Withdrawn 2.0-update on withdrawn drugs with pharmacovigilance data.

One challenge in the development of novel drugs is their interaction with potential off-targets, which can cause unintended side-effects, that can lead to the subsequent withdrawal of approved drugs. At the same time, these off-targets may also present a chance for the repositioning of withdrawn drugs for new indications, which are potentially rare or more severe than the original indication and where certain adverse reactions may be avoidable or tolerable. To enable further insights into this topic, we updated our database Withdrawn by adding pharmacovigilance data from the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS), as well as mechanism of action and human disease pathway prediction features for drugs that are or were temporarily withdrawn or discontinued in at least one country. As withdrawal data are still spread over dozens of national websites, we are continuously updating our lists of discontinued or withdrawn drugs and related (off-)targets. Furthermore, new systematic entry points for browsing the data, such as an ATC tree, were added, increasing the accessibility of the database in a user-friendly way. Withdrawn 2.0 is publicly available without the need for registration or login at https://bioinformatics.charite.de/withdrawn_3/index.php.

Lessons learned from postmarketing withdrawals of expedited approvals for oncology drug indications.

In the past decade, there have been a record number of oncology therapy approvals by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA). Besides the EMA's conditional marketing authorisation programme and the FDA's Accelerated Approval Program, we observe a tendency towards fast approval for exploratory studies with non-randomised, uncontrolled designs and surrogate endpoints. This issue raises concerns about the robustness and effectiveness of accepted treatments, leaving patients and health-care professionals in a state of uncertainty. A substantial number of accelerated approvals have recently been withdrawn in the USA, with some still authorised in Europe, emphasising discrepancies in regulatory standards that affect both patients and society as a whole. We highlight examples of drugs, authorised on the basis of surrogate endpoints, that were later withdrawn due to an absence of overall survival benefit. Our findings address the challenges and consequences of accelerated approval pathways in oncology. In conclusion, this Policy Review calls for regulatory bodies to better align their procedures and insist on robust evidence, preferably through unbiased randomised controlled trials. Drug approval processes should prioritise patient benefit, overall survival, and quality of life to minimise risks and uncertainties for patients.

Quantitative Measurement of the Direct Public Health Impact of Medicines Withdrawals in Europe: Development of a Modelling Method and Proof-of-Concept Study to Estimate the Morbidity and Mortality Prevented by Regulatory Action.

PURPOSE: Removing medicines from market may benefit public health by preventing adverse drug reactions (ADRs), which should be quantified. This study's aim was to identify a model to quantify the impact of medicines' marketing authorisation (MA) withdrawal and revocation in terms of preventing morbidity and mortality. METHODS: MA withdrawals and revocations for safety reasons in France, Germany and/or the United Kingdom between July 2012 and December 2016 were identified for prescription medicines. Annual exposure was estimated for each medicine, using IQVIA Medical Research Data (IMRD)-France, IMRD-Germany and IMRD-UK primary care electronic health record databases. European Medicines Agency records provided reasons for regulatory action for each medicine. Absolute risks of ADRs which led to MA withdrawal were estimated for patients exposed to each medicine by systematic review of quantitative research. Public health impact, expressed as annual number of ADRs avoided, was estimated by modelling exposure and ADR risk. RESULTS: Four MA withdrawals and two revocations met study inclusion criteria. Each product's usage decreased following MA withdrawal or revocation. Absolute risk for ADRs was 0.1%-41.25%. To estimate impact of each withdrawal or revocation, its average annual exposure within each IMRD population was multiplied by the absolute risk to give the crude number of ADRs prevented annually due to regulatory action. CONCLUSIONS: This model quantifies the public health impact of MA withdrawal and revocation in terms of serious morbidity, resulting from eliminated or reduced usage of medicines. This method can be applied to products in other settings to quantify the impact of other pharmacovigilance actions.

Group sequential testing under instrumented difference-in-differences approach.

