Drug Safety

, Volume 36, Issue 11, pp 1105–1115 | Cite as

Post-Approval Safety Issues with Innovative Drugs: A European Cohort Study

  • Peter G. M. Mol
  • Arna H. Arnardottir
  • Domenico Motola
  • Patrick J. Vrijlandt
  • Ruben G. Duijnhoven
  • Flora M. Haaijer-Ruskamp
  • Pieter A. de Graeff
  • Petra Denig
  • Sabine M. J. M. Straus
Original Research Article

Abstract

Background

At time of approval, knowledge of the full benefit risk of any drug is limited, in particular with regards to safety. Post-approval surveillance of potential drug safety concerns is recognized as an important task of regulatory agencies. For innovative, often first-in-class drugs, safety knowledge at time of approval is often even less extensive and these may require tighter scrutiny post approval.

Objective

We evaluated whether more post-approval serious safety issues were identified for drugs with a higher level of innovation.

Methods

A cohort study was performed that included all new active substances approved under the European Centralized Procedure and for which serious safety issues were identified post-approval from 1 January 1999 to 1 January 2012. Serious safety issues were defined as issues requiring a Direct Healthcare Professional Communication to alert individual healthcare professionals of a new serious safety issue, or a safety-related drug withdrawal. Data were retrieved from publicly available websites of the Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board and the European Medicines Agency. The level of innovation was scored using a validated algorithm, grading drugs as important (A), moderate (B) or modest (C) innovations or as pharmacological or technological (pharm/tech) innovations. The data were analyzed using appropriate descriptive statistics and Kaplan–Meier analysis, with a Mantel–Cox log-rank test, and Cox-regression models correcting for follow-up duration, to identify a possible trend in serious safety issues with an increasing level of innovation.

Results

In Europe, 279 new drugs were approved between 1999 and 2011. Fifty-nine (21 %) were graded as important, 63 (23 %) moderate, or 34 (12 %) modest innovations and 123 (44 %) as non-innovative (pharm/tech), while 15 (25 %), 13 (21 %), 8 (24 %) and 17 (14 %) had post-approval safety issues, respectively (p = 0.06, linear-by-linear test). Five drugs were withdrawn from the market. The Kaplan–Meier-derived probability for having a first serious safety issue was statistically significant, log-rank (Mantel–Cox) p = 0.036. In the final adjusted Cox proportional hazard model there was no statistically significant difference in occurrence of a first serious safety issue for important, moderate and modest innovations versus non-innovative drugs; hazard ratios 1.76 (95 % CI 0.82–3.77), 1.61 (95 % CI 0.76–3.41)], and 1.25 (95 % CI 0.51–3.06), respectively.

Conclusion

A higher level of innovation was not clearly related to an increased risk of serious safety issues identified after approval.

