nach oben

Drug Safety

Erschienen in:

01.11.2009 | Original Research Article

Risk Management Policy and Black-Box Warnings

A Qualitative Analysis of US FDA Proceedings

verfasst von: Dr Daniel M. Cook, Rama K. Gurugubelli, Lisa A. Bero

Erschienen in: Drug Safety | Ausgabe 11/2009

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background: The US FDA increasingly applies risk management to drug safety policy. Little is known about the process by which the FDA approves labelling changes. Although advisory committees can recommend any of the risk management tools, including the use of ’black-box warnings’, it is unknown whether they deliberate on these questions or how they apply the principles of risk minimization or management during their considerations of drug licensing.

Objective: To examine the process by which risk management is considered by the FDA, including the role of FDA advisory committees. We also aimed to identify and describe drug labelling changes and additions, including the prevalence of black-box warnings.

Methods: We electronically obtained publicly available information regarding drug approvals, drug revisions and advisory committee meetings over 3 years (2004–6) from the FDA. Data in the form of meeting transcripts and full histories of labelling changes were collected on drugs discussed by advisory committees. We then searched and qualitatively analysed the meeting transcripts to identify themes in the discussion. We also created a database of all prescription drug labelling changes for 3 years and examined which drugs have had the most changes. We describe the risk management consideration process and report the frequency and characteristics of labelling changes. Excerpts from the transcripts are selected to illustrate both typical and atypical features of the discussion.

Findings: A total of 174 black-box changes were made in the 3-year period of our study, of which 77 were new black-box warnings and 97 were revisions in black-box warnings. Of 77 new black-box warning additions, only 11 drugs were discussed by the advisory committees. Of the 17 most frequently revised drug labels in these 3 years, two were discussed in the advisory committee meetings. Advisory meeting discussions revealed confusion about black-box warnings and emphasized potential consequences of the warnings rather than their content.

Conclusion: The safety labelling of drugs on the market is changed often. Panels of advisors consider only a few drugs, rarely discuss the labelling requirements, and display confusion about applying black-box warnings. The creation and application of black-box warnings on prescription medications should receive closer attention from the FDA and its advisors.

Meltzer D. Risks and benefits of risk-management plans. Health Aff 2007 May/Jun; 26(3): 681–3CrossRef

Gottlieb S. Drug safety proposals and the intrusion of federal regulation into patient freedom and medical practice. Health Aff 2007 May/Jun; 26(3): 664–77CrossRef

Avorn J. Drug warnings that can cause fits: communicating risks in a data-poor environment. N Engl J Med 2008 Sep 4; 359(10): 991–4PubMedCrossRef

Kanjanarat P, Winterstein AG, Johns TE, et al. Nature of preventable adverse drug events in hospitals: a literature review. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2003 Sep; 60: 1750–9PubMed

Classen D. Medication safety: moving from illusion to reality. JAMA 2003 Mar 5; 289(9): 1154–6PubMedCrossRef

Classen DC, Metzger J. Improving medication safety: the measurement conundrum and where to start. Int J Qual Health Care 2003; 15 Suppl. I: i41–7PubMedCrossRef

Wysowski DK, Swartz L. Adverse drug event surveillance and drug withdrawals in the United States, 1969–2002. Arch Intern Med 2005 Jun 27; 165(12): 1363–9PubMedCrossRef

Committee on the Assessment of the US Drug Safety System. The future of drug safety: promoting and protecting the health of the public. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2006

Gottlieb S. Opening pandora’s pillbox: using modern information tools to improve drug safety. Health Aff 2005 Jul/Aug; 24(4): 938–49CrossRef

10.

Cullen D, Bates D, Small S, et al. The incident reporting system does not detect adverse drug events: a problem for quality improvement. Jt Comm J Qual Improv 1995 Oct; 21(10): 549–52

11.

Talbot JCC, Nilsson BS. Pharmacovigilance in the pharmaceutical industry. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1998; 45: 427–31PubMedCrossRef

12.

Hazell L, Shakir SAW. Under-reporting of adverse drug reactions: a systematic review. Drug Saf 2006; 29(5): 385–96PubMedCrossRef

13.

Brewer T, Colditz GA. Postmarketing surveillance and adverse drug reactions: current perspectives and future needs. JAMA 1999 Mar 3; 281(9): 824–34PubMedCrossRef

14.