Unmeasured confounding is a major obstacle to reliable causal inference based on observational studies. Instrumented difference-in-differences (iDiD), a novel idea connecting instrumental variable and standard DiD, ameliorates the above issue by explicitly leveraging exogenous randomness in an exposure trend. In this article, we utilize the above idea of iDiD, and propose a novel group sequential testing method that provides valid inference even in the presence of unmeasured confounders. At each time point, we estimate the average or conditional average treatment effect under iDiD setting using the data accumulated up to that time point, and test the significance of the treatment effect. We derive the joint distribution of the test statistics under the null using the asymptotic properties of M-estimation, and the group sequential boundaries are obtained using the α $$ \alpha $$ -spending functions. The performance of our proposed approach is evaluated on both synthetic data and Clinformatics Data Mart Database (OptumInsight, Eden Prairie, MN) to examine the association between rofecoxib and acute myocardial infarction, and our method detects significant adverse effect of rofecoxib much earlier than the time when it was finally withdrawn from the market.

Withdrawal of inhaled corticosteroids versus continuation of triple therapy in patients with COPD in real life: observational comparative effectiveness study.

BACKGROUND: Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are indicated for prevention of exacerbations in patients with COPD, but they are frequently overprescribed. ICS withdrawal has been recommended by international guidelines in order to prevent side effects in patients in whom ICS are not indicated. METHOD: Observational comparative effectiveness study aimed to evaluate the effect of ICS withdrawal versus continuation of triple therapy (TT) in COPD patients in primary care. Data were obtained from the Optimum Patient Care Research Database (OPCRD) in the UK. RESULTS: A total of 1046 patients who withdrew ICS were matched 1:4 by time on TT to 4184 patients who continued with TT. Up to 76.1% of the total population had 0 or 1 exacerbation the previous year. After controlling for confounders, patients who discontinued ICS did not have an increased risk of moderate or severe exacerbations (adjusted HR: 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94-1.15; p = 0.441). However, rates of exacerbations managed in primary care (incidence rate ratio (IRR) 1.33, 95% CI 1.10-1.60; p = 0.003) or in hospital (IRR 1.72, 95% CI 1.03-2.86; p = 0.036) were higher in the cessation group. Unsuccessful ICS withdrawal was significantly and independently associated with more frequent courses of oral corticosteroids the previous year and with a blood eosinophil count ≥ 300 cells/µL. CONCLUSIONS: In this primary care population of patients with COPD, composed mostly of infrequent exacerbators, discontinuation of ICS from TT was not associated with an increased risk of exacerbation; however, the subgroup of patients with more frequent courses of oral corticosteroids and high blood eosinophil counts should not be withdrawn from ICS. Trial registration European Network of Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance (EUPAS30851).

Safety Monitoring of the Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) COVID-19 Vaccine - United States, March-April 2021.

On February 27, 2021, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for Janssen (Ad.26.COV2.S) COVID-19 vaccine (Janssen Biotech, Inc., a Janssen Pharmaceutical company, Johnson & Johnson) (1). The Janssen COVID-19 vaccine, the third COVID-19 vaccine authorized for use in the United States, uses a replication-incompetent human adenoviral type 26 vector platform* (2) and is administered as a single intramuscular dose, whereas the first two authorized vaccines use an mRNA platform and require 2 doses. On February 28, 2021, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) issued interim recommendations for use of Janssen COVID-19 vaccine among persons aged ≥18 years (3). During April 13-23, CDC and FDA recommended a pause in use of Janssen vaccine after reports of six cases of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) with thrombocytopenia (platelet count <150,000/µL of blood) among Janssen vaccine recipients (4). Similar thrombotic events, primarily among women aged <60 years, have been described in Europe after receipt of the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, which uses a replication-incompetent chimpanzee adenoviral vector (5-7). The U.S. CVST cases that prompted the pause in Janssen vaccination, as well as subsequently detected CVST cases, are described elsewhere (8). This report summarizes adverse events among Janssen vaccine recipients, including non-CVST cases of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS), reported to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), a passive surveillance system, and through v-safe, an active monitoring system. As of April 21, 2021, 7.98 million doses of the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine had been administered. Among 13,725 VAERS reports reviewed, 97% were classified as nonserious and 3% as serious,† including three reports among women of cases of thrombosis in large arteries or veins accompanied by thrombocytopenia during the second week after vaccination. These three cases and the previously detected CVST cases are consistent with 17 cases of TTS,§ a newly defined condition. Approximately 338,700 Janssen COVID-19 vaccine recipients completed at least one v-safe survey during the week after vaccination; 76% reported a systemic reaction, 61% reported a local reaction, and 34% reported a health impact.¶ Fatigue and pain were commonly reported symptoms in both VAERS and v-safe. The overall safety profile is consistent with preauthorization clinical trials data. Prompt review of U.S. vaccine safety data detected three additional cases of non-CVST TTS, in addition to the previously recognized CVST cases that initiated the pause in use of the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine. Ongoing monitoring of adverse events after COVID-19 vaccination, including vaccination with the Janssen single-dose vaccine, is essential for evaluating the risks and benefits of each vaccine.

