US Food and Drug Administration regulatory reviewer disagreements and postmarket safety actions among new therapeutics

Author:

Eadie AshleyORCID,MacGregor Andrea,Wallach Joshua,Ross JosephORCID,Herder Matthew

Abstract

ObjectivesTo examine the association between regulatory reviewer disagreements and postmarket safety actions among novel therapeutics approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) between 2011 and 2015. Disagreements among FDA reviewers regarding the recommendation for a novel therapeutic’s approval, its safety, the indicated patient population and/or other parameters of the drug’s approval are common. However, the implications of such disagreements—particularly with respect to postmarket safety actions—are poorly understood.DesignCross-sectional study.SettingAll novel therapeutics approved by the FDA between January 2011 and December 2015.ParticipantsNone.Main outcome measuresPostmarket safety actions defined as new label warnings/increased warning severity, FDA safety communications and safety-related therapeutic withdrawals after the original regulatory approval.ResultsAmong 174 novel therapeutics approved by the FDA between 2011 and 2015, 42 (24%) had at least one regulatory reviewer disagreement. Altogether, 156 instances of disagreement were observed. Following market approval, a total of 253 postmarket safety actions were taken by the FDA among all new therapeutics, with at least one postmarket safety action identified for 98 (56.3%) of the 174 novel therapeutic approvals. Overall, therapeutics that were the subject of disagreement during the FDA’s review had fewer safety actions following approval compared with therapeutics in which no disagreement was observed (38.1% vs 62.1%; RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.92; p=0.006). Therapeutic approvals containing at least one reviewer disagreement also more often carried a black box warning at the point of approval (47.7% vs 31.1%; RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.30; p=0.05).ConclusionsThis investigation of regulatory reviewer disagreements and postmarket safety actions among new therapeutics suggests that disagreements among regulatory reviewers may lead to important pre-emptive actions, potentially mitigating the need for postmarket safety actions to be taken.

Funder

CIHR

Canadian Institutes of Health Research

Publisher

BMJ

Subject

General Medicine

Reference19 articles.

1. Guidance for industry expedited programs for serious conditions-drugs and biologics guidance for industry. 2014. Available: http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htmand/orhttp://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm [Accessed 16 Oct 2022].

2. 21 U.S.C. § 355. title 21: food and drugs, chapter 9—federal food, drug, and cosmetic act subchapter V, drugs and devices part A, drugs and devices sec. 355, new drugs. enacted. 2011. Available: https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/U [Accessed 17 Jun 2020].

3. Food and drug administration amendments act of 2007, 21 USC §355(l);

4. Integrated drug reviews at the US food and drug administration-reply;Doshi;JAMA Intern Med,2020

5. MacGregor A , Zhang AD , Wallach JD , et al . Disagreements within the US food and drug administration regarding approval of novel therapeutic agents, 2011-2015. JAMA Netw Open 2020;3:e209498. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.9498

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3