Letters
Pharmacology
Volume 188 - Issue 11

Misleading advertising of PI-based drug information?*

Author:  Elizabeth A Donohoo

Med J Aust 2008; 188 (11): 679-680. || doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2008.tb01840.x
Published online: 2 June 2008
Download PDF (687 KB)
Share: Share on Blue Sky Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share by email

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.

View this article on Wiley Online Library