To the Editor: Why are those who market officially sanctioned information about pharmaceutical products not constrained by the advertising standards imposed on those who sell these products? Medicines Australia, which formulates a code of conduct for the pharmaceutical industry, imposes penalties, both financial and withdrawal of offending material, against misleading advertising of pharmaceutical products1,2 Why are similar standards not applied to advertising of information about these products?

There are well documented flaws in Australian drug information sources,2,3 such as MIMS (the Monthly Index of Medical Specialties), that are based on product information (PI) authorised by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). Some PI is decades out of date;2 bottlenecks in updating TGA-approved PI are apparent.4

In this light, advertising of PI-based information in the bimonthly MIMS summaries seems anomalous. The April–May 2008 bimonthly print edition of MIMS claims to present “100% pure knowledge”, and states that “you can count on MIMS being up-to-the-minute”, and that “MIMS is essential knowledge that Australian health professionals can trust”. Previous bimonthly MIMS summaries make similar assertions.

Until PI can be brought to an acceptable professional standard — a task that may be slow4 — it would seem appropriate to rein in misleading claims about PI widely used by health workers. Medicines Australia, or the National Prescribing Service, a government-funded body committed to “quality use of medicines”, could lead this initiative.

In reply: MIMS is held — and has long been held — in high regard in the Australian health care market. The vast majority of MIMS subscribers recognise that the quality information provided by MIMS is essential in their daily encounters with their patients.

However, the product information (PI) produced in MIMS publications is only part of the information provided to health care professionals through various MIMS publications.

Furthermore, it must be stated clearly that MIMS is not responsible for producing the PI-based drug information. This responsibility remains with the manufacturer, and the PI is subsequently approved by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA).

MIMS collates information from various sources, both locally and overseas, and publishes it in an easy-to-use, well structured and familiar format for its customers. MIMS has long been committed to providing such “essential knowledge that Australian health professionals can trust” since the introduction of the first MIMS publication 45 years ago.

However, MIMS does acknowledge that there is an issue with some PI not being reviewed more regularly, and is committed to working closely with any appropriate organisation to address deficiencies in the current process. Nevertheless, it would seem inappropriate to say that PI for all drugs is not a quality information source. PI for the vast majority of drugs published in MIMS is as current as possible, given the constraints of publishing, the updating process by pharmaceutical companies and the delays in approvals through the TGA.

The study reported and referenced by Stockigt focused on old, generic-based medicines.1 While there is an issue with manufacturers keeping these current, this is clearly a responsibility of the TGA and the manufacturer, not MIMS. PI for newer products is an important quality information source for the prescribers of medicines; if it were not, then the TGA would not permit manufacturers to make PI available in the first place.

With respect to Stockigt’s concerns about the accuracy of MIMS advertising, we stand by our assertion that it is MIMS policy to provide the most up-to-date medicines information available, capably delivered by the MIMS professional editorial team.