Updated Recommendations from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices for Use of the Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) COVID-19 Vaccine After Reports of Thrombosis with Thrombocytopenia Syndrome Among Vaccine Recipients - United States, April 2021.

On February 27, 2021, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the Janssen COVID-19 (Ad.26.COV2.S) vaccine (Janssen Biotech, Inc., a Janssen Pharmaceutical company, Johnson & Johnson; New Brunswick, New Jersey), and on February 28, 2021, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) issued interim recommendations for its use in persons aged ≥18 years (1,2). On April 13, 2021, CDC and FDA recommended a pause in the use of the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine after reports of six U.S. cases of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) with thrombocytopenia, a rare thromboembolic syndrome, among Janssen COVID-19 vaccine recipients (3). Two emergency ACIP meetings were rapidly convened to review reported cases of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) and to consider updated recommendations for use of the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine in the United States. On April 23, 2021, after a discussion of the benefits and risks of resuming vaccination, ACIP reaffirmed its interim recommendation for use of the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine in all persons aged ≥18 years under the FDA's EUA, which now includes a warning that rare clotting events might occur after vaccination, primarily among women aged 18-49 years. Patient and provider education about the risk for TTS with the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine, especially among women aged <50 years, as well as the availability of alternative COVID-19 vaccines, is required to guide vaccine decision-making and ensure early recognition and clinical management of TTS.

Long-term effects of weight-reducing drugs in people with hypertension.