Supplementary material

40264_2013_94_MOESM1_ESM.docx (23 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 22 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Califf RM. Benefit assessment of therapeutic products: the Centers for Education and Research on Therapeutics. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2007;16(1):5–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arnardottir AH, Haaijer-Ruskamp FM, Straus SMJM, de Graeff PA, Mol PG. Safety issues of HIV drugs, regulatory consequences. Drug Saf. 2011;34(11):1101–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stefansdottir G, Knol MJ, Arnardottir AH, van der Elst ME, Grobbee DE, Leufkens HG, et al. Safety learning from drugs of the same class: room for improvement. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2012;91(5):872–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Motola D, De Ponti F, Poluzzi E, Martini N, Rossi P, Silvani MC, et al. An update on the first decade of the European centralized procedure: how many innovative drugs? Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2006;62(5):610–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mol PG, Straus SM, Piening S, de Vries JT, de Graeff PA, Haaijer-Ruskamp FM. A decade of safety-related regulatory action in the Netherlands: a retrospective analysis of direct healthcare professional communications from 1999 to 2009. Drug Saf. 2010;33(6):463–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Carpenter D, Zucker EJ, Avorn J. Drug-review deadlines and safety problems. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:1354–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Moore TJ, Furberg CD. The safety risks of innovation: the FDA’s Expedited Drug Development Pathway. JAMA. 2012;308(9):869–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lexchin J. New drugs and safety: what happened to new active substances approved in Canada between 1995 and 2010? Arch Intern Med. 2012;172(21):1680–1.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Arnardottir AH, Haaijer-Ruskamp FM, Straus SM, Eichler HG, de Graeff PA, Mol PG. Additional safety risk to exceptionally approved drugs in Europe? Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2011;72(3):490–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Boon WP, Moors EH, Meijer A, Schellekens H. Conditional approval and approval under exceptional circumstances as regulatory instruments for stimulating responsible drug innovation in Europe. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2010;88(6):848–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tavassoli N, Montastruc J. Is there any relationship between actual benefit and added value of drugs and pharmacovigilance alerts? Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2009;68(1):124–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Petri H, Urquhart J. Channeling bias in the interpretation of drug effects. Stat Med. 1991;10(4):577–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Heemstra HE, Giezen TJ, Mantel-Teeuwisse AK, de Vrueh RL, Leufkens HG. Safety-related regulatory actions for orphan drugs in the US and EU: a cohort study. Drug Saf. 2010;33(2):127–37.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Motola D, De Ponti F, Rossi P, Martini N, Montanaro N. Therapeutic innovation in the European Union: analysis of the drugs approved by the EMEA between 1995 and 2003. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2004;59(4):475–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Eichler HG, Aronsson B, Abadie E, Salmonson T. New drug approval success rate in Europe in 2009. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2010;9(5):355–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Giezen TJ, Mantel-Teeuwisse AK, Straus SMJM, Schellekens H, Leufkens HGM, Egberts ACG. Safety-related regulatory actions for biologicals approved in the United States and the European Union. JAMA. 2008;300(16):1887–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Duijnhoven RG, Raine JM, Straus SMJM, De Boer A, Hoes AW, De Bruin ML. Number of patients studied prior to approval of new medicines: a database analysis. PLoS Med. 2013;10(3):e1001407.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lexchin J. International comparison of assessments of pharmaceutical innovation. Health Policy. 2012;105(2–3):221–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Morrato EH, Staffa JA. Effectiveness of risk management plans: a case study of pemoline using pharmacy claims data. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2007;16(1):104–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Morrato EH, Ling SB. The Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee: a case study of meeting frequency, content, and outcomes before and after FDAAA. Med Care. 2012;50(11):970–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Raine J, Wise L, Blackburn S, Eichler HG, Breckenridge A. European perspective on risk management and drug safety. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2011;89(5):650–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Richey EA, Lyons EA, Nebeker JR, Shankaran V, McKoy JM, Luu TH, et al. Accelerated approval of cancer drugs: improved access to therapeutic breakthroughs or early release of unsafe and ineffective drugs? J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(26):4398–405.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Leveque D. Off-label use of anticancer drugs. Lancet Oncol. 2008;9(11):1102–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Regnier S. What is the value of ‘me-too’ drugs? Health Care Manage Sci (Epub 26 Feb 2013).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hollis A. Me-too drugs: is there a problem? 2004. http://www.who.int/intellectualproperty/topics/ip/Me-tooDrugs_Hollis1.pdf (Accessed 25 June 2013).
  26. 26.
    DiMasi JA, Feldman L, Seckler A, Wilson A. Trends in risks associated with new drug development: success rates for investigational drugs. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2010;87(3):272–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Scannell JW, Blanckley A, Boldon H, Warrington B. Diagnosing the decline in pharmaceutical R&D efficiency. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2012;11(3):191–200.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter G. M. Mol
    • 1
    • 2
  • Arna H. Arnardottir
    • 1
  • Domenico Motola
    • 3
  • Patrick J. Vrijlandt
    • 2
  • Ruben G. Duijnhoven
    • 2
    • 4
  • Flora M. Haaijer-Ruskamp
    • 1
  • Pieter A. de Graeff
    • 1
    • 2
  • Petra Denig
    • 1
  • Sabine M. J. M. Straus
    • 2
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Clinical PharmacologyUniversity Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, FB20GroningenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board (CBG-MEB)UtrechtThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of Medical and Surgical SciencesUniversity of BolognaBolognaItaly
  4. 4.Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical PharmacologyUtrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical SciencesUtrechtThe Netherlands
  5. 5.Department of Medical InformaticsErasmus Medical CenterRotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations