O01 Survey of Scottish Dermatology Society members on the new Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency isotretinoin recommendations

Faisal Dubash,Robert Dawe,Andrew Affleck
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/bjd/ljae090.001
IF: 11.113
2024-06-28
British Journal of Dermatology
Abstract:Abstract Recent Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) isotretinoin legislation includes significant changes that will affect clinical practice (Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. Drug Safety Update volume 16, issue 9: April 2023: 4). We obtained opinions from members of the Scottish Dermatological Society (SDS) on these recommendations. Five questions were circulated to members using a Microsoft Forms e-survey, and responders were anonymous. In total, 77 of 180 members responded in a 1-week period, with a 43% response rate. Open comments were also captured in a free-text box. The results included the following. Question 1: 95% (73 of 77) of responders stated that the new MHRA legislation is more likely to harm people with severe acne, while 3% (2 of 77) believed the recommendations would help patients with acne. Another 3% (2 of 77) answered ‘other’, with one stating ‘there are some improvements and some issues with this guidance’ and ‘people with severe acne will have to wait longer to start isotretinoin and suffer harm’. Question 2: 92% (71 of 77) felt that the views of people with severe acne were not considered. Question 3: 99% (76 of 77) of SDS members agreed that the new recommendations were not based on good evidence. Question 4: 90% (69 of 77) were against the requirement for two separate healthcare practitioners to approve isotretinoin prescribing in patients aged < 18 years. Question 5: 87% (67 of 77) agreed that clinicians should not need to ask about sexual dysfunction at every consultation, while 13% (10 of 77) believe we should. Open comments highlighted common themes such as ‘significant delays in patient access to isotretinoin, additional staff required for decisions, legislation being a barrier to prescribing effective treatment, additional patient harm such as scarring, effect on quality of life and concerns of worsening mental health due to the guidance’. ‘Further damage to the doctor–patient relationship’ was raised as ‘patients would be victim to a nocebo effect’. There was frustration expressed about the creation of more meaningless tick-box exercises and it was widely perceived that the legislation was authoritarian and disproportionately represented a minority opinion over an ‘unheard’ patient majority. There was also a feeling that there had been a ‘lack of expert dermatological opinion involved in the process of developing the guidance’. Overall, an overwhelming response from SDS members highlighted many concerns with the MHRA guidance and its impact on patient care. Isotretinoin appears to have been demonized without any scientific basis. The results of this survey question the credibility of the MHRA and their recommendations. We propose the creation of an objective working group, with no conflicts of interest, to re-evaluate the MHRA recommend­ations and accurately reflect the current evidence base.
dermatology
What problem does this paper attempt to address?