BACKGROUND: This is the third update of this review, first published in July 2009. All major guidelines on treatment of hypertension recommend weight loss; anti-obesity drugs may be able to help in this respect. OBJECTIVES: Primary objectives: To assess the long-term effects of pharmacologically-induced reduction in body weight in adults with essential hypertension on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular morbidity, and adverse events (including total serious adverse events, withdrawal due to adverse events, and total non-serious adverse events).. Secondary objectives: To assess the long-term effects of pharmacologically-induced reduction in body weight in adults with essential hypertension on change from baseline in systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and on body weight reduction. SEARCH METHODS: For this updated review, the Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials up to March 2020: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. The searches had no language restrictions. We contacted authors of relevant papers about further published and unpublished work. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of at least 24 weeks' duration in adults with hypertension that compared approved long-term weight-loss medications to placebo.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risks of bias, and extracted data. Where appropriate and in the absence of significant heterogeneity between studies (P > 0.1), we pooled studies using a fixed-effect meta-analysis. When heterogeneity was present, we used the random-effects method and investigated the cause of the heterogeneity. MAIN RESULTS: This third update of the review added one new trial, investigating the combination of naltrexone/bupropion versus placebo. Two medications, which were included in the previous versions of this review (rimonabant and sibutramine) are no longer considered relevant for this update, since their marketing approval was withdrawn in 2010 and 2009, respectively. The number of included studies in this review update is therefore six (12,724 participants in total): four RCTs comparing orlistat to placebo, involving a total of 3132 participants with high blood pressure and a mean age of 46 to 55 years; one trial comparing phentermine/topiramate to placebo, involving 1305 participants with high blood pressure and a mean age of 53 years; and one trial comparing naltrexone/bupropion to placebo, involving 8283 participants with hypertension and a mean age of 62 years. We judged the risks of bias to be unclear for the trials investigating orlistat or naltrexone/bupropion. and low for the trial investigating phentermine/topiramate. Only the study of naltrexone/bupropion included cardiovascular mortality and morbidity as predefined outcomes. There were no differences in the rates of all-cause or cardiovascular mortality, major cardiovascular events, or serious adverse events between naltrexone/bupropion and placebo. The incidence of overall adverse events was significantly higher in participants treated with naltrexone/bupropion. For orlistat, the incidence of gastrointestinal side effects was consistently higher compared to placebo. The most frequent side effects with phentermine/topiramate were dry mouth and paraesthesia. After six to 12 months, orlistat reduced systolic blood pressure compared to placebo by mean difference (MD) -2.6 mm Hg (95% confidence interval (CI) -3.8 to -1.4 mm Hg; 4 trials, 2058 participants) and diastolic blood pressure by MD -2.0 mm Hg (95% CI -2.7 to -1.2 mm Hg; 4 trials, 2058 participants). After 13 months of follow-up, phentermine/topiramate decreased systolic blood pressure compared to placebo by -2.0 to -4.2 mm Hg (1 trial, 1030 participants) (depending on drug dosage), and diastolic blood pressure by -1.3 to -1.9 mm Hg (1 trial, 1030 participants) (depending on drug dosage). There was no difference in the change in systolic or diastolic blood pressure between naltrexone/bupropion and placebo (1 trial, 8283 participants). We identified no relevant studies investigating liraglutide or lorcaserin in people with hypertension. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In people with elevated blood pressure, orlistat, phentermine/topiramate and naltrexone/bupropion reduced body weight; the magnitude of the effect was greatest with phentermine/topiramate. In the same trials, orlistat and phentermine/topiramate, but not naltrexone/bupropion, reduced blood pressure. One RCT of naltrexone/bupropion versus placebo showed no differences in all-cause mortality or cardiovascular mortality or morbidity after two years. The European Medicines Agency refused marketing authorisation for phentermine/topiramate due to safety concerns, while for lorcaserin the application for European marketing authorisation was withdrawn due to a negative overall benefit/risk balance. In 2020 lorcaserin was also withdrawn from the US market. Two other medications (rimonabant and sibutramine) had already been withdrawn from the market in 2009 and 2010, respectively.

Uptake of evidence by physicians: De-adoption of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents after the TREAT trial.

BACKGROUND: Variation in de-adoption of ineffective or unsafe treatments is not well-understood. We examined de-adoption of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESA) in anemia treatment among patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) following new clinical evidence of harm and ineffectiveness (the TREAT trial) and the FDA's revision of its safety warning. METHOD: We used a segmented regression approach to estimate changes in use of epoetin alfa (EPO) and darbepoetin alfa (DPO) in the commercial, Medicare Advantage (MA) and Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) populations. We also examined how changes in both trends and levels of use were associated with physicians' characteristics. RESULTS: Use of DPO and EPO declined over the study period. There were no consistent changes in DPO trend across insurance groups, but the level of DPO use decreased right after the FDA revision in all groups. The decline in EPO use trend was faster after the TREAT trial for all groups. Nephrologists were largely more responsive to evidence than primary care physicians. Differences by physician's gender, and age were not consistent across insurance populations and types of ESA. CONCLUSIONS: Physician specialty has a dominant role in prescribing decision, and that specializations with higher use of treatment (nephrologists) were more responsive to new evidence of unsafety and ineffectiveness.

[Pharmacovigilance update]. / Pharmacovigilance.

The main pharmacovigilance updates in 2020 are reviewed. Remdesivir in COVID-19: relatively safe but turns out to be less effective than expected. Hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19 : lack of efficacy and risk of arrhythmias. Cytokines storm in COVID-19: may impact pharmacokinetics. VEGF inhibitors: risk of aneurysm and artery dissection. Tofacitinib: dose-dependant risk of venous thromboembolic events. Ondansetron in the first trimester of pregnancy : a highly debated risk of orofacial cleft defects. Fingolimod : contraindicated during pregnancy due to suspected risk of congenital malformations. Ranitidine: global market withdrawal due to contamination with nitrosamines. Ulipristal for uterine fibroids : market withdrawal due to risk of severe liver injury. Ingenol mebutate : market withdrawal due to paradoxical risk of skin cancers.

