New study looks at FDA's use of so­cial me­dia to com­mu­ni­cate on drug safe­ty

A new study look­ing at the FDA use of so­cial me­dia to com­mu­ni­cate about drug safe­ty finds that the agency could im­prove its im­pact by de­vel­op­ing so­cial me­dia strate­gies and tak­ing a more ac­tive role on web plat­forms.

The study, con­duct­ed by re­searchers at Har­vard Med­ical School, North­east­ern Uni­ver­si­ty, Boston Chil­dren’s Hos­pi­tal and The Ohio State Uni­ver­si­ty, and fund­ed by FDA’s Cen­ter for Drug Eval­u­a­tion and Re­search, looks specif­i­cal­ly at FDA’s use of so­cial me­dia fol­low­ing two drug safe­ty com­mu­ni­ca­tions (DSCs) for drugs con­tain­ing zolpi­dem, the ac­tive in­gre­di­ent in Am­bi­en.

In 2013, FDA is­sued two DSCs re­lat­ed to zolpi­dem, the first in Jan­u­ary warn­ing of the risk of next-day im­pair­ment af­ter tak­ing in­som­nia drugs and re­quir­ing low­er rec­om­mend­ed dos­es for drugs con­tain­ing zolpi­dem, and the sec­ond no­ti­fy­ing the pub­lic that the agency had ap­proved those la­bel­ing changes.

In ad­di­tion to pub­lish­ing the DSCs to its web­site, FDA made posts re­lat­ed to the DSCs on its var­i­ous so­cial me­dia ac­counts, in­clud­ing its Face­book page and three of its Twit­ter ac­counts (@US_FDA@FDA_Drug_In­fo and @FDAMed­Watch).

For the first DSC, FDA post­ed once to its Face­book ac­count, get­ting 61 shares, and tweet­ed six times across its three ac­counts, for a to­tal of 111 retweets.

To mea­sure the im­pact of FDA’s posts, the au­thors iden­ti­fied some 174,000 tweets and 59,000 Face­book posts ref­er­enc­ing zolpi­dem be­tween 1 Oc­to­ber 2012 and 31 Au­gust 2013. Of those, rough­ly 9% of the tweets were tagged as ad­verse events (AEs), 74% were tagged as men­tions and 17% were con­sid­ered junk. For the Face­book posts, 5% were iden­ti­fied as AEs, 69% as men­tions and 26% as junk.

How­ev­er, for the sec­ond DSC, FDA did not post to Face­book and on­ly tweet­ed about the DSC for its@FDA_Drug_In­fo ac­count (3 tweets, 37 retweets), though the agency al­so tweet­ed gen­er­al­ly about a group of re­cent pre­scrib­ing changes, in­clud­ing for zolpi­dem, from its@FDAMed­Watch ac­count.

The au­thors ob­served a greater so­cial me­dia re­sponse from both Twit­ter and Face­book users fol­low­ing the first DSC, but did not no­tice an in­crease in so­cial ac­tiv­i­ty re­lat­ed to zolpi­dem fol­low­ing the sec­ond com­mu­ni­ca­tion.

The au­thors say that the dif­fer­ence in so­cial me­dia re­sponse to the two safe­ty com­mu­ni­ca­tions can be ex­plained by the dif­fer­ence in how FDA is­sued the com­mu­ni­ca­tions. In ad­di­tion to post­ing about the first DSC more fre­quent­ly and to more of its ac­counts, the first DSC was al­so is­sued with an ac­com­pa­ny­ing press re­lease.

Rec­om­men­da­tions

To make bet­ter use of its so­cial me­dia pres­ence in the fu­ture, the au­thors rec­om­mend that FDA de­vel­op strate­gies for how and how of­ten to post dif­fer­ent types of mes­sages.

“Since there can be a lot of ques­tion­able in­for­ma­tion shared on so­cial me­dia, the FDA should be able to lever­age its in­de­pen­dent ex­per­tise and po­si­tion as a wide­ly trust­ed source of in­for­ma­tion to help pro­mote ac­cu­rate and in­for­ma­tive mes­sages. In the case of the zolpi­dem safe­ty alerts, the FDA took some steps to do that, but could cre­ate more out­reach and dis­sem­i­nate its ma­te­ri­als more fre­quent­ly via var­ied plat­forms,” Michael Sin­ha, a post­doc­tor­al fel­low at Har­vard and lead au­thor on the pa­per told Fo­cus.

Sin­ha al­so em­pha­sized that the so­cial me­dia land­scape is sub­stan­tial­ly dif­fer­ent now than in 2013 when these safe­ty com­mu­ni­ca­tions were is­sued.

“So­cial me­dia like Twit­ter was seen as more of a recre­ation­al tool in 2013, but now many pro­fes­sion­als, aca­d­e­m­ic in­sti­tu­tions and com­pa­nies have vi­brant so­cial me­dia pres­ences. In­creased health pro­fes­sion­al en­gage­ment on so­cial me­dia in­creas­es the like­li­hood that FDA con­tent on these plat­forms would be more wide­ly dis­sem­i­nat­ed and have a greater im­pact,” he said.

The pa­per al­so rec­om­mends that FDA de­vel­op a greater un­der­stand­ing of so­cial me­dia plat­form fea­tures and user pref­er­ences to de­vel­op its ap­proach to post­ing.

“FDA should try to stay on top of the ever-evolv­ing strate­gies be­ing de­vel­oped on so­cial me­dia to am­pli­fy mes­sages—such as use of han­dles or hash­tags on Twit­ter—that can bring at­ten­tion to im­por­tant drug safe­ty con­tent dis­sem­i­nat­ed by the agency,” Sin­ha said.

The au­thors al­so sug­gest that FDA should take mat­ters in­to its own hands when it comes to up­dat­ing in­for­ma­tion about drugs on Wikipedia.

De­spite mul­ti­ple ed­its to the Wikipedia page cor­re­spond­ing to both com­mu­ni­ca­tions, the pages con­tained in­com­plete in­for­ma­tion and did not cite the DSCs them­selves.

“Giv­en that in­for­ma­tion­al sites like Wikipedia are com­mon­ly ac­cessed by the lay pub­lic for in­for­ma­tion on drugs and that any­one can ed­it the con­tent, the FDA should con­sid­er a plan to for­mal­ly up­date the pages for ap­pro­pri­ate con­tent at the time a DSC is re­leased and to en­sure con­tin­ued ac­cu­ra­cy of the in­for­ma­tion over time,” the au­thors write.


First pub­lished here. Reg­u­la­to­ry Fo­cus is the flag­ship on­line pub­li­ca­tion of the Reg­u­la­to­ry Af­fairs Pro­fes­sion­als So­ci­ety (RAPS), the largest glob­al or­ga­ni­za­tion of and for those in­volved with the reg­u­la­tion of health­care and re­lat­ed prod­ucts, in­clud­ing med­ical de­vices, phar­ma­ceu­ti­cals, bi­o­log­ics and nu­tri­tion­al prod­ucts. Email news@raps.org for more in­for­ma­tion.

#ES­MO20: As­traZeneca bur­nish­es Tagris­so's ad­ju­vant NSCLC pro­file with 'un­prece­dent­ed' re­duc­tion in brain mets. Can they win over skep­tics?

When AstraZeneca trumpeted “momentous” and “transformative” results for Tagrisso earlier this year at ASCO, some practitioners threw cold water on the ADAURA fervor. Sure, the disease-free survival data look good, but overall survival is the endpoint that matters when it comes to choosing adjuvant therapy for non-small cell lung cancer patients, the experts said.

The OS data still aren’t here, but AstraZeneca is back at ESMO to bolster their case with a look at brain metastasis data.

Dan Skovronsky, Eli Lilly CSO

UP­DAT­ED: An­a­lysts are quick to pan Eli Lil­ly's puz­zling first cut of pos­i­tive clin­i­cal da­ta for its Covid-19 an­ti­body

Eli Lilly spotlighted a success for one of 3 doses of their closely-watched Covid-19 antibody drug Wednesday morning. But analysts quickly highlighted some obvious anomalies that could come back to haunt the pharma giant as it looks for an emergency use authorization to launch marketing efforts.

The pharma giant reported that LY-CoV555, developed in collaboration with AbCellera, significantly reduced the rate of hospitalization among patients who were treated with the antibody. The drug arm of the study had a 1.7% hospitalization rate, compared to 6% in the control group, marking a 72% drop in risk.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 90,300+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Donald Trump and White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, before boarding Marine One (Getty Images)

Pric­ing deal col­laps­es over Big Phar­ma's re­fusal to is­sue $100 'cash card­s' be­fore the elec­tion — re­port

Late in August, as negotiations on a pricing deal with President Trump reached a boiling point, PhRMA president Stephen Ubl sent an email update to the 34 biopharma chiefs that sit on his board. He wrote that if the industry did not agree to pay for a $100 “cash card” sent to seniors before November, White House chief of staff Mark Meadows was going to tell the news media Big Pharma was refusing to “share the savings” with the elderly — and that all of the blame for failed drug pricing negotiations would lie squarely on the industry.

UP­DAT­ED #ES­MO20: Trodelvy da­ta show that Gilead­'s $21B buy­out may have been worth the big pre­mi­um

Gilead CEO Dan O’Day has been on a shopping spree. And while some analysts gawked at the biotech’s recent $21 billion Immunomedics buyout, new data released at virtual ESMO 2020 suggest the acquisition may have been worth the hefty price.

The deal, announced last weekend, will give California-based Gilead $GILD Trodelvy, which was recently approved for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC).

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 90,300+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Exelixis CEO Michael Morrissey (file photo)

#ES­MO20: Look out Mer­ck. Bris­tol My­ers and Ex­elix­is stake out their com­bo’s claim to best-in-class sta­tus for front­line kid­ney can­cer

Now that the PD-(L)1 checkpoints are deeply entrenched in the oncology market, it’s time to welcome a wave of combination therapies — beyond chemo — looking to extend their benefit to larger numbers of patients. Bristol Myers Squibb ($BMY} and Exelixis {EXEL} are close to the front of that line.

Today at ESMO the collaborators pulled the curtain back on some stellar data for their combination of Opdivo (the PD-1) and Cabometyx (the TKI), marking a significant advance for the blockbuster Bristol Myers franchise while offering a big leg up for the team at Exelixis.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 90,300+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Seat­tle Ge­net­ic­s' Astel­las-part­nered ADC nails con­fir­ma­to­ry PhI­II in urothe­lial can­cer

Nine months after Seattle Genetics nabbed an accelerated approval for its Astellas-partnered antibody-drug conjugate Padcev, the partners said the therapy has nailed a confirmatory Phase III, proving its worth in locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer.

Padcev, which has widely been tapped as a potential blockbuster, scored improvements in both overall survival and progression-free survival compared to chemotherapy, causing a 30% reduction in risk of death (p = 0.001) and 39% reduction in risk of disease progression or death (p<0.00001).

#ES­MO20: Alk­er­mes of­fers their first snap­shot of a ben­e­fit for their next-gen IL-2 drug. But why did 1 pa­tient starve to death?

Everyone in the cancer R&D arena is looking to build new franchises around better drugs and combos. And one busy pocket of that space is centered entirely on creating an IL-2 drug that can be as effective as the original without the toxicity that damned it to the sidelines.

Alkermes $ALKS formally tossed its hat into the ring of contenders at virtual ESMO today, highlighting the first glimpse of efficacy for their candidate, ALKS 4230, as both a monotherapy as well as in combination with Merck’s Keytruda.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 90,300+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Albert Bourla (Photo by Steven Ferdman/Getty Images)

Pfiz­er match­es Mod­er­na with their full Covid-19 tri­al blue­print — As­traZeneca says it will un­veil its pro­to­col 'short­ly'

Yesterday, after sustained public pressure as Moderna released its Phase III Covid-19 trial blueprint, Pfizer released its own full trial design for their vaccine trials. The move was designed to boost transparency and shore up public trust in the vaccines, but it also revealed differences in how the two companies are approaching the much-watched studies while failing to satisfy the demands of the fiercest advocates for transparency.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 90,300+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Stronger to­geth­er? Boehringer and Mi­rati team to put first KRAS-KRAS com­bo in the clin­ic

Researchers are still waiting to see how much any of the vaunted KRAS drugs now in the clinic can, after decades of preclinical research and some early human studies, help patients. But while they do, two of the leading developers will look to see whether a KRAS-KRAS combo might pose a better shot than any KRAS alone.

Boehringer Ingelheim and Mirati have signed a collaboration to combine Mirati’s closely-watched lead KRAS inhibitor, MRTX849, in a clinical trial with the pan-KRAS blocker that Boehringer has quietly developed with high expectations behind their flashier contenders.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 90,300+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.