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 A substantial number of accelerated approvals have recently been withdrawn in the USA, with some still authorised in Europe, emphasising discrepancies in regulatory standards that affect both patients and society as a whole. We highlight examples of drugs, authorised on the basis of surrogate endpoints, that were later withdrawn due to an absence of overall survival benefit.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.

Withdrawn 2.0-update on withdrawn drugs with pharmacovigilance data.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 At the same time, these off-targets may also present a chance for the repositioning of withdrawn drugs for new indications, which are potentially rare or more severe than the original indication and where certain adverse reactions may be avoidable or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 To enable further insights into this topic, we updated our database Withdrawn by adding pharmacovigilance data from the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS), as well as mechanism of action and human disease pathway prediction features for drugs that are or were temporarily withdrawn or discontinued in at least one country.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data are still spread over dozens of national websites, we are continuously updating our lists of discontinued or withdrawn drugs and related (off-)targets.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.

Suspensión de antibióticos a través de un programa de optimización de tratamiento antibiótico en pacientes atendidos en Urgencias con baja sospecha de infección / Antibiotic discontinuation through an antibiotic treatment optimization program in emergency department patients with low suspicion of infection

Introducción: Una de las estrategias más importantes de los PROA en los Servicios de Urgencias (SU) es el diagnóstico adecuado de infección para evitar la prescripción inadecuada. Nuestro objetivo es evaluar a los pacientes que reciben antibiótico a pesar de no tener datos objetivos de infección. Métodos: Realizamos un estudio transversal de los pacientes ingresados en el SU del Hospital Universitario Fundación Alcorcón durante 2 meses (mayo del 2019 y marzo del 2021) en los que se recomendó suspender el antibiótico a través del PROA. Se analizaron las características clínicas y epidemiológicas, y el seguimiento a 30 días para valorar los reingresos y la mortalidad. Resultados: Se analizaron 145 pacientes. Se recomendó suspender el antibiótico en 25. El 44% de ellos tenían diagnóstico de infección urinaria. La recomendación de suspensión se aceptó en el 88%. Ningún paciente falleció y uno reingresó. Conclusiones: Un porcentaje importante de pacientes tenían prescrito antibiótico a pesar de no tener criterios de infección, siendo la evolución clínica tras la de prescripción favorable.(AU)

Introduction: One of the most important strategies of PROA in the Emergency Department (ED) is the accurate diagnosis of infection to avoid inappropriate prescription. Our objective is to evaluate patients who receive antibiotics despite not having objective data of infection. Methods: We carried out a cross-sectional study of patients admitted to the ED of the Hospital Universitario Fundación Alcorcón in which it was recommended to suspend the antibiotic through the PROA. Clinical and epidemiological characteristics and 30-day follow-up were analyzed to assess readmissions and mortality. Results: 145 patients were analyzed. It was recommended to suspend the antibiotic in 25. 44% of them had a diagnosis of urinary infection. The suspension recommendation was accepted by 88%. No patient died and one was readmitted. Conclusions: An important percentage of patients are prescribed antibiotics despite not having infection criteria, the clinical evolution after suspension of antibiotics was favorable.(AU)

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.

Medicines withdrawn in other countries due to safety concerns: should they continue to be available in the Argentine pharmaceutical market? / [Medicamentos retirados en otros países por problemas de seguridad: ¿Deben seguir presentes en el mercado farmacéutico argentino?]

Introduction: Numerous medicines have been withdrawn from the market because of the risks of serious adverse effects. The objective of this study was to identify in the Argentine pharmaceutical market (APM) the presence of medicines withdrawn in other countries due to safety problems, to analyze the information on their risks and to propose recommendations. Method: observational, descriptive study that explored the presence in the APM, until May 2021, of 462 medicines withdrawn in other countries. Those medicines on this list that are present in the APM and that are not currently authorized in countries with high sanitary surveillance were studied. Results: 17 medicines are still present in the APM, one over-the-counter. The package insert for 11 of the 17 medicines does not mention the adverse effects that led to their withdrawal. It was considered that the permanence in the APM of 16 of them should be reassessed. Conclusions: recommendations are made on actions to be taken by the regulatory authorities with the 17 medicines already present in the APM.

Introducción: Numerosos fármacos han sido retirados del mercado por sus riesgos de efectos adversos graves. El objetivo de este trabajo fue identificar en el mercado farmacéutico argentino (MFA) la presencia de medicamentos retirados en otros países por problemas de seguridad, analizar información sobre sus riesgos y proponer recomendaciones. Método: estudio observacional, descriptivo que exploró la presencia en el MFA, hasta mayo de 2021, de 462 medicamentos retirados en otros países. Se estudiaron aquellos medicamentos de esta lista presentes en el MFA y que no estuvieran autorizados actualmente en países de alta vigilancia sanitaria. Resultados: 17 medicamentos siguen presentes en el MFA, uno de venta libre.  El prospecto de 11 de los 17 fármacos no menciona los efectos adversos que motivaron su retiro. Se consideró que la permanencia en el MFA de 16 de ellos debería ser reevaluada. Conclusiones: se realizan recomendaciones sobre acciones a tomar por las autoridades reguladoras con los 17 medicamentos aún presentes en el MFA.

