Healthy Skepticism
Join us to help reduce harm from misleading health information.
Increase font size   Decrease font size   Print-friendly view   Print
Register Log in

Healthy Skepticism Library item: 14745

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.


Publication type: news

Taylor L.
Faster drug approvals jeopardise patient safety, researcher claims
Pharma Times 2008 Dec 4

Full text:

There are concerns that pressures on regulators to approve new drugs more quickly have reduced the focus on patient safety, and this problem is exacerbated by new efficiencies in drug marketing which can quickly expose large numbers of patients to unknown risks, warns a researcher writing in this week’s British Medical Journal (BMJ).

New medicines which receive approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) up to two months before the deadline set for a decision are more likely to be subsequently withdrawn from the market on safety grounds or to have to carry safety warnings, writes David Kao, fellow in cardiovascular medicine at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, USA in the current BMJ (BMJ 2008;337;a2591).

For example, he says, it is estimated that 20 million patients were prescribed Merck & Co’s non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) Vioxx (rofecoxib) over five years before it was taken off the market, and events attributable to the drug “may number in tens to hundreds of thousands.”

Dr Kao points out that, as a result of the US Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA), FDA approval times for new drugs more than halved, from an average of 33.6 months during 1979-86 to 16 months by 1992-2007. Moreover, regulators in the USA, European Union (EU) and UK are “somewhat dependent on the industry for funding,” given that user fees account for 43% of the FDA’s drug oversight budget, 75% of European Medicines Agency (EMEA)’s funding and 100% of that for the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), he says.

At the same time, drugmakers’ marketing techniques are now so sophisticated that a new product can be released onto websites within 90 minutes of being granted approval, says Dr Kao, and he calls for these techniques to be used to improve post-marketing surveillance and adverse drug reaction reporting.

However, industry and regulators have been quick to deny that faster approvals are creating risks for patients. Ken Johnson, senior vice president at the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), said that Dr Kao’s paper “suffers from a number of flawed assumptions, among the most glaring that FDA deadlines for approving drugs have shifted the agency’s focus away from patient safety.”

“While PDUFA does carry timeframes for the completion of a review, the FDA can, and repeatedly has, returned to the sponsor with further questions about safety or efficacy that ultimately lengthen the review time. The fact remains that experts’ analysis – including a paper published in 2007 by the New England Journal of Medicine – showed no increase in the overall rate of safety recalls after the user-fee system was introduced” said Mr Johnson.

Moreover, he added, it is “erroneous to conclude that marketing plays a dominant influence on which medicines physicians to prescribe.” A survey this year of 501 physicians conducted by KRC Research found that peer-reviewed journal articles and information received from peers had more influence on physician prescribing decisions than industry marketing. “What’s more, only 8% of physicians usually prescribed a brand-name medicine, while 41% of doctors surveyed usually prescribed generic drugs,” said Mr Johnson.

Before any new drug is approved, it will receive “a very thorough review of its quality, safety and efficacy conducted by an appropriate regulatory agency,” adds a statement from the MHRA reported by the Press Association. In addition, the Agency notes that, “in the UK, new drugs will also be reviewed by the UK’s Commission for Human Medicines. Usually there will be questions posed to the applicant during the review, and only when the appropriate regulatory agency is satisfied that any significant issues are resolved, will approval be given. At the time of approval, the company will have an agreed risk management plan in place to ensure continued safety monitoring of the drug in clinical use in the market place.”


  Healthy Skepticism on RSS   Healthy Skepticism on Facebook   Healthy Skepticism on Twitter

Click to Register

(read more)

Click to Log in
for free access to more features of this website.

Forgot your username or password?

You are invited to
apply for membership
of Healthy Skepticism,
if you support our aims.

Pay a subscription

Support our work with a donation

Buy Healthy Skepticism T Shirts

If there is something you don't like, please tell us. If you like our work, please tell others.

Email a Friend

Far too large a section of the treatment of disease is to-day controlled by the big manufacturing pharmacists, who have enslaved us in a plausible pseudo-science...
The blind faith which some men have in medicines illustrates too often the greatest of all human capacities - the capacity for self deception...
Some one will say, Is this all your science has to tell us? Is this the outcome of decades of good clinical work, of patient study of the disease, of anxious trial in such good faith of so many drugs? Give us back the childlike trust of the fathers in antimony and in the lancet rather than this cold nihilism. Not at all! Let us accept the truth, however unpleasant it may be, and with the death rate staring us in the face, let us not be deceived with vain fancies...
we need a stern, iconoclastic spirit which leads, not to nihilism, but to an active skepticism - not the passive skepticism, born of despair, but the active skepticism born of a knowledge that recognizes its limitations and knows full well that only in this attitude of mind can true progress be made.
- William Osler 1909