Safety related label changes for new drugs after approval in the US through expedited regulatory pathways: retrospective cohort study

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Objective To determine if drugs approved through the Food and Drug Administration’s expedited development and review pathways have different rates of safety related label changes after approval compared with drugs approved through standard non-expedited pathways.

Design Retrospective cohort study.

Setting FDA public records, January 1997 to April 2016.

Participants 382 FDA approved drugs.

Main outcome measures The number of times a particular safety section of a label (boxed warning, contraindication, warning, precaution, or adverse reaction) was changed during a drug’s time on the market. The relative rate of safety related label changes per year for expedited pathway and non-expedited pathway drugs was compared by forming matched pairs of drugs in the same therapeutic class that were approved within three years of each other.

Results Among the 382 eligible new drugs, 135 (35%) were associated with an expedited development or review pathway, and matches were available for 96 (71%). The matched pairs were associated with a total of 1710 safety related label changes during the study period. Expedited pathway drugs were characterized by a rate of 0.94 safety related label changes for each drug per year, compared with 0.68 safety related label changes per year for non-expedited pathway drugs (rate ratio 1.38, 95% confidence interval 1.25 to 1.52). Compared with non-expedited pathway drugs, expedited pathway drugs had a 48% higher rate of changes to boxed warnings and contraindications, the two most clinically important categories of safety warnings (1.48, 95% confidence interval 1.07 to 2.06). A qualitative review of changes to the boxed warning sections revealed that less than 5% (3/67) were changed to describe reduced risks for patients.

Conclusions Expedited development and regulatory review pathways can accelerate the availability of new drugs, but drugs approved through these pathways are associated with increased safety related label changes after approval, particularly for the types of changes representing the highest risk warnings. To inform appropriate policy interventions, additional research should explore the causal factors contributing to these different rates.

Related collections

Most cited references 11

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Postmarket Safety Events Among Novel Therapeutics Approved by the US Food and Drug Administration Between 2001 and 2010.

Nicholas Downing, Nilay Shah, Jenerius Aminawung … (2017)

Postmarket safety events of novel pharmaceuticals and biologics occur when new safety risks are identified after initial regulatory approval of these therapeutics. These safety events can change how novel therapeutics are used in clinical practice and inform patient and clinician decision making.

0 comments Cited 111 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Trends in utilization of FDA expedited drug development and approval programs, 1987-2014: cohort study

Aaron S. Kesselheim, Bo Wang, Jessica Franklin … (2015)

Objective To evaluate the use of special expedited development and review pathways at the US Food and Drug Administration over the past two decades. Design Cohort study. Setting FDA approved novel therapeutics between 1987 and 2014. Population Publicly available sources provided each drug’s year of approval, their innovativeness (first in class versus not first in class), World Health Organization Anatomic Therapeutic Classification, and which (if any) of the FDA’s four primary expedited development and review programs or designations were associated with each drug: orphan drug, fast track, accelerated approval, and priority review. Main outcome measures Logistic regression models evaluated trends in the proportion of drugs associated with each of the four expedited development and review programs. To evaluate the number of programs associated with each approved drug over time, Poisson models were employed, with the number of programs as the dependent variable and a linear term for year of approval. The difference in trends was compared between drugs that were first in class and those that were not. Results The FDA approved 774 drugs during the study period, with one third representing first in class agents. Priority review (43%) was the most prevalent of the four programs, with accelerated approval (9%) the least common. There was a significant increase of 2.6% per year in the number of expedited review and approval programs granted to each newly approved agent (incidence rate ratio 1.026, 95% confidence interval 1.017 to 1.035, P<0.001), and a 2.4% increase in the proportion of drugs associated with at least one such program (odds ratio 1.024, 95% confidence interval 1.006 to 1.043, P=0.009). Driving this trend was an increase in the proportion of approved, non-first in class drugs associated with at least one program for drugs (P=0.03 for interaction). Conclusions In the past two decades, drugs newly approved by the FDA have been associated with an increasing number of expedited development or review programs. Though expedited programs should be strictly limited to drugs providing noticeable clinical advances, this trend is being driven by drugs that are not first in class and thus potentially less innovative.

0 comments Cited 69 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Drug-review deadlines and safety problems.

Daniel Carpenter, Evan Zucker, Jerry Avorn (2008)

The Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) imposes deadlines for the completion of drug reviews by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Critics have suggested that these deadlines may result in rushed approvals and the emergence of unanticipated safety problems once a product is in clinical use. We assessed the association between the PDUFA deadlines and the timing of FDA drug approval by constructing dynamic Cox proportional-hazards models of review times for all new molecular entities approved between 1950 and 2005. To determine whether the deadlines were associated with postmarketing safety problems, we focused on drugs submitted since January 1993, when the deadlines were first imposed. We used exact logistic regression to determine whether drugs approved immediately before the deadlines were associated with a higher rate of postmarketing safety problems (e.g., withdrawals and black-box warnings) than drugs approved at other times. Initiation of the PDUFA requirements concentrated the number of approval decisions made in the weeks immediately preceding the deadlines. As compared with drugs approved at other times, drugs approved in the 2 months before their PDUFA deadlines were more likely to be withdrawn for safety reasons (odds ratio, 5.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3 to 27.8), more likely to carry a subsequent black-box warning (odds ratio, 4.4; 95% CI, 1.2 to 20.5), and more likely to have one or more dosage forms voluntarily discontinued by the manufacturer (odds ratio, 3.3; 95% CI, 1.5 to 7.5). PDUFA deadlines have appreciably changed the approval decisions of the FDA. Once medications are in clinical use, the discovery of safety problems is more likely for drugs approved immediately before a deadline than for those approved at other times. Copyright 2008 Massachusetts Medical Society.

0 comments Cited 43 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

Sana R Mostaghim: Role: researcher

Joshua J Gagne: Role: associate professor of medicine

Aaron S Kesselheim: Role: director and associate professor of medicine

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): BMJ

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): BMJ

Journal ID (publisher-id): bmj

Title: The BMJ

Publisher: BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.

ISSN (Print): 0959-8138

ISSN (Electronic): 1756-1833

Publication date Collection: 2017

Publication date (Electronic): 07 September 2017

Volume: 358

Electronic Location Identifier: j3837

Affiliations

[1]Program On Regulation, Therapeutics, And Law (PORTAL), Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, 1620 Tremont St, Boston, MA 02120, USA

Author notes

Correspondence to: A S Kesselheim akesselheim@ 123456bwh.harvard.edu

Article

Publisher ID: moss038683

DOI: 10.1136/bmj.j3837

PMC ID: 5588044

SO-VID: 68ec2ec2-c1eb-4c9a-aea0-5813b4c049f1

License:

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

Safety related label changes for new drugs after approval in the US through expedited regulatory pathways: retrospective cohort study

Read this article at

Abstract

Related collections

IEEE: COVID-19 related research

Most cited references 11

Postmarket Safety Events Among Novel Therapeutics Approved by the US Food and Drug Administration Between 2001 and 2010.

Trends in utilization of FDA expedited drug development and approval programs, 1987-2014: cohort study

Drug-review deadlines and safety problems.

Author and article information

Contributors

Journal

Affiliations

Author notes

Article

History

Categories

Comments

Comment on this article

Similar content 138

Cited by 37

Most referenced authors 214