Les principales actualités de pharmacovigilance 2020 sont passées en revue. Remdésivir et Covid-19 : moins efficace qu'attendu mais assez sûr. Hydroxychloroquine et Covid-19 : absence d'efficacité et risque d'arythmies. Orage cytokinique et Covid-19 : impact possible sur les paramètres pharmacocinétiques. Inhibiteurs du VEGF : risque d'anévrisme artériel et de dissection. Tofacitinib : risque d'événements thromboemboliques. Ondansétron au 1er trimestre de grossesse : risque controversé de fentes palatines. Fingolimod : contre-indiqué dans la grossesse pour possible risque malformatif. Ranitidine : retrait du marché mondial pour contamination par des nitrosamines. Ulipristal et fibromyomes utérins : retrait du marché pour risque d'atteinte hépatique grave. Mébutate d'ingénol : retrait du marché pour risque paradoxal de cancers cutanés.

Response to Propoxyphene Market Withdrawal: Analgesic Substitutes, Doses, and Adverse Events.

OBJECTIVE: Experts cautioned that patients affected by the November 2010 withdrawal of the opioid analgesic propoxyphene might receive riskier prescriptions. To explore this, we compared drug receipts and outcomes among propoxyphene users before and aftermarket withdrawal. STUDY DESIGN: Using OptumLabs data, we studied 3 populations: commercial, Medicare Advantage (MA) aged (age 65+ y) and MA disabled (age below 65 y) enrollees. The exposed enrollees received propoxyphene in the 3 months before market withdrawal (n=13,622); historical controls (unexposed) received propoxyphene 1 year earlier (n=9971). Regression models estimated daily milligrams morphine equivalent (MME), daily prescription acetaminophen dose, potentially toxic acetaminophen doses, nonopioid prescription analgesics receipt, emergency room visits, and diagnosed falls, motor vehicle accidents, and hip fractures. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Aged MA enrollees illustrate the experience of all 3 populations examined. Following the market withdrawal, propoxyphene users in the exposed cohort experienced an abrupt decline of 69% in average daily MME, compared with a 14% decline in the unexposed. Opioids were discontinued by 34% of the exposed cohort and 18% of the unexposed. Tramadol and hydrocodone were the most common opioids substituted for propoxyphene. The proportion of each group receiving ≥4 g of prescription acetaminophen per day decreased from 12% to 2% in the exposed group but increased from 6% to 8% among the unexposed. Adverse events were rare and not significantly different in exposed versus unexposed groups. CONCLUSIONS: After propoxyphene market withdrawal, many individuals experienced abrupt discontinuation of opioids. Policymakers might consider supporting appropriate treatment transitions and monitoring responses following drug withdrawals.

Post-marketing safety-related regulatory actions on first-in-class drugs: A double-cohort study.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: New first-in-class (FIC) drugs with novel mechanisms of action may be highly effective, but lack adequate safety information, and therefore may be associated with crucial post-marketing safety issues. The objective of this study was to evaluate the post-marketing risk of FIC drug with comparison occurrence of Post-marketing safety-related regulatory actions (PSRAs) due to FIC drugs to that due to other new drugs. METHODS: A full list of all new molecular entities and therapeutic biologics, except diagnostic agents and vaccines, which were approved in the United States between 1 January 2003, and 31 December 2013, were included in this study. Drugs with novel mechanisms of action at the time of approval were classified as the FIC cohort and other new drugs as the control cohort. PSRAs were defined as safety-related post-marketing withdrawal, new issuance or the addition of black box warnings. Specifically, we identified PSRAs associated with adverse drug reactions (ADR-PSRAs). Subsequently, we identified drug allergy ADR-PSRAs and class-effect ADR-PSRAs, and also extracted drug-specific ADR-PSRAs. To evaluate the post-marketing safety risk of FIC drugs, we estimated the odds ratio of the occurrence of ADR-PSRAs between the FIC cohort and the control cohort. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The odds ratio of the occurrence of all ADR-PSRA in the FIC cohort was 0.96 (95% CI: 0.57-1.61, P = .8758), showing no difference compared to that of the control cohort. However, the odds ratio of the occurrence of drug-specific ADR-PSRAs in the FIC cohort was 2.06 (95% CI: 1.20-3.55, P = .0091). WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that a strong relationship existed between FIC drugs and the occurrence of drug-specific ADR-PSRAs, suggesting that post-marketing safety risk for FIC drugs is higher than that for other new drugs given the same class at approval.

Observational study of chronic myeloid leukemia Italian patients who discontinued tyrosine kinase inhibitors in clinical practice.

It is judged safe to discontinue treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) for chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) in experimental trials on treatment-free remission (TFR). We collected a total of 293 Italian patients with chronic phase CML who discontinued TKI in deep molecular response. Seventy-two percent of patients were on treatment with imatinib, and 28% with second generation TKI at the time of discontinuation. Median duration of treatment with the last TKI was 77 months [Interquartile Range (IQR) 54;111], median duration of deep molecular response was 46 months (IQR 31;74). Duration of treatment with TKI and duration of deep molecular response were shorter with second generation TKI than with imatinib (P<0.001). Eighty-eight percent of patients discontinued as per clinical practice, and reasons for stopping treatment were: toxicity (20%), pregnancy (6%), and shared decision between treating physician and patient (62%). After a median follow up of 34 months (range, 12-161) overall estimated TFR was 62% (95%CI: 56;68). At 12 months, TFR was 68% (95%CI: 62;74) for imatinib, 73% (95%CI: 64;83) for second generation TKI. Overall median time to restart treatment was six months (IQR 4;11). No progressions occurred. Although our study has the limitation of a retrospective study, our experience within the Italian population confirms that discontinuation of imatinib and second generation TKI is feasible and safe in clinical practice.

Effect of withdrawal of fusafungine from the market on prescribing of antibiotics and other alternative treatments in Germany: a pharmacovigilance impact study.

PURPOSE: Knowledge on unintended consequences of product withdrawals is limited. Fusafungine, indicated for treatment of upper respiratory airways disease (URAD), was withdrawn in the EU on May 28, 2016. Given concerns about possible substitution with antibiotics, this study aimed to assess the impact of the withdrawal of fusafungine on prescribing of antibiotics and other treatments. METHODS: The study was conducted using data from general practitioner (GP) and ear, nose and throat (ENT) practices in IMS® Disease Analyzer Germany. The quarterly prevalence of fusafungine prescribing was analysed for consultations involving the most common URAD between May 29, 2013 and May 28, 2017 in regular fusafungine-prescribing practices. Trends in the quarterly prevalence of antibiotics (AB), other nasal or throat preparations (N&T) and tyrothricin were analyzed. Practices with no fusafungine prescribing during the study served as controls. Changes in prescribing trend were evaluated using interrupted time series regression analysis. RESULTS: In fusafungine-prescribing practices, withdrawal of fusafungine was associated with an immediate increase in prescribing of other N&Ts among patients consulting for URAD (+ 6.4%, 95% CI 2.3-10.5% in GP practices and + 9.0%, 95% CI 5.5-12.5% in ENT practices). There was no increase in antibiotic prescribing. In ENT practices; a small transient increase in tyrothricin prescribing occurred. No changes were seen in non-fusafungine-prescribing practices. CONCLUSIONS: Withdrawal of fusafungine was not associated with increased prescribing of antibiotics but was associated with increased prescribing of other N&Ts. The unintended impact of substitution to other treatments should be considered routinely when products are withdrawn or restricted in other ways.

Secret safety warnings on medicines: A case study of information access requests.

