User Tag List

Results 1 to 4 of 4

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    614 sx/so
    ILI Fi

    Default Side effects emerge after approval for many US drugs

    Study: Side effects emerge after approval for many US drugs - ABC News

    Almost one-third of new drugs approved by U.S. regulators over a decade ended up years later with warnings about unexpected, sometimes life-threatening side effects or complications, a new analysis found.

    The results covered all 222 prescription drugs approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration from 2001 through 2010. The researchers looked at potential problems that cropped up during routine monitoring that's done once a medicine is on the market. The 71 flagged drugs included top-sellers for treating depression, arthritis, infections and blood clots. Safety issues included risks for serious skin reactions, liver damage, cancer and even death.

    "The large percentage of problems was a surprise," and they included side effects not seen during the review process, said Dr. Joseph Ross, the study's lead author and an associate professor of medicine and public health at Yale University.

    While most safety concerns were not serious enough to prompt recalls, the findings raise questions about how thoroughly drugs are tested before approval, said drug safety expert Thomas Moore. But Ross said the results suggest that the FDA "is kind of doing a great job" at scrutinizing drugs after approval.

    New drugs are generally tested first in hundreds or even thousands of people for safety and effectiveness.

    "We know that safety concerns, new ones, are going to be identified once a drug is used in a wider population. That's just how it is," Ross said. "The fact that that's such a high number means the FDA is working hard to evaluate drugs and once concerns are identified, they're communicating them."

    The researchers analyzed online FDA data on new drugs and the agency's later safety announcements. Problems surfaced on average about four years after approval. Results were published Tuesday in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

    The FDA said in a statement that it performs post-market monitoring "to identify new safety information that may impact product labeling." The agency said it would review the study findings but declined to comment further.

    The study counted black-box warnings for dozens of drugs; these involved serious problems including deaths or life-threatening conditions linked with the drugs. There were also dozens of alerts for less serious potential harms and three drug withdrawals because of the potential for death or other serious harm.

    Among the drugs with added warnings: Humira, used for arthritis and some other illnesses; Abilify, used for depression and other mental illness; and Pradaxa, a blood thinner. The withdrawn drugs and the reason: Bextra, an anti-inflammatory medicine, heart problems; Raptiva, a psoriasis drug, rare nervous system illness; and Zelnorm, a bowel illness drug, heart problems.

    Safety issues were most common for psychiatric drugs and biologic drugs — made from living cells rather than chemicals — than for older drug types. Drugs brought to market through "accelerated" approval were slightly more likely to have later safety issues than those approved through conventional channels, a link seen in some previous research.

    In recent years, there has been increasing pressure on the FDA from consumers and others to speed up its regulatory review process to get new drugs to the market sooner, Ross said.

    Moore, a senior scientist for drug safety and policy at the Institute for Safe Medication Practices, said the new results raise concerns about whether new drugs are being extensively tested before approval. He noted that since 2011, drugs have increasingly been approved based on studies in small numbers of patients amid public criticism questioning whether the FDA is keeping potential cures away from patients.

    "The answer is, you can't know whether they're valuable and lifesaving treatments unless you test them" adequately, Moore said.

    PhRMA, a drug industry trade group, is reviewing the study, said spokeswoman Holly Campbell. In a statement, she said the industry is committed to post-market surveillance of new medicines, but added, "Even with rigorous clinical studies and regulatory review it may be impossible to detect certain safety signals until several years after approval, once the medicine is in broader use."
    Likes Xann liked this post

  2. #2
    breaking out of my cocoon SearchingforPeace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    9w8 sx/so
    EIE None


    I had the misfortune to have the privilege to review raw clinical trial data as well internal emails regarding a new drug. What I found shocked me.

    Patients were dying and having other serious health issues and the doctors would just write "Not related to the subject medication" and then exclude their results from the drug trial. This drug was dangerous. But the data was so massaged as it went up the ladder that the FDA submission didn't include any of that data. Ultimately, the drug was approved but the side effects (such as kidney failure) appeared almost immediately.

    Drugs, especially new ones, are not to be trusted much. Additionally, most are made in India or China now and quality is poor. A med that is supposed to have 5 mg per pill might vary from 1.5 to 7 mg.
    Likes magpie, Tellenbach liked this post

  3. #3
    Innovation Reigns Supreme Hard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    1w2 sp/so
    EIE Fe


    I wish I had a good answer/solution for this. It's a complex problem and the best solution I can think of is have regulation on pharmaceutical marketing and have stringent requirements. The marketing aspect is the root of the issue more or less. I get that there is a profit bottom line and that R&D cost recoup is a major deal, but I have no doubt that there are ways to restructure the finances so it's both safer for the public and profitable. One of the issues is not everyone in marketing has a science degree- and thus lack proper prospective and understanding.

    The other problem is, sometimes it takes a large amount of time before complications become apparent for a given drug. Clinical trials can't catch everything. They catch a lot (it's shocking how many drugs fail clinical trials- it is very rigorus). Perhaps have installed insurance/liability from the parent company should an issue emerge? The issue there is substantiating if the drug caused the problem or not; it's not a trivial matter and one that could (and would) be easily abused.

    Profit is at the root, sadly. The line needs to be dialed back interally, or externally more regulated. Ideally both, but I don't see that happening for quite some time. That said, things aren't as bleak as the article may make it seem (note I am not minimzing the issue).

    In the mean time, people should do their own research and defer judgement to quality doctors. I do understand though that for most it's a lot to ask.
    MBTI: ExxJ tetramer
    Functions: Fe > Te > Ni > Se > Si > Ti > Fi > Ne
    Enneagram: 1w2 - 3w4 - 6w5 (The Taskmaster) | sp/so
    Socionics: β-E dimer | -
    Big 5: slOaI
    Temperament: Choleric/Melancholic
    Alignment: Lawful Neutral
    External Perception: Nohari and Johari

    Likes magpie liked this post

  4. #4
    deplorable basketcase Tellenbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013


    What we need is a wikileaks type dump of emails between pharma, doctors, and the FDA. I hope someone is working on this.
    I don't think the Patterson footage of sasquatch is real because the creature is too fat and land animals are very seldom that fat, us excepted of course.
    I do allow for the possibility that this Bigfoot might be an impulsive eating squatch from Michigan, in which case, the film might actually be genuine.

Similar Threads

  1. How does one obtain ID in your country/state? *Especially for non US members*
    By cafe in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 07-20-2013, 01:45 PM
  2. Here's a question for the US libertarian kiddies
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 01-25-2012, 06:51 PM
  3. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-18-2008, 11:50 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO