This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Black Box Warnings and Drug Safety: Examining the Determinants and Timing of FDA Warning Labels

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Allan Begosh
John Goldsmith
Ed Hass
Randall W. Lutter
Clark Nardinelli
John A. Vernon
Abstract

Comparing the safety of prescription drugs over time is difficult due to the paucity of reliable quantitative measures of drug safety. Both the academic literature and popular press have focused on drug withdrawals as a proxy for breakdowns in the drug safety system. This metric, however, is problematic because withdrawals are rare events, and they may be influenced by factors beyond a drug's safety profile. In the current paper, we propose a new measure: the incidence and timing of Black Box Warnings (BBWs). BBWs are warnings placed on prescription drug labels when a drug is determined to carry a significant risk of a serious or life-threatening adverse event. Using a unique data set, one that includes all new molecular entities (NMEs) submitted to the FDA between May 1981 and February 2006, and subsequently approved and marketed, we analyze the timing and incidence of BBWs. Our analyses also use data on several drug characteristics likely to affect the probability a new drug will receive a BBW. We draw several conclusions from our analyses. For example, drugs receiving priority FDA review are more likely to have BBWs at the time of approval than NMEs receiving standard review. We also find that early prescription volume and orphan drug status are associated with an increased likelihood of receiving a BBW. We do not, however, find a significant difference in the rate of BBWs across time cohorts. A comparison of NMEs approved before and after the 1992 Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA), which authorized the payment of user fees from drug manufacturers to the FDA in an effort to expedite new drug application (NDAs) review times, did not reveal a statistically significant difference in the rate of BBWs. Critics of PDUFA maintain that reduced FDA-approval times under PDUFA have compromised drug safety. We do not find empirical support for this contention.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w12803.pdf
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: Access to the full text is generally limited to series subscribers, however if the top level domain of the client browser is in a developing country or transition economy free access is provided. More information about subscriptions and free access is available at http://www.nber.org/wwphelp.html.

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Publisher Info
Paper provided by National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc in its series NBER Working Papers with number 12803.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Length:
Date of creation: Dec 2006
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:12803

Note: HC HE LE
Contact details of provider:
Postal: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138, U.S.A.
Phone: 617-868-3900
Email:
Web page: http://www.nber.org
More information through EDIRC

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: ().

Related research
Keywords:

Other versions of this item:

Find related papers by JEL classification:
I1 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health
I11 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Analysis of Health Care Markets
I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health
I28 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Government Policy
K2 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law
K23 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law - - - Regulated Industries and Administrative Law
K32 - Law and Economics - - Other Substantive Areas of Law - - - Environmental, Health, and Safety Law

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
  1. Tomas J. Philipson & Ernst R. Berndt & Adrian H. B. Gottschalk & Matthew W. Strobeck, 2005. "Assessing the Safety and Efficacy of the FDA: The Case of the Prescription Drug User Fee Acts," NBER Working Papers 11724, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  2. Ernst R. Berndt & Adrian H. B. Gottschalk & Tomas Philipson & Matthew W. Strobeck, 2004. "Assessing the Impacts of the Prescription Drug User Fee Acts (PDUFA) on the FDA Approval Process," NBER Working Papers 10822, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
Full references

Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? The RePEc project started in 1997. Its precursor, NetEc, dates back to 1993.

This page was last updated on 2010-1-6.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.