- Related item:
- Delays in the post-marketing withdrawal of drugs to which deaths have been attributed: a systematic investigation and analysis
- Description:
-
BACKGROUND: Post-marketing withdrawal of medicinal products because of deaths can be occasioned by evidence obtained from case reports, observational studies, randomized trials, or systematic reviews. There have been no studies of the pattern of withdrawals of medicinal products to which deaths have been specifically attributed and the evidence that affects such decisions. Our objectives were to identify medicinal products that were withdrawn after marketing in association with deaths, to search for the evidence on which withdrawal decisions were based, and to analyse the delays involved and the worldwide patterns of withdrawal.
METHODS: We searched the World Health Organization's Consolidated List of [Medicinal] Products, drug regulatory authorities' websites, PubMed, Google Scholar, and textbooks on adverse drug reactions. We included medicinal products for which death was specifically mentioned as a reason for withdrawal from the market. Non-human medicines, herbal products, and non-prescription medicines were excluded. One reviewer extracted the data and a second reviewer verified them independently.
RESULTS: We found 95 drugs for which death was documented as a reason for withdrawal between 1950 and 2013. All were withdrawn in at least one country, but at least 16 remained on the market in some countries. Withdrawals were more common in European countries; few were recorded in Africa (5.3%). The more recent the launch date, the sooner deaths were reported. However, in 47% of cases more than 2 years elapsed between the first report of a death and withdrawal of the drug, and the interval between the first report of a death attributed to a medicinal product and eventual withdrawal of the product has not improved over the last 60 years.
CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that some deaths associated with these products could have been avoided. Manufacturers and regulatory authorities should expedite investigations when deaths are reported as suspected adverse drug reactions and consider early suspensions. Increased transparency in the publication of clinical trials data and improved international co-ordination could shorten the delays in withdrawing dangerous medicinal products after reports of deaths and obviate discrepancies in drug withdrawals in different countries.
- Related item:
- Post-Marketing Regulation of Medicines Withdrawn from the Market Because of Drug-Attributed Deaths: An Analysis of Justification
- Description:
-
INTRODUCTION: Several medicinal products have been withdrawn from the market because of drug-attributed deaths. However, there has been no investigation of whether such withdrawals were justified, and the extent to which confirmatory studies are used to investigate drug-adverse event relationships when deaths are reported is uncertain. We documented medicinal products withdrawn from the market because of drug-attributed deaths, identified confirmatory studies investigating the drug-adverse event relationships, examined whether withdrawals of medicinal products because of drug-attributed deaths after marketing were justified based on a mechanistic analysis, and examined the trends over time.
METHODS: We searched electronic and non-electronic sources to identify medicinal products that were withdrawn because of drug-attributed deaths. We used a previously published algorithm to examine whether the withdrawals of products were justified. We then searched PubMed and Google Scholar to identify studies investigating the drug-adverse event relationships, used the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine criteria to document the levels of evidence, and assessed whether the evidence of an association was confirmed.
RESULTS: We included 83 medicinal products. The reasons for withdrawal appeared to have been justified in 80 cases (96%). The median interval between the first reported adverse reaction that was related to the cause of death and the first reported death was 1 year (interquartile range = 1-3); products were withdrawn sooner when the interval between the first reported relevant adverse reaction and the first death was shorter. Confirmatory studies were conducted in 57 instances (69%), and there was evidence of an association in 52 cases (63%). Four products (5%) were re-introduced after initial withdrawal.
CONCLUSION: Regulatory authorities have been justified in making withdrawal decisions when deaths have been attributed to medicinal products, using the precautionary principle when alternative decisions could have been made. Medicinal products are likely to be quickly withdrawn from the market when there is a short interval to the first reported deaths. The use of an algorithm such as we have used in this study could help to expedite the process of decision making.
- Related item:
- Post-marketing withdrawal of analgesic medications because of adverse drug reactions: a systematic review
- Description:
-
Many analgesics have been withdrawn from the market because of adverse drug reactions. Controversy still surrounds the use of some approved analgesics for pain management. However, the trends and reasons for withdrawal of analgesics when harms are attributed to their use have not been systematically assessed. Areas covered: We conducted searches in PubMed; Embase; Google Scholar; clinicaltrials.gov; WHO databases of withdrawn products; websites of the European Medicines Agency, the US Food and Drug Administration, the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency; Meyler's Side Effects of Drugs; Stephens' Detection of New Adverse Drug Reactions; the Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Encyclopedia; and the Merck Index. We included licensed analgesics that were withdrawn after marketing because of adverse reactions between 1950 and March 2017. We excluded herbal products, non-human medicines, and non-prescription medicines. We used the Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine criteria to document the levels of evidence, and chi-squared tests to compare withdrawal patterns across geographical regions. Expert opinion: Pharmacovigilance systems in low-resource settings should be strengthened. Greater co-ordination across regulatory authorities in assessing and interpreting the benefit-harm balance of new analgesics should be encouraged. Future reporting of harms in clinical trials of analgesics should follow standardized guidelines.
- Related item:
- Post-marketing withdrawal of 462 medicinal products because of adverse drug reactions: a systematic review of the world literature
- Description:
-
BACKGROUND: There have been no studies of the patterns of post-marketing withdrawals of medicinal products to which adverse reactions have been attributed. We identified medicinal products that were withdrawn because of adverse drug reactions, examined the evidence to support such withdrawals, and explored the pattern of withdrawals across countries.
METHODS: We searched PubMed, Google Scholar, the WHO's database of drugs, the websites of drug regulatory authorities, and textbooks. We included medicinal products withdrawn between 1950 and 2014 and assessed the levels of evidence used in making withdrawal decisions using the criteria of the Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine.