PURPOSE: There has been less attention to the transparency of postmarket evidence of harmful effects of medicines than of premarket clinical trial data. This is a case study of requests for Australian "direct health professional communications" (DHPCs). These letters are used by regulators and manufacturers to inform clinicians of emergent evidence of harm. DHPCs are not made public by Australia's Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). METHODS: We requested all DHPCs sent out in Australia from 2007 to 2016 inclusive for 207 drugs that were subject to safety advisories over this decade in Canada, the United Kingdom, and/or the United States. We contacted 39 manufacturers (February to May 2018), with repeat requests to nonrespondents, and a follow-up freedom-of-information (FOI) request to the TGA. RESULTS: Fifteen companies provided information, either sending DHPCs (n = 4, on five drugs) or affirming none were sent out (n = 11). The remaining 24 of 39 (62%) companies did not provide DHPCs: nine (23%) refused the request, often citing commercial confidentiality; the rest provided no answer despite repeat requests. In total, we had no information for 170 of 207 (82%) of the drugs. Our FOI request to the TGA was unsuccessful. CONCLUSIONS: Our experience highlights unacceptable secrecy concerning safety warnings previously sent to thousands of Australian clinicians. In the absence of explicit regulatory policy supporting disclosure, companies differed in their response. These letters warn of serious and often life-threatening harm and guide safer care; full ongoing public access is needed, ideally in searchable online databases.

Moulds associated with contaminated ocular and injectable drugs: FDA recalls, epidemiology considerations, drug shortages, and aseptic processing.

Recent (2012) grave but rare outbreaks of fungal meningitis and endophthalmitis associated with drugs contaminated with select environmental moulds (Exserohilum and Fusarium, respectively) have exacerbated mycology concerns for formulation, good laboratory practices (GLP), and use of the final drug product. Intensified investigations (2013-2015) by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that included added responsibilities for specialty compounding laboratories have prompted at least nine voluntary mould-related drug recalls during 2014-2015. Both primary manufactures (five recalls, two companies) and secondary-processing compound laboratories (at least eight recalls, six companies) and near 0.8 million units were involved. These constituted minor fractions of recalled drug products in an estimated 2500 recalls among other causes during this time period. Recalls of similar drugs in 2016 were indirectly related to fungi. None of the mould-related- drug-recall episodes during 2014-2016 have been identified with fungal disease outbreaks. The recalls included drugs in short supply worldwide such as injectable sodium chloride- and related saline solutions as well as ocular formulations. Insufficient environmental monitoring and GLP compliance, particularly for aseptic processing of non-preserved formulations, appeared to be underlying factors in the fungal contaminations. Observations of mould growth in drugs during their processing should be accurately recorded and investigated; cryptic listings under "particulate" designations should be avoided. Confirmed identifications for chronic contaminants are recommended. Heat-tolerant moulds with resistant morphotypes are prime concerns.

Analysis of factors related to the occurrence of important drug-specific postmarketing safety-related regulatory actions: A cohort study focused on first-in-class drugs.

PURPOSE: First-in-class (FIC) drugs with novel modes of action pose concerns regarding important postmarketing safety issues. The purpose of this study was to analyze the factors related to the occurrence of postmarketing safety-related regulatory actions (PSRAs) for drugs approved in the United States (US), with a focus on FIC drugs. METHODS: New molecular entities and new therapeutic biologics approved in the United States between 1 January 2003 and 31 December 2013 were included in the analysis. Important drug-specific PSRAs were defined as market withdrawal or the addition of new black box warnings or warnings due to adverse drug reactions. The relationship between baseline characteristics and the occurrence of important drug-specific PSRAs was investigated using a multivariate logistic regression model. We also defined the event as the first important PSRA and estimated the time-to-event for each factor. RESULTS: ATC category L (antineoplastic and immunomodulating agents) and FIC drug classification were shown to be statistically significant factors, with odds ratios of 2.15 (95% CI: 1.12-4.11; P = 0.0203) and 1.87 (95% CI: 1.06-3.31; P = 0.0309), respectively. ATC category L and FIC drugs were also significant factors for time to occurrence of the first event. CONCLUSION: FIC designation and ATC category L were identified as factors related to important drug-specific PSRAs. These factors were also associated with the time to occurrence of the first important drug-specific PSRAs.