Safety-Related Drug Withdrawals in China Between 1999 and 2021: A Systematic Investigation and Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The Chinese National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) has emphasized proactive pharmacovigilance throughout the product life cycle in recent years. However, the safety-related withdrawal of drugs from the Chinese market has received less attention. OBJECTIVES: The primary aim of the study was to investigate the context of withdrawing a drug for safety reasons in China (between 1999 and 2021). METHODS: Withdrawn drugs were first identified from the Chinese NMPA and United States (US) Food and Drug Administration websites and the World Health Organization's (WHO's) consolidated list of products, WHO Drug Information, and WHO Pharmaceuticals Newsletter. We then searched the China National Knowledge Internet database, Chongqing VIP information database, Wanfang database, PubMed, and Google Scholar for drug withdrawal details. We used the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine criteria to assess the levels of evidence that support withdrawing a drug. RESULTS: A total of 30 drugs were withdrawn from the Chinese market between 1999 and 2021. The number of withdrawals increased during the stable Chinese drug surveillance period (2012-2021). Evidence from case-series or case-control studies was primarily used to determine the withdrawals of 16 drugs (53.3%). Fifteen drugs were withdrawn from the markets of China and the US, including five drugs (5/15, 33.3%) that were withdrawn in the same year in China and the US. CONCLUSIONS: The promulgation of regulations and development of advanced passive and active systems have enhanced pharmacovigilance in China. High-quality evidence, coordination with other regulatory authorities, and communication and information sharing should be strengthened to optimize drug safety surveillance and risk management.

Dapagliflozin no longer licensed for type 1 diabetes.

Overview of: Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. Dapagliflozin (Forxiga): no longer authorised for treatment of type 1 diabetes mellitus. Drug Safety Update 2021;15:3.

Regulatory and clinical consequences of negative confirmatory trials of accelerated approval cancer drugs: retrospective observational study.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the regulatory handling of cancer drugs that were granted accelerated approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) but failed to improve the primary endpoint in post-approval trials and to evaluate the extent to which negative post-approval trials changed the recommendations in treatment guidelines. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SETTING: FDA and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) reports. INCLUDED DRUGS: Cancer drugs that received accelerated approval from the FDA and had negative post-approval trials. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Regulatory outcomes, including withdrawal, conversion to regular approval, and no action. RESULTS: 18 indications for 10 cancer drugs that received accelerated approval but failed to improve the primary endpoint in post-approval trials were identified. Of these, 11 (61%) were voluntarily withdrawn by the manufacturer and one (bevacizumab for breast cancer) was revoked by the FDA. Of the 11 withdrawals, six occurred in 2021 alone. The remaining six (33%) indications remain on the label. The NCCN guidelines provide a high level of endorsement (category 1 endorsement for one and category 2A endorsement for seven) for accelerated approval drugs that have failed post-approval trials, sometimes even after the approval has been withdrawn or revoked. CONCLUSION: Cancer drug indications that received accelerated approval often remained on formal FDA approved drug labelling and continued to be recommended in clinical guidelines several years after statutorily required post-approval trials showed no improvement in the primary efficacy endpoint. Clinical guidelines should better align with the results of post-approval trials of cancer drugs that received accelerated approval.

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.

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.

Immunotherapy Withdrawals Put Spotlight on Accelerated Approval.

The FDA's Accelerated Approval program is under scrutiny after four drug companies announced plans in recent months to withdraw indications for checkpoint inhibitors that, despite showing early promise, failed to demonstrate a survival benefit in confirmatory trials. The agency's Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee will meet in late April to discuss whether six more indications for some of these same immunotherapies should be nullified as well.

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.

Toward a broader view of mechanisms of drug cardiotoxicity.

Cardiotoxicity, defined as toxicity that affects the heart, is one of the most common adverse drug effects. Numerous drugs have been shown to have the potential to induce lethal arrhythmias by affecting cardiac electrophysiology, which is the focus of current preclinical testing. However, a substantial number of drugs can also affect cardiac function beyond electrophysiology. Within this broader sense of cardiotoxicity, this review discusses the key drug-protein interactions known to be involved in cardiotoxic drug response. We cover adverse effects of anticancer, central nervous system, genitourinary system, gastrointestinal, antihistaminic, anti-inflammatory, and anti-infective agents, illustrating that many share mechanisms of cardiotoxicity, including contractility, mitochondrial function, and cellular signaling.

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).

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.

[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.