SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Hacettepe Sağlık İdaresi Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 29 Sayı: 3

RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS OF DHPC LETTERS IN TÜRKİYE (2008–2025)

TÜRKİYE’DE DHPC MEKTUPLARININ RETROSPEKTİF ANALİZİ (2008–2025)

Tolgay Ercan(SİVAS CUMHURİYET ÜNİVERSİTESİ, YILDIZELİ MESLEK YÜKSEKOKULU, TIBBİ HİZMETLER VE TEKNİKLER BÖLÜMÜ)0000-0002-6893-4358
Pages
573–594
Publication Date
2026-09-23
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

It was found that the number of DHPCs was higher and fluctuated particularly during the 2010–2016 period, whereas a lower and more stable distribution was observed after 2019.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Direct Healthcare Professional Communications (DHPCs) are important regulatory tools used to communicate drug safety risks to healthcare professionals.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this retrospective and descriptive document analysis, DHPCs published between 2008 and 2025 were evaluated.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It was found that the number of DHPCs was higher and fluctuated particularly during the 2010–2016 period, whereas a lower and more stable distribution was observed after 2019.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:2008 Verileri
⚙️Variables:DHPC · farmakovijilans · ilaç güvenliği

Abstract

Direct Healthcare Professional Communications (DHPCs) are important regulatory tools used to communicate drug safety risks to healthcare professionals. The aim of this study was to analyze the content characteristics, yearly distribution, therapeutic areas, and risk communication structure of DHPCs published by the Turkish Medicines and Medical Devices Agency (TITCK). In this retrospective and descriptive document analysis, DHPCs published between 2008 and 2025 were evaluated. DHPCs were examined in terms of yearly distribution, targeted specialties, ATC classification, risk categories, severity of safety warnings, pharmacovigilance encouragements, product updates, and recall status. A total of 225 DHPCs were analyzed. It was found that the number of DHPCs was higher and fluctuated particularly during the 2010–2016 period, whereas a lower and more stable distribution was observed after 2019. DHPCs were directed to 28 different medical specialties, most commonly related to antineoplastic and immunomodulating agents (ATC L group), anti-infectives, and nervous system drugs. The majority of safety communications were classified as serious and high-importance risk categories. In addition, approximately 90% of DHPCs strongly encouraged pharmacovigilance reporting, and most products remained on the market, while recall rates were low. In conclusion, DHPCs constitute an important component of drug safety risk communication in Türkiye and are mainly focused on high-risk therapeutic areas. However, the current structure is largely content-based, and DHPCs mostly remain at a notification level. Therefore, the clinical impact of DHPCs, their read rates, and their influence on healthcare professionals’ behavioral change could not be assessed within the scope of this study. Further studies based on real-world data and evaluating behavioral outcomes are needed to determine the effectiveness of the DHPC system.

Özet

Doğrudan Sağlık Profesyoneli İletişimleri (DHPC’ler), ilaç güvenliği risklerinin sağlık profesyonellerine iletilmesinde kullanılan önemli düzenleyici araçlardır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, Türkiye İlaç ve Tıbbi Cihaz Kurumu (TİTCK) tarafından yayımlanan DHPC’lerin içerik özelliklerini, yıllara göre dağılımını, terapötik alanlarını ve risk iletişimi yapısını analiz etmektir. Retrospektif ve tanımlayıcı nitelikteki bu doküman analizinde, 2008–2025 yılları arasında yayımlanan DHPC’ler değerlendirilmiştir. DHPC’ler; yıllara göre dağılım, hedeflenen uzmanlık alanları, ATC sınıflandırması, risk kategorileri, güvenlik uyarılarının şiddeti, farmakovijilans bildirimine yönelik teşvikler, ürün güncellemeleri ve geri çekilme durumları açısından incelenmiştir. Toplam 225 DHPC analiz edilmiştir. DHPC sayılarının özellikle 2010–2016 döneminde daha yüksek ve dalgalı bir seyir izlediği, 2019 sonrası dönemde ise daha düşük ve daha stabil bir dağılım gösterdiği belirlenmiştir. DHPC’ler 28 farklı uzmanlık alanına yönelik olup, en sık antineoplastik ve immünomodülatör ilaçlar (ATC L grubu), anti-infektifler ve sinir sistemi ilaçları için yayımlandığı görülmüştür. Güvenlik bildirimlerinin büyük çoğunluğunun ciddi ve yüksek önem düzeyindeki risk kategorilerinde yer aldığı saptanmıştır. Ayrıca DHPC’lerin yaklaşık %90’ında farmakovijilans bildirimine güçlü teşvik bulunduğu ve ürünlerin büyük bölümünün piyasada kalmaya devam ettiği, geri çekme oranlarının düşük olduğu belirlenmiştir. Sonuç olarak DHPC’ler, Türkiye’de ilaç güvenliği risk iletişiminin önemli bir bileşenini oluşturmakta ve özellikle yüksek riskli terapötik alanlara odaklanmaktadır. Bununla birlikte mevcut yapı büyük ölçüde içerik temellidir ve DHPC’ler çoğunlukla bildirim düzeyinde kalmaktadır. Bu nedenle DHPC’lerin klinik etkisi, okunma oranı ve sağlık profesyonellerinin davranış değişikliği üzerindeki etkisi bu çalışma kapsamında değerlendirilememektedir. DHPC sisteminin etkinliğini ortaya koymak için gerçek yaşam verilerine dayalı ve davranışsal çıktıları inceleyen ileri çalışmalara ihtiyaç vardır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Ercan, T. (2026). RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS OF DHPC LETTERS IN TÜRKİYE (2008–2025). Hacettepe Sağlık İdaresi Dergisi, Cilt: 29 Sayı: 3, 573–594. https://doi.org/10.61859/hacettepesid.1823984

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (55)

  1. Alsaleh, H., & Alshammari, T. M. (2021). Direct healthcare professional communications: A quantitative assessment study. Pharmacology Research & Perspectives, 9(3), e00763. https://doi.org/10.1002/prp2.763
  2. Banda, J. M., Evans, L., Vanguri, R. S., Tatonetti, N. P., Ryan, P. B., & Shah, N. H. (2016). A curated and standardized adverse drug event resource to accelerate drug safety research. Scientific Data, 3(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.26
  3. Beninger, P. (2018). Pharmacovigilance: an overview. Clinical Therapeutics, 40(12), 1991-2004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinthera.2018.07.012
  4. Beninger, P. (2020). Signal management in pharmacovigilance: a review of activities and case studies. Clinical Therapeutics, 42(6), 1110-1129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinthera.2020.03.018.
  5. Bhasale, A. L., Sarpatwari, A., Lipworth, W., Møllebæk, M., McEwin, E. J., Gautam, N., Santiago Ortiz, A., & Mintzes, B. J. (2022). Regulatory authority and clinical acceptability: Physicians' responses to regulatory drug safety warnings. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 88(2), 713–722. https://doi.org/10.1111/bcp.15007
  6. Bjerre, L. M., Parlow, S., de Launay, D., Hogel, M., Black, C. D., Mattison, D. R., Grimshaw, J. M., & Watson, M. C. (2018). Comparative, cross-sectional study of the format, content and timing of medication safety letters issued in Canada, the USA and the UK. BMJ Open, 8, e020150. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020150
  7. Boskovic, A., Møllebæk, M., & Kaae, S. (2020). Preparation of direct healthcare professional communication: an exploratory study on the experiences and perceptions of European pharmaceutical companies and the EMA. Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science, 54(3), 631-639. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43441-019-00097-z
  8. Cervantes-Arellano, M. J., Castelan-Martinez, O. D., Marin-Campos, Y., Chavez-Pacheco, J. L., Morales-Rios, O., & Ubaldo-Reyes, L. M. (2024). Educational interventions in pharmacovigilance to improve the knowledge, attitude and the report of adverse drug reactions in healthcare professionals: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. DARU Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, 32(1), 421-434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40199-024-00508-z
  9. Craveiro, N. S., Lopes, B. S., Tomás, L., & Almeida, S. F. (2020). Drug withdrawal due to safety: a review of the data supporting withdrawal decision. Current Drug Safety, 15(1), 4-12. https://doi.org/10.2174/1574886314666191004092520
  10. Crescioli, G., Bonaiuti, R., Corradetti, R., Mannaioni, G., Vannacci, A., & Lombardi, N. (2022). Pharmacovigilance and pharmacoepidemiology as a guarantee of patient safety: the role of the clinical pharmacologist. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 11(12), 3552. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11123552
  11. de Vries, E., Bakker, E., Monster, T. B., Denig, P., & Mol, P. G. (2022). Factors influencing preferences and responses towards drug safety communications: a conjoint experiment among hospital-based healthcare professionals in the Netherlands. Drug Safety, 45(11), 1369-1380. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-022-01230-y
  12. de Vries, E., Denig, P., de Vries, S. T., Monster, T. B., Hugtenburg, J. G., & Mol, P. G. (2020). Drug safety issues covered by lay media: a cohort study of direct healthcare provider communications sent between 2001 and 2015 in the Netherlands. Drug Safety, 43(7), 677. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-020-00922-7
  13. de Vries, E., Denig, P., Monster, T. B., & Mol, P. G. (2025). Mixed impact of direct healthcare professional communications when considering proximal outcomes and the targeted population: a systematic review. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, 34(3), e70135. https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.70135
