Originally Published PMPN May 2002
EDITORIAL
Paper, Rock, Electronics
Despite the advancements
of the electronics age, there will always be a need for paper. That was my message
to a group of insert printers and their vendors, who were assembled for the
first annual meeting of the newly formed Pharmaceutical Printed Literature Association
on April 15 in New York City.
But by no means
was I the headliner. That honor went to Bruce Cohen, director of packaging technology
for GlaxoSmithKline (GSK). Cohen updated the group on the status of PhRMA's
Paperless Insert Initiative, which aims to replace paper inserts provided to
pharmacists by manufacturers with an on-line labeling database that can be accessed
by all pharmacists via a nationwide network. The main benefit of such a system,
Cohen explained, is that electronic information can be updated and disseminated
to pharmacists much more quickly than can printed inserts.
Much to the audience's
chagrin, PhRMA's work is progressing, albeit not as quickly as the association
once predicted. PhRMA's contractors are approaching the testing phase of
their solutions for electronic systems. Cohen explained that system testing
would begin this month and continue through December.
After explaining
the system's advantages and progress, Cohen did come under fire, which
he probably expected. Attendees posed some challenging questions, like, what
if the system crashes? How can every pharmacy be linked to the network, especially
those found at unexpected locations? And how can pharmacies find the time for
system training and upgrades? Cohen was confident these challenges could be
handled.
Attendees clearly
didn't share Cohen's enthusiasm, and for good reason. If the initiative
is successful, many printers may see their drug inserts business fold. However,
I told the audience that hope may lie in another type of paper insert—the
patient package insert. I wasn't just trying to avoid the hot seat that
Cohen sat in, but rather to point out that drugs with complicated regimens need
inserts to guide patients. Ironically, the example of the type of insert I held
up to make my point was one that Cohen himself was responsible for.
GSK's maintenance
drug for asthma, Serevent, must be taken properly to control life-threatening
symptoms. Delivering a sufficient amount of the medication requires a synchronization
of breathing and hand movements. The inhaler must be rinsed often and patients
must discard it after using the labeled number of inhalations. Serevent's
insert reinforces these instructions through large and bold typefaces, branded
coloring, diagrams, and pictures of patients delivering the drug. A pharmacy's
printer could never output such necessary details, and pharmacists usually don't
have the time
to demonstrate inhaler use.
Inserts like these
can never be eliminated, even if one day every patient carries around his or
her own personal data assistant for accessing electronic drug information. Cohen
agrees, adding that anything that encourages drug regimen compliance is right
for patients. He also says that FDA is even encouraging manufacturers to consider
compliance-aiding printed media, pointing out the medication guides GSK and
other manufacturers have had to produce at FDA's request.
PhRMA's intention—to keep pharmacists apprised of the most current drug information—will ultimately benefit patients, enabling pharmacists to advise them using real-time information. But printed inserts are needed, too, to help patients follow instructions once they leave the pharmacy. Paper won't ever be obsolete, even if PDAs become as ubiquitous as the common cold.
Daphne Allen, Editor
Copyright ©2002 Pharmaceutical & Medical Packaging News
