Skip to main content
Log in

Evaluation of Pre-marketing Factors to Predict Post-marketing Boxed Warnings and Safety Withdrawals

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
Drug Safety Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

An important goal in drug regulation is understanding serious safety issues with new drugs as soon as possible. Achieving this goal requires us to understand whether information provided during the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug review can predict serious safety issues that are usually identified after the product is approved. However, research on this topic remains understudied. In this paper, we examine whether any pre-marketing drug characteristics are associated with serious post-marketing safety actions.

Methods

We study this question using an internal FDA database containing every new small molecule drug submitted to the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) on or after November 21, 1997, and approved and commercially launched before December 31, 2009. Serious post-marketing safety actions include whether these drugs ever experienced either a post-marketing boxed warning or a withdrawal from the market due to safety concerns. A random effects logistic regression model was used to test whether any pre-marketing characteristics were associated with either post-marketing safety action.

Results

A total of 219 new molecular entities were analyzed. Among these drugs, 11 experienced a safety withdrawal and 30 received boxed warnings by July 31, 2016. Contrary to prevailing hypotheses, we find that neither clinical trial sample sizes nor review time windows are associated with the addition of a post-marketing boxed warning or safety withdrawal. However, we do find that new drugs approved with either a boxed warning or priority review are more likely to experience post-marketing boxed warnings. Furthermore, drugs approved with boxed warnings tend to receive post-marketing boxed warnings resulting from new safety information that are unrelated to the original warning. Drugs approved with a boxed warning are 3.88 times more likely to receive a post-marketing boxed warning, while drugs approved with a priority review are 3.51 times more likely to receive a post-marketing boxed warning.

Conclusion

Although drugs approved with a boxed warning or priority review are more likely to experience serious post-marketing safety events, other information provided during the FDA drug review that is easy to quantify is generally not associated with post-marketing safety events. It appears that these post-marketing events are not discernible during a pre-marketing review and therefore might not be avoidable using current review data.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Duijnhoven R, Straus S, Raine J, Hoes A, De Bruin M. Number of patients studied prior to approval of new medicines: a database analysis. PLoS Med. 2013;10(3):e1001407.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Reed S, Anstrom K, Sells D, Califf R, Schulman K. Use of larger versus smaller drug-safety databases before regulatory approval: the trade-offs. Health Affairs. 2008;27(5):360–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Olson M. Pharmaceutical policy and the safety of new drugs. J Law Econ. 2002;45(2):615–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Olson M. Are novel drugs more risky for patients than less novel drugs? J Health Econ. 2004;23(6):1135–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Olson M. The risk we bear: the effects of review speed and industry user fees on new drug safety. J Health Econ. 2008;27(2):175–200.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Grabowski H, Wang Y. Do faster Food and Drug Administration drug reviews adversely affect patient safety? An analysis of the 1992 Prescription Drug User Fee Act. J Law Econ. 2008;51(2):377–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Berndt E, Gottschalk A, Philipson T, Strobeck M. Industry funding of the FDA: effects of PDUFA on approval times and withdrawal rates. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2005;4(7):545–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Carpenter D, Zucker E, Avorn J. Drug-review deadlines and safety problems. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:1354–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Carpenter D, Chattopadhyay J, Moffitt S, Nall C. The complications of controlling agency time discretion: FDA review deadlines and post-market drug safety. Am J Political Sci. 2012;56(1):98–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Guidance for Industry Expedited Programs for Serious Conditions—Drugs and Biologics. U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/Guidances/UCM358301.pdf. Accessed 31 Jan 2017.

  11. CDER 21st Century Review Process Desk Reference Guide. U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/CDER/ManualofPoliciesProcedures/UCM218757.htm. Accessed 5 Oct 2016.

  12. Lester J, Neyarapally G, Lipowski E, Graham C, Hall M, Dal Pan G. Evaluation of FDA safety-related drug label changes in 2010. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2013;22(3):302–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andreas Schick.

Ethics declarations

Funding

No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this study.

Conflict of interest

Andreas Schick, Kathleen Miller, Mike Lanthier, Gerald Dal Pan, and Clark Nardinelli are employees of the US Food and Drug Administration. The authors have no conflicting interests to declare. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the US Food and Drug Administration or the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schick, A., Miller, K.L., Lanthier, M. et al. Evaluation of Pre-marketing Factors to Predict Post-marketing Boxed Warnings and Safety Withdrawals. Drug Saf 40, 497–503 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-017-0526-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-017-0526-1

Keywords

Navigation