Cited by 324Pharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug ReactionsPharmaceutical Economics and PolicyPharmaceutical industry and healthcare

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

Open access
Downing, Nicholas S., Shah, Nilay D., Aminawung, Jenerius A., Pease, Alison M., Zeitoun, Jean-David, Krumholz, Harlan M., Ross, Joseph S.·2017·JAMA

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: 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. OBJECTIVES: To characterize the frequency of postmarket safety events among novel therapeutics approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and to examine whether any novel therapeutic characteristics known at the time of FDA approval were associated with increased risk. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cohort study of all novel therapeutics approved by the FDA between January 1, 2001, and December 31, 2010, followed up through February 28, 2017. EXPOSURES: Novel therapeutic characteristics known at the time of FDA approval, including drug class, therapeutic area, priority review, accelerated approval, orphan status, near-regulatory deadline approval, and regulatory review time. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: A composite of (1) withdrawals due to safety concerns, (2) FDA issuance of incremental boxed warnings added in the postmarket period, and (3) FDA issuance of safety communications. RESULTS: From 2001 through 2010, the FDA approved 222 novel therapeutics (183 pharmaceuticals and 39 biologics). There were 123 new postmarket safety events (3 withdrawals, 61 boxed warnings, and 59 safety communications) during a median follow-up period of 11.7 years (interquartile range [IQR], 8.7-13.8 years), affecting 71 (32.0%) of the novel therapeutics. The median time from approval to first postmarket safety event was 4.2 years (IQR, 2.5-6.0 years), and the proportion of novel therapeutics affected by a postmarket safety event at 10 years was 30.8% (95% CI, 25.1%-37.5%). In multivariable analysis, postmarket safety events were statistically significantly more frequent among biologics (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 1.93; 95% CI, 1.06-3.52; P = .03), therapeutics indicated for the treatment of psychiatric disease (IRR = 3.78; 95% CI, 1.77-8.06; P < .001), those receiving accelerated approval (IRR = 2.20; 95% CI, 1.15-4.21; P = .02), and those with near-regulatory deadline approval (IRR = 1.90; 95% CI, 1.19-3.05; P = .008); events were statistically significantly less frequent among those with regulatory review times less than 200 days (IRR = 0.46; 95% CI, 0.24-0.87; P = .02). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among 222 novel therapeutics approved by the FDA from 2001 through 2010, 32% were affected by a postmarket safety event. Biologics, psychiatric therapeutics, and accelerated and near-regulatory deadline approval were statistically significantly associated with higher rates of events, highlighting the need for continuous monitoring of the safety of novel therapeutics throughout their life cycle.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.2017.5150

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In the first decade of the 21st century, approximately one-third of FDA-approved drugs were subsequently cited for safety or toxicity issues after remaining on the market for a median of 4.2 years.

    “In the first decade of the 21st century, approximately one-third of FDA-approved drugs were subsequently cited for safety or toxicity issues. or a combination of both, including human cardiovascular toxicity and brain damage, after remaining on the market for a median of 4.2 years (22,23).”

    From Limitations of Animal Studies for Predicting Toxicity in Clinical Trials (2019) · cites this paper as [23]

    The Results report that 71 of 222 novel therapeutics approved from 2001 through 2010 (32.0%) had a postmarket safety event. The 4.2-year median is the time from approval to the first event among affected therapeutics, not the median time that all approved drugs remained on the market; the paper reports 11.7 years of median market availability overall. Its Results describe cardiovascular safety concerns, but do not identify the cited events as “brain damage.” (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. [1]Institute of Medicine The Future of Drug Safety: Promoting and Protecting the Health of the Public. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2006. [Google Scholar]
  2. [2]Downing NS, Aminawung JA, Shah ND, Krumholz HM, Ross JS. Clinical trial evidence supporting FDA approval of novel therapeutic agents, 2005-2012. JAMA. 2014;311(4):368-377. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. [3]Frank C, Himmelstein DU, Woolhandler S, et al. Era of faster FDA drug approval has also seen increased black-box warnings and market withdrawals. Health Aff (Millwood). 2014;33(8):1453-1459. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. [4]Carpenter D, Zucker EJ, Avorn J. Drug-review deadlines and safety problems. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(13):1354-1361. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. [10]Downing NS, Aminawung JA, Shah ND, Braunstein JB, Krumholz HM, Ross JS. Regulatory review of novel therapeutics—comparison of three regulatory agencies. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(24):2284-2293. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. [15]Lanthier M, Miller KL, Nardinelli C, Woodcock J. An improved approach to measuring drug innovation finds steady rates of first-in-class pharmaceuticals, 1987-2011. Health Aff (Millwood). 2013;32(8):1433-1439. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. [16]Ross JS, Dzara K, Downing NS. Efficacy and safety concerns are important reasons why the FDA requires multiple reviews before approval of new drugs. Health Aff (Millwood). 2015;34(4):681-688. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. [17]Zeitoun JD, Lefèvre JH, Downing NS, Bergeron H, Ross JS. Regulatory anticipation of postmarket safety problems for novel medicines approved by the EMA between 2001 and 2010: a cross-sectional study. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2016;25(6):687-694. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. [18]Institute of Medicine Sharing Clinical Trial Data: Maximizing Benefits, Minimizing Risks. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2015. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. [19]Mott K, Graham DJ, Toh S, et al. Uptake of new drugs in the early post-approval period in the Mini-Sentinel distributed database. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2016;25(9):1023-1032. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Downing, N. S., Shah, N. D., Aminawung, J. A., Pease, A. M., Zeitoun, J.-D., Krumholz, H. M., & Ross, J. S.
Affiliations
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • Yale University (US)
  • State University of New York (US)
  • Hôpital Saint-Antoine (FR)
  • Yale New Haven Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Ross, Joseph S.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2017-05-09
Volume
317
Issue
18
Pages
1854
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2612600212
Cited by
324
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 28 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 46 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 34 · 2019: 37 · 2018: 48 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 1
FWCI
27.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (UL1TR001863)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Toxicology › Pharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reactions
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Pharmaceutical Economics and Policy
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare
Keywords
new drugs, FDA drug approval, drug withdrawal, black box warning, safety communication, biologics, psychiatric medication, accelerated approval, orphan drugs, priority review, regulatory review time, postmarket surveillance, drug safety risks, therapeutic areas, clinician decision-making, patient decision-making
MeSH terms
Biological Products, Humans, Product Surveillance, Postmarketing, Risk, Safety, United States, United States Food and Drug Administration, Cohort Studies, Drug Approval, Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review