Carpenter D, Zucker EJ, Avorn J. Drug-review deadlines and safety problems. N Engl J Med 2008 Mar 27; 358(13): 1354–61PubMedCrossRef

15.

Abraham J, Davis C. A comparative analysis of drug safety withdrawals in the UK and the US (1971–1992): implications for current regulatory thinking and policy. Soc Sci Med 2005; 61(5): 881–92PubMedCrossRef

16.

Furberg C, Levin A, Gross P, et al. The FDA and drug safety. Arch Intern Med 2006; 166: 1938–42PubMedCrossRef

17.

Murphy S, Roberts R. “Black box” 101: how the Food and Drug Administration evaluates, communicates, and manages drug benefit/risk. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2006; 117: 34–9PubMedCrossRef

18.

Karch AM. The gray areas of black box warnings: who is responsible for heeding them? Am J Nurs 2006 Jun; 106(6): 77–8PubMedCrossRef

19.

Lasser KE, Allen PD, Woolhandler SJ, et al. Timing of new black box warnings and withdrawals for prescription medications. JAMA 2002 May 1; 287(17): 2215–20PubMedCrossRef

20.

Abroms L, Maibach E, Lyon-Daniel K, et al. What is the best approach to reducing birth defects associated with isotretinoin? PLoS Med 2006 Nov; 3(11): 1978–83CrossRef

21.

Doshi AE. The cost of clear skin: balancing the social and safety costs of iPLEDGE with the efficacy of accutane (isotretinoin). Seton Hall Law Rev 2007; 37: 625–60PubMed

22.

Roche Pharmaceuticals. Roche discontinues and plans to delist accutane in the US [press release; online]. Available from URL: http://www.rocheusa.com/newsroom/current/2009/pr2009062601.html [Accessed 2009 Sep 4]

23.

Garbe E, Andersohn F. Contraindication labelling changes in the United States and Germany. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2007; 63(1): 87–93PubMedCrossRef

24.

Furberg CD. Decisions by regulatory agencies: are they evidence-based? Trials 2007 Apr 11; 8(1): 13 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/pdf/1745-6215-8-13.pdf [Accessed 2009 Sep 4]PubMedCrossRef

25.

Reggi V, Balocco-Mattavelli R, Bonati M, et al. Prescribing information in 26 countries: a comparative study. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2003 Aug; 59(4): 263–70PubMedCrossRef

26.

Vitry A, Lexchin J, Sasich L, et al. Provision of information on regulatory authorities’ websites. Intern Med J 2008 Mar 11; 38(7): 559–67PubMedCrossRef

27.

Steinbrook R. Science, politics, and federal advisory committees. N Engl J Med 2004 Apr 1; 350(14): 1454–60PubMedCrossRef

28.

Roden DM, Temple R. The US Food and Drug Administration Cardiorenal Advisory Panel and the drug approval process. Circulation 2005 Apr 5; 111(13): 1697–702PubMedCrossRef

29.

Merrill RA. Modernizing the FDA: an incremental revolution. Health Aff 1999 Mar/Apr; 18(2): 96–111CrossRef

30.

Shamoo AE. Role of conflict of interest in public advisory councils. In: Cheney D, editor. Ethical issues in research. Frederick (MD): University Publishing Group, 1993; 159–74

31.

Nguyen NT, Cook DM, Bero LA. The decision-making process of US Food and Drug Administration advisory committees on switches from prescription to over-the-counter status: a comparative case study. Clin Ther 2006 Aug; 28(8): 1231–43PubMedCrossRef

32.

Smith BLR. The advisers: scientists in the policy process. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 1992

33.

Ackerley N, Eyraud J, Mazzotta M. Measuring conflict of interest and expertise on FDA advisory committees, 2007 October 26 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/oc/advisory/ergcoireport.pdf [Accessed 2009 Mar 31]

34.

Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Joint Meeting of the Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee and the Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee, July 10, 2008, Sheraton Washington North Hotel, Beltsville, Maryland: questions [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/08/questions/2008-4372q1.pdf [Accessed 2009 Mar 31]

35.

Neale T. Risks of suicidal ideation and behavior with epilepsy drugs reaffirmed. MedPage Today 2008 Jul 10 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.medpagetoday.com/Psychiatry/GeneralPsychiatry/10086 [Accessed 2009 Mar 31]

36.

Creswell JW, Hanson WE, Plano VLC, et al. Qualitative research designs: selection and implementation. Counsel Psych 2007 Mar; 35(2): 236–64CrossRef

37.

Sandelowski M. Real qualitative researchers do not count: the use of numbers in qualitative research. Res Nurs Health 2001 Jun; 24(3): 230–40PubMedCrossRef

38.

Neuman WL. Social research methods: qualitative and quantitative approaches. 4th ed. Boston (MA): Allyn and Bacon,2000

39.

Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee with the Pediatric Subcommittee of the Anti-infective Drugs Advisory Committee, 2004 February 2 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/04/transcripts/4006T1.pdf [Accessed 2009 Mar 31]

40.

Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Anti-Infective Drugs Advisory Committee in Joint Session with the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee, 2006 December 15 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/06/transcripts/2006-4266t2-part1.pdf [Accessed 2009 Mar 31]

41.

Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Pulmonary-Allergy Drugs Advisory Committee, 2005 July 13 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/05/transcripts/2005-4148T1.pdf [Accessed 2009 Mar 31]

42.

Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee, 2005 December 2 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/05/transcripts/2005-4195T1.pdf [Accessed 2009 Mar 31]

43.

Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee, 2006 May 17 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/06/transcripts/2006-4216t1-transcript.pdf [Accessed 2009 Mar 31]

44.

Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee, 2006 March 23 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/06/transcripts/2006-4212T1.pdf [Accessed 2009 Mar 31]

45.

Gerber BJ, Neeley GW. Perceived risk and citizen preferences for governmental management of routine hazards. Policy Stud J 2005; 33(3): 395–418CrossRef

46.

Shapiro SA, Glicksman RL. Risk regulation at risk. Stanford (CA): Stanford University Press, 2003

47.

Hirst C, Cook S, Dai W, et al. A call for international harmonization in therapeutic risk management. Pharmaco-epidemiol Drug Saf 2006; 15(12): 839–49CrossRef

48.

Jardine CG, Hrudey SE, Shortreed JH, et al. Risk management frameworks for human health and environmental risks. J Toxicol Environ Health B 2003; 6(6): 569–718

49.

Sunstein CR. Risk and reason: safety, law, and the environment. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002

50.

Schierow L-J. The role of risk analysis and risk management in environmental protection. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2005 Mar 1

51.

Andrews E, Dombeck M. The role of scientific evidence of risks and benefits in determining risk management policies for medications. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2004; 13: 599–608PubMedCrossRef

52.

Epstein SS, Ashford NA, Blackwelder B, et al. The crisis in US and International Cancer Policy. Int J Health Serv 2002; 32(4): 669–707PubMedCrossRef

53.

Callreus T. The precautionary principle and pharmaceutical risk management. Drug Saf 2005; 28(6): 465–71PubMedCrossRef

54.

Lasser KE, Seger DL, Yu DT, et al. Adherence to black box warnings for prescription medications in outpatients. Arch Intern Med 2006 Feb 13; 166(3): 338–44PubMedCrossRef

55.

Wagner AK, Chan KA, Dashevsky I, et al. FDA drug prescribing warnings: is the black box half empty or half full? Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2006; 15(6): 369–86PubMedCrossRef

56.

Aaronson DW. The ’’black box’’ warning and allergy drugs. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2006 Jan; 117(1): 40–4PubMedCrossRef

57.

Stafford RS. Regulating off-label drug use: rethinking the role of the FDA. N Engl J Med 2008 Apr 3; 358(14): 1427–9PubMedCrossRef

58.

Psaty BM, Ray W. FDA guidance on off-label promotion and the state of the literature from sponsors. JAMA 2008 Apr 23; 299(16): 1949–51PubMedCrossRef

59.

Hampton T. Experts weigh in on promotion, prescription of off-label drugs. JAMA 2007 Feb 21; 297(7): 683–4PubMedCrossRef

60.

Olfson M, Marcus SC, Druss BG. Effects of Food and Drug Administration warnings on antidepressant use in a national sample. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2008 Jan; 65(1): 94–101PubMedCrossRef

61.

Food and Drug Administration. Prescription drug advertising (21CFR202.1). US Government Printing Office, 2008 [online]. Available from URL: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2001/aprqtr/pdf/21cfr202.1.pdf [Accessed 2009 Sep 4]

62.

Wright C, Schnoll S, Bernstein D. Risk evaluation and mitigation strategies for drugs with abuse liability: public interest, special interest, conflicts of interest, and the industry perspective. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2008 Oct; 1141: 284–303PubMedCrossRef

63.

Thompson CA. Hospital inspectors eye black-box warnings. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2008 May 15; 65(10): 890–4

64.

Weatherby LB, Nordstrom BL, Fife D, et al. The impact of wording in ’’Dear doctor’’ letters and in black box labels. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2002 Dec; 72(6): 735–42PubMedCrossRef

65.

Allen LaPointe NM, Pappas P, Deverka P, et al. Patient receipt and understanding of written information provided with isotretinoin and estrogen prescriptions. J Gen Intern Med 2007 Jan; 22(1): 98–101PubMedCrossRef

66.

Shrank WH, Agney-Blais J, Choudhry NK, et al. The variability and quality of medication container labels. Arch Intern Med 2007 Sep 10; 167(16): 1760–5PubMedCrossRef

67.

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. CERTs annual report: year 4, 2003 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/certsrep4.pdf. [Accessed 2009 Aug 27]

68.

US FDA, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research and Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. Guidance for industry: development and use of risk minimization action plans. Rockville (MD): US DHHS, Food and Drug Administration, 2005

69.

Kaufman M. FDA plans new board to monitor drug safety. The Washington Post 2005 Feb 16 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25893-2005Feb15.html [Accessed 2009 Aug 7]

70.

Bush JK, Dai WS, Dieck GS, et al. The art and science of risk management: a US research-based industry perspective. Drug Saf 2005; 28(1): 1–18PubMedCrossRef

71.

Schultz WB. Bolstering the FDA’s drug-safety authority. N Engl J Med 2007 Nov 29; 357(22): 2217–9PubMedCrossRef

72.

Traynor K. Law gives FDA new enforcement clout. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2007 Nov 15; 64(22): 2314–5PubMedCrossRef

73.

Department of Health and Human Services. Identification of drug and biological products deemed to have risk evaluation and mitigation strategies for purposes of the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act, 2007. Fed Regist 2008 Mar 27; 73(60): 16313–4

74.

Department of Health and Human Services. Supplemental applications proposing labeling changes for approved drugs, biologics, and medical devices. Fed Regist 2008; 73(164): 49603–10

75.

Vlad I, Sallot LM, Reber BH. Rectification without assuming responsibility: testing the transgression flowchart with the Vioxx recall. J Public Relat Res 2006; 18(4): 357–79CrossRef

76.

Abraham J. The science and politics of medicines control. Drug Saf 2003; 26(3): 135–43PubMedCrossRef

77.

Subcommittee on Science and Technology of the FDA Science Board. FDA science and mission at risk, 2007 November [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/07/briefing/2007-4329b_02_01_FDA%20Report%20on%20Science%20and%20Technology.pdf [Accessed 2007 Dec 4]

78.

Sarewitz D, Pielke Jr R, Keykhah M. Vulnerability and risk: some thoughts from a political and policy perspective. Risk Anal 2003; 23(4): 805–10PubMedCrossRef

Titel: Risk Management Policy and Black-Box Warnings
A Qualitative Analysis of US FDA Proceedings
verfasst von: Dr Daniel M. Cook
Rama K. Gurugubelli
Lisa A. Bero
Publikationsdatum: 01.11.2009
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in: Drug Safety / Ausgabe 11/2009
Print ISSN: 0114-5916
Elektronische ISSN: 1179-1942
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/11316670-000000000-00000

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 11/2009

Mortality Associated with Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) Drug Treatment

Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) Treatment and Sudden Death

Differences in Adverse Effect Reporting in Placebo Groups in SSRI and Tricyclic Antidepressant Trials

Predicting the Clinical Relevance of Drug Interactions From Pre-Approval Studies

A Benefit-Risk Assessment of Imatinib in Chronic Myeloid Leukaemia and Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumours

Effectiveness of Safety Warnings in Atypical Antipsychotic Drugs