A Chronology for the Identification and Disclosure of Adverse Effects of Succinylcholine.

BACKGROUND: New therapies are created to address specific problems and enjoy popularity as they enter widespread clinical use. Broader use can reveal unknown adverse effects and impact the life cycle significantly. Succinylcholine, a depolarizing neuromuscular blocker, was the product of decades of research surrounding the ancient compound, curare. It was introduced into practice in the 1950s by Burroughs Wellcome and Company (BW Co) and was welcomed due to its rapidly acting muscle relaxation effects. Global clinical use revealed adverse effects, both minor and major, in particular, hyperkalemia and malignant hyperthermia. We investigated when practitioners and the manufacturer became aware of these adverse effects, how information about these side effects was disseminated, and whether the manufacturer met the regulatory requirements of the time, specifically regarding the timely reporting of adverse effects. SOURCES: Primary literature search using online and archived documents was conducted at the Wood Library-Museum of Anesthesiology, Schaumburg, IL. We consulted documents submitted by BW Co to federal authorities, through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reports, promotional advertisements, package inserts, published articles, and textbooks. RESULTS: Initial clinical testing in humans in 1952 found no adverse effects on cardiovascular or respiratory systems. Fasciculations and myalgia were early side effects described in case reports in 1952. Large-scale clinical trials in 1953 found abnormally long recovery times among some patients; the discovery of abnormal pseudocholinesterase enzyme activity was not fully demonstrated until the early 1960s. Bradycardia was first reported in 1957 in children, and in 1959 in adults. In 1960, animal studies reported a transient increase in plasma potassium; further experiments in 1969 clearly demonstrated succinylcholine-induced hyperkalemia in burn patients. Malignant hyperthermia was first described in 1966. Similar cases of elevated temperatures and muscle rigidity were described globally but the underlying mechanism was not elucidated until the 1990s. Standard anesthesia textbooks did not report major side effects of succinylcholine until 1960 and included newly documented side effects with each edition. BW Co's packaging contained warnings as early as the 1950s but were later updated in 1962 and beyond to reflect the newly discovered hyperkalemia and malignant hyperthermia. CONCLUSION: Particularly given the regulatory environment of the time, BW Co appropriately reported the adverse effects of succinylcholine after market entry; it updated promotional and packaging material in a timely manner to reflect newly discovered adverse effects. The toxicity, though alarming and put clinicians on alert, did not seem to heavily impact succinylcholine's use, given its various desirable properties. It is still a choice muscle relaxant used today, although there are efforts to develop superior agents to replace succinylcholine.

How to produce 'marketable and profitable results for the company': from viral interference to Roferon A.

This paper looks at the commodification of interferon, marketed by Hoffmann La Roche (short: Roche) as Roferon A in 1986, as a case study that helps us understand the role of pharmaceutical industry in cancer research, the impact of molecular biology on cancer therapy, and the relationships between biotech start-ups and established pharmaceutical firms. Drawing extensively on materials from the Roche company archives, the paper traces interferon's trajectory from observed phenomenon (viral interference) to product (Roferon A). Roche embraced molecular biology in the late 1960s to prepare for the moment when the patents on some of its bestselling drugs were going to expire. The company funded two basic science institutes to gain direct access to talents and scientific leads. These investments, I argue, were crucial for Roche's success with recombinant interferon, along with more mundane, technical and regulatory know-how held at Roche's Nutley base. The paper analyses in some detail the development process following the initial success of cloning the interferon gene in collaboration with Genentech. It looks at the factors necessary to scale up the production sufficiently for clinical trials. Using Alfred Chandler's concept of 'organizational capabilities', I argue that the process is better described as 'mobilisation' than as 'translation'.

Data Integrity: History, Issues, and Remediation of Issues.

Data integrity is critical to regulatory compliance, and the fundamental reason for 21 CFR Part 11 published by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). FDA published the first guideline in 1963, and since then FDA and European Union (EU) have published numerous guidelines on various topics related to data integrity for the pharmaceutical industry. Regulators wanted to make certain that industry capture accurate data during the drug development lifecycle and through commercialization-consider the number of warning letters issued lately by inspectors across the globe on data integrity. This article discusses the history of regulations put forward by various regulatory bodies, the term ALCOA Plus adopted by regulators, the impact of not following regulations, and some prevention methods by using some simple checklists, self-audit, and self-inspection techniques. FDA uses the acronym ALCOA to define its expectations of electronic data. ALCOA stands for Attributable, Legible, Contemporaneous, Original, and Accurate. ALCOA was further expanded to ALCOA Plus, and the Plus means Enduring, Available and Accessible, Complete, Consistent, Credible, and Corroborated. If we do not follow the regulations as written, then there is a huge risk. This article covers some of the risk aspects. To prevent data integrity, various solutions can be implemented such as a simple checklist for various systems, self-audit, and self-inspections. To do that we have to develop strategy, people, implement better business processes, and gain a better understanding of data lifecycle as well as technology.LAY ABSTRACT: If one does a Google search on "What is data integrity?" the first page will give the definition of data integrity, how to learn more about data integrity, the history of data integrity, risk management of data integrity, and at the top about various U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Union (EU) regulations. Data integrity is nothing but about accuracy of data. When someone searches Google for some words, we expect accurate results that we can rely on. The same principle applies during the drug development lifecycle. Pharmaceutical industry ensures that data entered for various steps of drug development is accurate so that we can have confidence that the drugs produced by the industry are within some parameters. The regulations put forward by FDA and EU are not new. The first regulation was published in 1963, and after that regulators published multiple guidelines. Inspectors from both regulatory bodies inspected the industry, and they found that the data was not accurate. If pharmaceutical industry produces drugs within the stated parameters, then it is approved and available in the market for patients. If inspectors find that the data is modified, then the drug is not approved. That means revenue loss for industry and drugs not available for patients. In this article, I explain some of the remediation plans for the industry that can be applied during the drug development lifecycle pathway.