Skip to main content
Log in

Issues Related to Monitoring the Safety of Over-The-Counter (OTC) Medicines

  • Leading Article
  • Published:
Drug Safety Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Pharmaceutical advances over the past 50 years have benefited many people in terms of disease prevention and management. However, probably without exception, most pharmaceutical products can cause adverse consequences of varying severity and frequency.

In the last 10 years, many medicines that were originally prescription only have now become available over the counter (OTC), either from pharmacies or other general retail outlets. The volume and value of OTC medicine sales have increased accordingly. These switches have been well regulated and based on clear criteria and evidence of safety. Benefits of the changes include increased convenience to patients, greater self-management of minor ailments and a reduction in government drug expenditure.

However, there are important differences between medicines supplied OTC and on medical prescription. With OTC medicines there is generally less health-care professional input into the recommendation or ongoing monitoring of use. There is an absence of records per se, or linkage to other medication records elsewhere, and most countries allow direct-to-consumer advertising of the product. Taken together these differences can result in inappropriate expectations, demand and use of the OTC medicines, with limited opportunity for ongoing patient follow-up and monitoring of safety.

Methodologies for pharmacy-based epidemiological studies of OTC medicines need to be developed. Studies should be large enough to detect associations that might exist, and to consider other explanations for associations such as chance, bias or confounding. There have already been some pilot studies with encouraging results with respect to follow-up rates. Outcome data however have usually been self-reported and the studies have lacked a suitable comparison group.

Methodologies for pharmacy-based epidemiological studies of OTC medicines need to be developed. Studies should be large enough to detect associations that might exist, and to consider other explanations for associations such as chance, bias or confounding. There have already been some pilot studies with encouraging results with respect to follow-up rates. Outcome data however have usually been self-reported and the studies have lacked a suitable comparison group.

While available OTC medicines are perceived to be generally safe, problems have occasionally arisen with some earlier switched products (e.g. terfenadine). There have also been concerns about some traditional herbal and homeopathic remedies such as St John’s wort. While such adverse events are rare, they emphasise the need for healthcare professionals and the public to understand and manage such risks. Many doctors are unaware of the range of OTC preparations available, and therefore do not consider them as a possible cause of presenting symptoms. Neither do they take them into account when making a new prescribing decision. The public need to be aware that OTC medicines should be treated with the same care as prescribed medicines, and that advice on recommended dose, contraindications and interactions should be adhered to.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Boersma E, Mercado N, Poldermans D, et al. Acute myocardial infarction. Lancet 2003; 361: 847–58

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. EEC Directive 2001/83/EEC

  3. Potts M, Denny C. Safety implications of transferring the oral contraceptive from prescription only to over the counter status. Drug Saf 1995; 13(6): 333–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. China Concept Consulting: the OTC market — ready for take-off [online]. Available from URL: http://www.chinaconcept.com [Accessed 2002 Oct 3]

  5. Effect of herb medicine regulation on industry likely to be minimal [abstract]. Pharm J 2002; 269: 560

    Google Scholar 

  6. IMS data global self medication market 1997 [online]. Available from URL:http://www.otc-bulletin.com [Accessed Oct 3]

  7. UK to regulate and control all alternative health therapies. Available from URL:http://www.lightnet.co.uk/informer/health/20001127.htm [Accessed 2002 Oct 3]

  8. British Medical Association. Complementary medicine: new approaches to good practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993: 9–36

  9. Barnes J, Abbot N. Experiences with complementary remedies: a survey of community pharmacists [abstract]. Pharm J 1999; 263: R37

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bond CM. Prescribing in community pharmacy: barriers and opportunities [PhD thesis] University of Aberdeen, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bissell P, Ward PR, Noyce PR. Consumer preceptions of the risks and benefits of deregulated medicines [abstract]. Pharm J 1999; 263: R28–9

    Google Scholar 

  12. Bond CM, Sinclair HK, Taylor RJ, et al. Community pharmacists’ attitudes to the deregulation of medicines and to their extended role. Int J Pharm Pract 1993; 2: 26–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Largue G. B Med Sci [dissertation]. University of Aberdeen, 2000

    Google Scholar 

  14. Sinclair HK, Bond CM, Hannaford PC. Over the counter ibuprofen: how and why is it used. Int J Pharm Pract 2000; 8: 121–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Layton D, Sinclair HK, Bond CM, et al. Pharmacovigilance of over-the-counter products based in community pharmacy: methodological issues from pilot work conducted in Hampshire and Grampian, UK. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2002; 11: 503–13

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Hannaford PC. Combined oral contraceptive use and venous thromboembolism. Gynecolog Endocrinol 1996; 10Suppl. 2: 13–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Strom BL. Sample size considerations for pharmacoepidemiologic studies. In: Strom BL, editor. Pharmacoepidemiology. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1989: 27–37

    Google Scholar 

  18. Strom BL. Choosing among the available approaches for pharmacoepidemiologic studies. In: Strom BL, editor. Pharmacoepidemiology. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1989: 245–56

    Google Scholar 

  19. Baum C, Annello C. The spontaneous reporting system in the United Sates. In: Strom BL, editor. Pharmacoepidemiology. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1989: 107–18

    Google Scholar 

  20. Jarernsiripornkul N, Krska J, Capps PAG, et al. Patient reporting of potential adverse drug reactions: a methodological study. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2002; 53: 318–25

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Egberts TCG, Smulders M, de Koning FHP, et al. Can adverse drug reactions be detected earlier? A comparison of reports by patients and professionals. BMJ 1996; 313: 530–1

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Committee on Safety of Medicines. Aspirin and Reyes syndrome in children up to and including 15 years of age. Current Problems in Pharmacovigilance 2002 Apr; 28: 5

    Google Scholar 

  23. Committee on Safety of Medicines and Medicines Control Agency. Ventricular arrhythmias due to terfenadine and astemizole. Current Problems in Pharmacovigilance 1992 Nov; 35: 1

  24. Terfenadine switches back to POM. Pharm J 1997; 259: 316

  25. POM-to-P shift proposed for budesonide and P-to-POM for carbaryl. Pharm J 1995; 255: 138

  26. Kernan WN, Viscoli CM, Brass LM, et al. Phenyl propanolamine and haemorrhagic stroke. N Engl J Med 2000; 348: 1826–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Meckstroth S, Schwartz M, Agrawal N. NSAIDS: safety implications of over the counter availability. Drug Saf 1992; 7(4): 241–4

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Singh G. Gastro intestinal complications of prescription and over-the-counter non-steroidal anti inflammatory drugs: a view from the ARMIS database. Am J Ther 2000; 7: 115–21

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Moore N, Van Ganse E, Le Parc JM, et al. The PAIN study: paracetamol, aspirin and ibuprofen new tolerability study. Clin Drug Invest 1999; 18(2): 89–98

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Rantucci M, Segal H. Over-the-counter medication: outcome and effectiveness of patient counselling. J Soc Admin Pharm 1986; 3(3): 81–91

    Google Scholar 

  31. Sihvo S, Klaukka T, Martikainen J, et al. Frequency of daily over the counter drug use and potentially clinically significant over the counter prescription drug interactions in the Finnish adult population. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2000; 56: 495–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Perharic L, Shaw D, Colbridge M, et al. Toxicological problems resulting from exposure to traditional remedies and food supplements. Drug Saf 1994; 11(4): 284–94

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Palmer ME, Haller C, McKinney PE, et al. Adverse events associated with dietary supplements: an observational study. Lancet 2003; 361: 101–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Breckenridge A. CSM advice on liver toxicity associated with kava-kava and proposed regulatory action by the government Committee on Safety of Medicines CEM/CMO/2002/10

  35. Committee on Safety of Medicines. Reminder: St John’s wort Interactions. Current Problems in Pharmacovigilance 2000 May; 26: 5

  36. Hanlon JT, Fillenbaum GG, Fuby CM, et al. Epidemiology of over-the-counter drug use in community dwelling elderly: United States perspective. Drugs Aging 2001; 18(2): 123–31

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Pitkala KH, Strandberg E, Tilvis RS. Is it possible to reduce polypharmacy in the elderly? A randomised controlled trial. Drugs Aging 2001; 18: 143–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Simon HK, Weinkle DA. Over the counter medications. Arch Paediatr Adolesc Med 1997; 151: 654–6

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. The Pharmacy Plan Department of Health 2000, England

  40. The Right Medicine. A strategy for pharmaceutical care in Scotland. Scottish Executive 2002

  41. Porteous T, Bond C, Hannaford P, et al. Electronic transfer of prescription related information: comparing the views of patients, GPs and pharmacists. Br J Gen Pract 2003; 53: 204–9

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Professors Bond and Hannaford are employed full time by the University of Aberdeen. They have research interest in pharmacovigilance. They have no potential conflicts of interest relevant to the content of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christine Bond.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bond, C., Hannaford, P. Issues Related to Monitoring the Safety of Over-The-Counter (OTC) Medicines. Drug-Safety 26, 1065–1074 (2003). https://doi.org/10.2165/00002018-200326150-00001

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00002018-200326150-00001

Keywords

Navigation