  14. de Vries, S. T., van der Sar, M. J. M., Coleman, A. M., Escudero, Y., Rodríguez Pascual, A., Maciá Martínez, M. Á., Cupelli, A., Baldelli, I., Šipić, I., Andrić, A., Michan, L., Denig, P., & Mol, P. G. M. (2018). Safety communication tools and healthcare professionals' awareness of specific drug safety issues in Europe: A survey study. Drug Safety, 41(7), 713–724. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-018-0643-5
  15. de Vries, S., Denig, P., & Mol, P. G. M. (2017). Determinants for healthcare professionals to take action on Direct Healthcare Professional Communications (DHPCs). Poster session presented at the European Drug Utilisation Research Group (EuroDURG) Conference 2017, Glasgow, United Kingdom.
  16. DeFrank, J. T., McCormack, L., West, S. L., Lefebvre, C., & Burrus, O. (2019). Unintended effects of communicating about drug safety issues: a critical review of the literature. Drug Safety, 42(10), 1125-1134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-019-00840-3
  17. EMA (2017). European Medicines Agency. Guideline on good pharmacovigilance practices (GVP): Module XV – Safety communication (Rev. 1). https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-guideline/guideline-good-pharmacovigilance-practices-module-xv-safety-communication-rev-1_en.pdf
  18. Faied, M. A., El Wakeel, L., & Sabri, N. (2019). Implications of direct healthcare professional communication in Egypt: barriers and preferences of health care professionals. Archives of Pharmaceutical Sciences Ain Shams University, 3(2), 268-276. https://doi.org/10.21608/aps.2019.15297.1007
  19. FDA (2014) Food and Drug Administration. Dear health care provider letters: Improving communication of important safety information. https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/dear-health-care-provider-letters-improving-communication-important-safety-information
  20. Gupta, P., & Udupa, A. (2011). Adverse drug reaction reporting and pharmacovigilance: Knowledge, attitudes and perceptions amongst resident doctors. Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Research, 3(2), 1064.
  21. Hoeve, C. E., de Vries, E., Mol, P. G., Sturkenboom, M. C., & Straus, S. M. (2020). Dissemination of direct healthcare professional communications on medication errors for medicinal products in the EU: an explorative study on relevant factors. Drug Safety, 44(1), 73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-020-00995-4
  22. Højer, M. M. G., De Bruin, M. L., Boskovic, A., & Hallgreen, C. E. (2020). Are monitoring instructions provided in direct healthcare professional communications (DHPCs) of sufficient quality? A retrospective analysis of DHPCs sent out between 2007 and 2018. BMJ Open, 10(5), e036498. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-036498
  23. JCI, (2021). Joint Commission International. Joint Commission International accreditation standards for hospitals (7th ed.). Joint Commission Resources.
  24. La Rochelle, P., Lexchin, J., & Simonyan, D. (2016). Analysis of the drugs withdrawn from the US market from 1976 to 2010 for safety reasons. Pharmaceutical Medicine, 30(5), 277-289.https://doi.org/10.1007/s40290-016-0159-1
  25. Lee, J. J., Bortolussi‐Courval, É., Filosa, E., Rej, S., Godard‐Sebillotte, C., Tamblyn, R.,. & McDonald, E. G. (2025). Criteria to report adverse drug withdrawal events in clinical trials: a systematic review. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 73(6), 1918-1928. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.19457
  26. Lexchin, J. (2014). How safe are new drugs? Market withdrawal of drugs approved in Canada between 1990 and 2009. Open Medicine, 8(1), e14.
  27. Marks, P. (2021). What regulators must learn from COVID-19. Nature Medicine, 27(11), 1858-1858. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-021-01559-4
  28. Mol, P. G., Straus, S. M., Piening, S., de Vries, J. T., de Graeff, P. A., & Haaijer-Ruskamp, F. M. (2010). A decade of safety-related regulatory action in the Netherlands: a retrospective analysis of direct healthcare professional communications from 1999 to 2009. Drug Safety, 33(6), 463-474. https://doi.org/10.2165/11532840-000000000-00000
  29. Møllebæk, M., & Kaae, S. (2021). Why do general practitioners disregard direct to healthcare professional communication? A user‐oriented evaluation to improve drug safety communication. Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology, 128(3), 463-471. https://doi.org/10.1111/bcpt.13516
  30. Møllebæk, M., & Kaae, S. (2022). Are drug safety advisories compatible with physicians’ information behaviour? Semi-structured interviews with general practitioners about direct to healthcare professional communication. European Journal of Health Communication, 3(3), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.47368/ejhc.2022.301
  31. Møllebæk, M., Kaae, S., De Bruin, M. L., Callréus, T., Jossan, S., & Hallgreen, C. E. (2019). The effectiveness of direct to healthcare professional communication–a systematic review of communication factor studies. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 15(5), 475-482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2018.06.015
  32. Montastruc, J. L., Sommet, A., Lacroix, I., Olivier, P., Durrieu, G., Damase-Michel, C.,. & Bagheri, H. (2006). Pharmacovigilance for evaluating adverse drug reactions: value, organization, and methods. Joint Bone Spine, 73(6), 629-632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbspin.2006.09.002
  33. Moriarty, F., Razzaque, S., McDowell, R., & Fahey, T. (2018). Prescribing variation in general practices in England following a direct healthcare professional communication on mirabegron. Journal of clinical medicine, 7(10), 320. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm7100320
  34. Morrato, E. H., Curbow, B., Crum, R. M., Nowels, C., & Feinleib, M. (2008). Communicating drug risk to physicians: challenges and opportunities. International Journal of Risk & Safety in Medicine, 20(3), 143-154. https://doi.org/10.3233/JRS-2008-04
  35. Onakpoya, I. J., Heneghan, C. J., & Aronson, J. K. (2016). Post-marketing withdrawal of 462 medicinal products because of adverse drug reactions: a systematic review of the world literature. BMC Medicine, 14(1), 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-016-0553-2
  36. Perry, L. T., Bhasale, A., Fabbri, A., Lexchin, J., Puil, L., Joarder, M., & Mintzes, B. (2019). Comparative analysis of medicines safety advisories released by Australia, Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom. JAMA internal medicine, 179(7), 982-984.https://doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.0294
  37. Perry, L. T., Mohammad, A., Hooimeyer, A., McEwin, E. J., & Mintzes, B. (2026). How does the Content and Dissemination of Communications on the Risks of Medicines Affect Prescriber Awareness, Knowledge, and Behaviour: A Systematic Review: LT Perry et al. Drug Safety, 49(1), 81-107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-025-01588-9
  38. Piening, S., Haaijer-Ruskamp, F. M., de Graeff, P. A., Straus, S. M., & Mol, P. G. (2012a). Healthcare professionals’ self-reported experiences and preferences related to direct healthcare professional communications: a survey conducted in the Netherlands. Drug safety, 35(11), 1061-1072. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03261992
  39. Piening, S., Reber, K. C., Wieringa, J. E., Straus, S. M., de Graeff, P. A., Haaijer‐Ruskamp, F. M., & Mol, P. G. (2012b). Impact of safety‐related regulatory action on drug use in ambulatory care in the Netherlands. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 91(5), 838-845. https://doi.org/10.1038/clpt.2011.308
  40. Rao, N., & Powar, R. (2023). Post-marketing drug withdrawals: a review. Pharmaceutical Chemistry Journal, 57(7), 1138-1146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11094-023-02994-y
  41. Reber, K. C., Piening, S., Wieringa, J. E., Straus, S. M. J. M., Raine, J. M., de Graeff, P. A., Haaijer-Ruskamp, F. M., & Mol, P. G. M. (2013). When direct health-care professional communications have an impact on inappropriate and unsafe use of medicines. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 93(4), 360–365. https://doi.org/10.1038/clpt.2012.262
