Drug Safety

, Volume 33, Issue 1, pp 35–45 | Cite as

Resolving a Double Standard for Risk Management of Thalidomide

An Evaluation of Two Different Risk Management Programmes in Japan
  • Nobuhiro Ooba
  • Tsugumichi Sato
  • Hikaru Watanabe
  • Kiyoshi Kubota
Original Research Article


Background: Thalidomide, once withdrawn because of its teratogenicity, has now been re-launched worldwide. In Japan, thalidomide has been imported by individual doctors since around the year 2000. In October 2008, it was approved for the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW) on the condition that the manufacturer implemented a risk management programme termed the Thalidomide Education and Risk Management System (TERMS). It is likely that the imports of thalidomide will be used off-label to treat diseases other than MM. Thus, the MHLW is also planning to introduce a web-based registration system, referred to as the Safety Management System for Unapproved Drugs (SMUD), for thalidomide imported by individual doctors.

Objectives: To evaluate the difference between TERMS and SMUD and establish a way to resolve the ‘double standard’ for risk management of thalidomide treatment in Japan.

Methods: The fraction of patients with disorders other than MM was estimated by the volume of annual imports obtained from the MHLW and records of the imports for patients with MM, other oncological diseases (ODs) and non-ODs in 2007 through a major supplier covering 63% of the total imported thalidomide. The information for TERMS was obtained from web pages of the manufacturer and the MHLW. The components of TERMS were compared with those in SMUD.

Results: Provided that the distribution of the indication for thalidomide (MM) in 2007, estimated from the records of imports through the major supplier, is representative of the entire nation, it is estimated that on average 866 patients, including 851 (98.3%) with MM, are using thalidomide on any one day. However, if the major supplier’s imports, which account for 63% of the total imports, are not representative of the nation as a whole, possibly only half of the patients treated with thalidomide in Japan have MM. This would be the case in a scenario where the remaining 37% of imports are exclusively used to treat disorders other than MM. TERMS consists of tools for education and registration of patients, and has the potential for real-time intervention. SMUD is a system for registration of patients and exchange of safety information between health professionals, but has some mandatory components that encourage patient registration. TERMS and SMUD are different in nature, and they impose different criteria that doctors and patients should satisfy in order to use thalidomide. To eliminate this double standard, implementation of a single system would be desirable. However, improvement of SMUD may be the second best option by developing tools for patient education, enhancing the potential for real-time intervention and monitoring thalidomide usage by each patient.

Conclusions: On average, a total of about 1000 patients are estimated to be using thalidomide on any one day in Japan. It is likely that those patients are placed under one of two different risk management programmes. SMUD should be improved so that all patients are monitored in a way that results in a similar level of risk management.



The Drug Safety Research Unit Japan is a non-profit organization supported by the annual membership fee from individuals in addition to approximately 30 drug companies. Individual studies have been independently conducted under the contract with the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, academic bodies such as the Japanese Society for Pharmacoepidemiology, and drug companies.

No specific sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this study. The authors have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this study.


  1. 1.
    Sheskin J. Thalidomide in the treatment of lepra reactions. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1965; 6: 303–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Singhal S, Mehta J, Desikan R, et al. Antitumor activity of thalidomide in refractory multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med 1999; 341: 1565–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dimopoulos MA, Zervas K, Kouvatseas G, et al. Thalidomide and dexamethasone combination for refractory multiple myeloma. Ann Oncol 2001; 12: 991–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Terpos E, Mihou D, Szydlo R, et al. The combination of intermediate doses of thalidomide with dexamethasone is an effective treatment for patients with refractory/relapsed multiple myeloma and normalizes abnormal bone remodeling, through the reduction of sRANKL/osteoprotegerin ratio. Leukemia 2005; 19: 1969–76PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Glasmacher A, Hahn C, Hoffmann F, et al. A systematic review of phase-II trials of thalidomide monotherapy in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Br J Haematol 2005; 132: 584–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gracia-Sanz R. Thalidomide in multiple myeloma. Expert Opin Pharmacother 2006; 7: 195–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Anagnostopoulos A, Wever D, Rankin K, et al. Thalidomide and dexamethasone for resistant multiple myeloma. Br J Haematol 2003; 121: 768–71 45 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Palumbo A, Bringhen S, Caravita T, et al. Oral melphalan and prednisone chemotherapy plus thalidomide compared with melphalan and prednisone alone in elderly patients with multiple myeloma: randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2006; 367: 825–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rajkumar SV, Rosinol L, Hussein M, et al. Multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of thalidomide plus dexamethasone compared with dexamethasone as initial therapy for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26: 2171–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Facon T, Mary JY, Hulin C, et al. Melphalan and prednisone plus thalidomide versus melphalan and prednisone alone or reduced-intensity autologous stem cell transplantation in elderly patients with multiple myeloma (IFM 99-06): a randomised trial. Lancet 2007; 370: 1209–18PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Marriott JB, Muller G, Dalgleish AG. Thalidomide as an emerging immunotherapeutic agent. Immunol Today 1999; 20: 538–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Adlard JW. Thalidomide in the treatment of cancer. Anti-cancer Drugs 2000; 11: 787–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stirling D. Thalidomide: a novel template for anticancer drugs. Semin Oncol 2001; 28: 602–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Raje N, Anderson K. Thalidomide and immunomodulatory drugs as cancer therapy. Curr Opin Oncol 2002; 14: 635–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ng SSW, Brown M, Figg WD. Thalidomide, an anti-angiogenic agent with clinical activity in cancer. Biomed Pharmacother 2002; 56: 194–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tim E. Thalidomide in solid malignancies. J Clin Oncol 2002; 20: 2607–9Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Singhal S, Mehta J. Thalidomide in cancer. Biomed Pharmacother 2002; 56: 4–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Baidas SM, Winer EP, Fleming GF, et al. Phase II evaluation of thalidomide in patients with metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18: 2710–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lago LD, Richter MF, Cancela AI, et al. Phase II trial and pharmacokinetic study of thalidomide in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Invest New Drug 2003; 21: 359–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Motzer RJ, Berg W, Ginsberg M, et al. Phase II trial of thalidomide for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2002; 20: 302–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Escudier B, Lassau N, Counanet D, et al. Phase II trial of thalidomide in renal-cell carcinoma. Ann Oncol 2002; 13: 1029–35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tseng JE, Glisson BS, Khuri F, et al. Phase II study of the antiangiogenesis agent thalidomide in recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Cancer 2001; 92: 2364–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schwartz JD, Sung M, Schwartz M, et al. Thalidomide in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma with optional low-dose interferon-α2a upon progression. Oncologist 2005; 10: 718–27PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chang SM, Lamborn KR, Malec M, et al. Phase II study of temozolomide and thalidomide with radiation therapy for newly diagnosed glioblastoma mutiforme. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004; 60: 353–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gordon JN, Trebble TM, Ellis RD, et al. Thalidomide in the treatment of cancer cachexia: a randomised placebo controlled trial. Gut 2005; 54: 540–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Frank ME, Macpherson GR, Figg WD. Thalidomide. Lancet 2004; 363: 1802–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Teo SK, Stirling DI, Zeldis JB. Thalidomide as a novel therapeutic agent: new uses for an old product. Drug Discov Today 2005; 10: 107–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bruera E, Neumann CM, Pituskin E, et al. Thalidomide in patients with cachexia due to terminal cancer: preliminary report. Ann Oncol 1999; 10: 857–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Dearner P. Thalidomide for distressing night sweats in advanced malignant disease. Palliat Med 1998; 12: 208–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tsuji K, Tsutani K. Personal imports of drugs to Japan in 2005: an analysis of import certificates. J Clin Pharm Ther 2008; 33: 545–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Japanese Society of Hematology. Guidelines for the appropriate use of thalidomide for MM [in Japanese; online]. Available from URL: http://www.jshem.or.jp/info/guideline.html[Accessed 2009 Oct 23]
  32. 32.
    SMUD. SMUD information pages [in Japanese; online]. Available from URL: http://square.umin.ac.jp/pe/smud/smud.htm[Accessed 2009 Jul 15]
  33. 33.
    MHLW. Imported thalidomide by the fiscal year [in Japanese; online]. Available from URL: http://www.mhlw.go.jp/bunya/iyakuhin/other/dl/090109-1a.pdf[Accessed 2009 Jul 15]
  34. 34.
    Murakami H, Handa H, Imai K, et al. Thalidomide treatment of patients with refractory myeloma in the institutes participating in the Japan myeloma study group. Jpn J Clin Hematol 2004; 45: 468–72Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Uhl K, Cox E, Rogan R, et al. Thalidomide use in the US: experience with pregnancy testing in the S.T.E.P.S. program. Drug Saf 2006; 29: 321–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    USFDA. Guidance for industry development and use of risk minimization action plans [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/05/briefing/2005-4136b1_03_Risk%20Minimization%20Action%20Plans.pdf [Accessed 2009 Jul 15]
  37. 37.
    US FDA. A synopsis of the elements of the S.T.E.P.S. program [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/04/briefing/4017B1-06b%20Overview%20STEPS%20Section%20C%20Tab%207.pdf [Accessed 2009 Jul 15]
  38. 38.
    Honein MA, Lindstrom JA, Kweder SL. Can we ensure the safe use of known human teratogens? The iPLEDGE test case. Drug Saf 2007; 30: 5–15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nobuhiro Ooba
    • 1
  • Tsugumichi Sato
    • 1
    • 2
  • Hikaru Watanabe
    • 1
    • 2
  • Kiyoshi Kubota
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Pharmacoepidemiology, Faculty of MedicineUniversity of TokyoBunkyo-ku, TokyoJapan
  2. 2.Drug Safety Research Unit JapanTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations