IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/drugsa/v40y2017i5d10.1007_s40264-017-0515-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Post-Marketing Regulation of Medicines Withdrawn from the Market Because of Drug-Attributed Deaths: An Analysis of Justification

Author

Listed:
  • Igho J. Onakpoya

    (Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, University of Oxford)

  • Carl J. Heneghan

    (Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, University of Oxford)

  • Jeffrey K. Aronson

    (Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, University of Oxford)

Abstract

Introduction Several medicinal products have been withdrawn from the market because of drug-attributed deaths. However, there has been no investigation of whether such withdrawals were justified, and the extent to which confirmatory studies are used to investigate drug-adverse event relationships when deaths are reported is uncertain. We documented medicinal products withdrawn from the market because of drug-attributed deaths, identified confirmatory studies investigating the drug-adverse event relationships, examined whether withdrawals of medicinal products because of drug-attributed deaths after marketing were justified based on a mechanistic analysis, and examined the trends over time. Methods We searched electronic and non-electronic sources to identify medicinal products that were withdrawn because of drug-attributed deaths. We used a previously published algorithm to examine whether the withdrawals of products were justified. We then searched PubMed and Google Scholar to identify studies investigating the drug-adverse event relationships, used the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine criteria to document the levels of evidence, and assessed whether the evidence of an association was confirmed. Results We included 83 medicinal products. The reasons for withdrawal appeared to have been justified in 80 cases (96%). The median interval between the first reported adverse reaction that was related to the cause of death and the first reported death was 1 year (interquartile range = 1–3); products were withdrawn sooner when the interval between the first reported relevant adverse reaction and the first death was shorter. Confirmatory studies were conducted in 57 instances (69%), and there was evidence of an association in 52 cases (63%). Four products (5%) were re-introduced after initial withdrawal. Conclusion Regulatory authorities have been justified in making withdrawal decisions when deaths have been attributed to medicinal products, using the precautionary principle when alternative decisions could have been made. Medicinal products are likely to be quickly withdrawn from the market when there is a short interval to the first reported deaths. The use of an algorithm such as we have used in this study could help to expedite the process of decision making.

Suggested Citation

  • Igho J. Onakpoya & Carl J. Heneghan & Jeffrey K. Aronson, 2017. "Post-Marketing Regulation of Medicines Withdrawn from the Market Because of Drug-Attributed Deaths: An Analysis of Justification," Drug Safety, Springer, vol. 40(5), pages 431-441, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:drugsa:v:40:y:2017:i:5:d:10.1007_s40264-017-0515-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s40264-017-0515-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40264-017-0515-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40264-017-0515-4?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Joel Lexchin, 2017. "Medicines Save, Medicines Kill," Drug Safety, Springer, vol. 40(6), pages 457-459, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:drugsa:v:40:y:2017:i:5:d:10.1007_s40264-017-0515-4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/40264 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.