  42. Ryan, P. E., Doherty, A. S., Dahly, D. L., Byrne, S., Curran, S., Scully, D., Sharma, R., & Wallace, E. (2026a). How direct healthcare professional communications are operationalised by general practitioners and community pharmacists in Ireland: A national cross sectional study. International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-026-02105-3
  43. Ryan, P., Doherty, A., Dahly, D., Byrne, S., Curran, S., Scully, D., Sharma, R., & Wallace, E. (2026b). Eliciting key stakeholders' perceptions of the barriers and suggested solutions towards implementing direct healthcare professional communications (DHPCs) in practice using one-to-one semi-structured interviews. International Journal of Pharmacy Practice, 34(Supplement_1), i29–i30. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpp/riag034.040
  44. Sabaté, M., & Montané, E. (2023). Pharmacoepidemiology: an overview. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 12(22), 7033.https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12227033
  45. Sandberg, H. A., Sandberg, A. B., Aallos, A. J., Ehlers, P. I., Katajisto, K. M., & Sivén, M. S. (2025). Awareness and Experience of Direct Healthcare Professional Communication and Risk Management Plan Educational Material among Healthcare Professionals in Finland: HA Sandberg et al. Pharmaceutical Medicine, 39(6), 465-475. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40290-025-00580-z
  46. Sindahl, P., Møllebæk, M., Gardarsdottir, H., De Bruin, M. L., Hallgreen, C. E., & Clemmensen, M. H. (2025). Implementation of electronic distribution of Direct Healthcare Professional Communications by the Danish Medicines Agency: a survey study of physicians’ experiences and preferences. Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety, 16, 20420986251333911. https://doi.org/10.1177/20420986251333911
  47. Tan, Y., Hu, Y., Liu, X., Yin, Z., Chen, X. W., & Liu, M. (2016). Improving drug safety: From adverse drug reaction knowledge discovery to clinical implementation. Methods, 110, 14-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymeth.2016.07.023
  48. Thomas, S. K., Hodson, J., McIlroy, G., Dhami, A., & Coleman, J. J. (2013). The impact of direct healthcare professional communication on prescribing practice in the UK hospital setting: an interrupted time series analysis. Drug Safety, 36(7), 557-564. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-013-0057-3
  49. TITCK, (2025). Türkiye İlaç ve Tıbbi Cihaz Kurumu. https://www.titck.gov.tr/, (Access Date:03.11.2025). van Grootheest, K., de Graaf, L., & de Jong-van den Berg, L. T. (2003). Consumer adverse drug reaction reporting: A new step in pharmacovigilance? Drug Safety, 26(4), 211–217. https://doi.org/10.2165/00002018-200326040-00001
  50. Weatherby, L. B., Nordstrom, B. L., Fife, D., & Walker, A. M. (2002). The impact of wording in “Dear doctor” DHPC and in black box labels. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 72(6), 735-742. https://doi.org/10.1067/mcp.2002.129503
  51. WHO, (2017). World Health Organization. Medication without harm: Global patient safety challenge on medication safety. World Health Organization. https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/255263(Access Date:03.06.2025).
  52. WHO, (2025). Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology. ATC/DDD index 2025. https://atcddd.fhi.no/atc_ddd_index (Access Date:03.06.2025).
  53. Zeitoun, J. D., Lefèvre, J. H., Downing, N., Bergeron, H., & Ross, J. S. (2014). Inconsistencies among European Union pharmaceutical regulator safety communications: a cross-country comparison. PLoS One, 9(10), e109100. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0109100
  54. Lee, J. J., Bortolussi‐Courval, É., Filosa, E., Rej, S., Godard‐Sebillotte, C., Tamblyn, R.,. & McDonald, E. G. (2025). Criteria to report adverse drug withdrawal events in clinical trials: a systematic review. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 73(6), 1918-1928. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.19457
  55. Montastruc, J. L., Sommet, A., Lacroix, I., Olivier, P., Durrieu, G., Damase-Michel, C.,. & Bagheri, H. (2006). Pharmacovigilance for evaluating adverse drug reactions: value, organization, and methods. Joint Bone Spine, 73(6), 629-632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbspin.2006.09.002