RESULTS: We identified 462 medicinal products that were withdrawn from the market between 1953 and 2013, the most common reason being hepatotoxicity. The supporting evidence in 72 % of cases consisted of anecdotal reports. Only 43 (9.34 %) drugs were withdrawn worldwide and 179 (39 %) were withdrawn in one country only. Withdrawal was significantly less likely in Africa than in other continents (Europe, the Americas, Asia, and Australasia and Oceania). The median interval between the first reported adverse reaction and the year of first withdrawal was 6 years (IQR, 1-15) and the interval did not consistently shorten over time.
CONCLUSION: There are discrepancies in the patterns of withdrawal of medicinal products from the market when adverse reactions are suspected, and withdrawals are inconsistent across countries. Greater co-ordination among drug regulatory authorities and increased transparency in reporting suspected adverse drug reactions would help improve current decision-making processes.
- Related item:
- Post-marketing withdrawal of anti-obesity medicinal products because of adverse drug reactions: a systematic review
- Description:
-
BACKGROUND: We identified anti-obesity medications withdrawn since 1950 because of adverse drug reactions after regulatory approval, and examined the evidence used to support such withdrawals, investigated the mechanisms of the adverse reactions, and explored the trends over time.
METHODS: We conducted searches in PubMed, the World Health Organization database of drugs, the websites of drug regulatory authorities, and selected full texts, and we hand searched references in retrieved documents. We included anti-obesity medications that were withdrawn between 1950 and December 2015 and assessed the levels of evidence used for making withdrawal decisions using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine criteria.
RESULTS: We identified 25 anti-obesity medications withdrawn between 1964 and 2009; 23 of these were centrally acting, via monoamine neurotransmitters. Case reports were cited as evidence for withdrawal in 80% of instances. Psychiatric disturbances, cardiotoxicity (mainly attributable to re-uptake inhibitors), and drug abuse or dependence (mainly attributable to neurotransmitter releasing agents) together accounted for 83% of withdrawals. Deaths were reportedly associated with seven products (28%). In almost half of the cases, the withdrawals occurred within 2 years of the first report of an adverse reaction.
CONCLUSIONS: Most of the drugs that affect monoamine neurotransmitters licensed for the treatment of obesity over the past 65 years have been withdrawn because of adverse reactions. The reasons for withdrawal raise concerns about the wisdom of using pharmacological agents that target monoamine neurotransmitters in managing obesity. Greater transparency in the assessment of harms from anti-obesity medications is therefore warranted.
- Related item:
- Postmarketing withdrawal of human medicinal products because of adverse reactions in animals: a systematic review and analysis
- Description:
-
PURPOSE: We have identified human medicinal products for which animal data were used as evidence for withdrawal, determined whether the adverse reactions were reported in humans, established whether confirmatory human studies were conducted, and explored the withdrawal patterns over time.
METHODS: We searched the World Health Organization's Consolidated List of [Medicinal] Products, drug regulatory authorities' websites, PubMed, Google Scholar, and selected textbooks to identify medicinal products withdrawn from 1950 to June 2016. We included medicinal products for which animal data were specifically reported as a reason for withdrawal. We used a checklist adapted from the International Agency for Research on Cancer criteria to rate the evidence.
RESULTS: In 37 cases, evidence from animals was the reason given for withdrawal between 1963 and 2000. Evidence of carcinogenicity was cited in 23 cases (62%). Limited evidence for harms occasioned withdrawal in over 80% of cases. In 11 cases (30%), the adverse drug reactions were subsequently reported in humans. In 5 instances (14%), formal studies were conducted in humans. The median interval to withdrawal following reports of adverse reactions was 2 years (IQR = 1-9 y).
CONCLUSIONS: Regulatory authorities and drug manufacturers are likely to withdraw medicinal products quickly from the market when animal experiments suggest increased risks of cancers or congenital malformations. Human studies are seldom conducted when harms are suspected in animals. Future research should explore better methods of extrapolating harms data from animal research to humans.
- Related item:
- Worldwide withdrawal of medicinal products because of adverse drug reactions: a systematic review and analysis
- Description:
-
We have systematically identified medicinal products withdrawn worldwide because of adverse drug reactions, assessed the level of evidence used for making the withdrawal decisions, and explored the patterns of withdrawals over time. We searched PubMed, the WHO database of withdrawn products, and selected texts. We included products that were withdrawn after launch from 1950 onwards, excluding non-human and over-the-counter medicines. We assessed the levels of evidence on which withdrawals were based using the Oxford Center for Evidence Based Medicine Levels of Evidence. Of 353 medicinal products withdrawn from any country, only 40 were withdrawn worldwide. Anecdotal reports were cited as evidence for withdrawal in 30 (75%) and deaths occurred in 27 (68%). Hepatic, cardiac, and nervous system toxicity accounted for over 60% of withdrawals. In 28 cases, the first withdrawal was initiated by the manufacturer. The median interval between the first report of an adverse drug reaction that led to withdrawal and the first withdrawal was 1 year (range 0-43 years). Worldwide withdrawals occurred within 1 year after the first withdrawal in any country. In conclusion, the time it takes for drugs to be withdrawn worldwide after reports of adverse drug reactions has shortened over time. However, there are inconsistencies in current withdrawal procedures when adverse drug reactions are suspected. A uniform method for establishing worldwide withdrawal of approved medicinal products when adverse drug reactions are suspected should be developed, to facilitate global withdrawals. Rapid synthesis of the evidence on harms should be a priority when serious adverse reactions are suspected.
