package insert is an important source of drug information. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the PPI of the anti-infective agents manufactured in Palestine with the imported equivalents. Method: The selection criteria generated 15 different anti-infective agents available as 36 locally manufactured products and 15 imported equivalents. The design of the patient package insert was evaluated in terms of the number of words used in eight main headings and the presence or absence of certain information regarding nine statements. Results: Inserts of locally manufactured products have significantly fewer words than those of imported products with respect to warnings, dosage and administration, and side effects. The most significant difference was found in the warnings. Moreover, differences were found between inserts of local and imported products in terms of the presence of the nine informative statements. Locally manufactured products did not mention inactive ingredients, clinical pharmacology or date of last revision, but all of them provided information on the use of the drug during pregnancy and lactation and on the duration of therapy. However, in general they provided less information than the imported equivalents. Conclusion: Palestinian authorities and local manufacturers should implement appropriate measures to regulate the quality and quantity of information in the patient package insert of locally produced anti-infective agents. PPI improvement will better direct health practices to the benefit of the patients. Key words: patient package insert, evaluation, Palestine, drug information.
  • References (22)
    22 references, page 1 of 3

    1. Regner MJ, Hermann F, Ried LD. Effectiveness of a printed leaflet for enabling patients to use digoxin side-effect information. Drug Intell Clin Pharm. 1987; 21(2):200-4.

    2. Mottram DR, Reed C. Comparative evaluation of patient information leaflets by pharmacists, doctors and the general public. J Clin Pharm Ther. 1997;22(2):127-34.

    3. Gibbs S, Waters WE, George CF. Prescription information leaflets: a national survey. J R Soc Med. 1990; 83(5):292-97.

    4. Gibbs S, Waters WE, George CF. The benefits of prescription information leaflets. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1989; 27(6):723-39.

    5. Weitbrecht WU, Vosskamper C. Influence of the drug package information paper on compliance of neurological and psychiatric outpatients. Fortschr Neurol Psychiatr. 2000; 70(4):178-84.

    6. Bjerrum L, Foged A. Patient information leaflets--helpful guidance or a source of confusion? Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2003; 12(1):55-59.

    7. The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the community code relating to medicinal products for human use, Off J Eur Communities L311 (2001), pp. 67-128.

    8. EMEA, Compilation of QRD decisions on stylistic matters in product information. Version 9, December 2005.

    9. CMD(h), CMD(h) annotated QRD template for MR/'DC procedures. Based on version 7.2 of the QRD template for CP; revision 3rd October 2006 CMDh_01.pdf (accessed November 9, 2006).

    10. FDA, Prescribing Information: Imdicon capsules. (accessed July 14, 2006) http:/

  • Metrics
    No metrics available
Share - Bookmark