Are novel drugs more risky for patients than less novel drugs?

The Food and Drug Administration has accelerated the approval of therapeutically novel drugs so that patients have faster access to innovative drug therapies. Little research, however, has examined the variation in risks among therapeutically novel and less novel drugs. Do drugs that represent greater novelty also entail greater risks for patients? This paper uses post-marketing drug safety surveillance data from the FDA to examine the adverse drug reactions (ADRs) associated with novel and less novel drugs. Negative binomial regressions are used to examine the impact of a drug's FDA novelty rating on its ADR count controlling for differences in drug utilization, the conditions being treated, disease characteristics, patient characteristics, drug review times, and year-specific effects. Results show that drugs deemed novel by the FDA are associated with a greater number of serious drug reactions, including those that result in hospitalization and death, than less novel drugs. These results suggest that novel drugs pose greater risk of serious ADRs for patients relative to less novel drugs.

[1]  L. Lasagna,et al.  The New Drug Approvals of 1990, 1991, and 1992: Trends in Drug Development , 1994, Journal of clinical pharmacology.

[2]  F. Lichtenberg,et al.  Are the benefits of newer drugs worth their cost? Evidence from the 1996 MEPS. , 2001, Health affairs.

[3]  K. Kaitin,et al.  THE NEW DRUG APPROVALS OF 1993, 1994, AND 1995: TRENDS IN DRUG DEVELOPMENT , 1997, American journal of therapeutics.

[4]  Mary K. Olson,et al.  Pharmaceutical Policy Change and the Safety of New Drugs* , 2002, The Journal of Law and Economics.

[5]  S. Schweitzer Pharmaceutical Economics and Policy , 1997 .

[6]  M. Olson Regulatory Agency Discretion Among Competing Industries: Inside the Fda , 1995 .

[7]  David A. Kessler Introducing MEDWatch: A New Approach to Reporting Medication and Device Adverse Effects and Product Problems , 1993 .

[8]  Carl Peck,et al.  Postmarketing drug dosage changes of 499 FDA‐approved new molecular entities, 1980–1999 , 2002, Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety.

[9]  Colin Scott,et al.  Regulation in the Age of Governance: The Rise of the Post-Regulatory State , 2004 .

[10]  David O. Meltzer,et al.  Do Important Drugs Reach the Market Sooner , 1994 .

[11]  B. Bloom,et al.  The regulation of pharmaceuticals : balancing the benefits and risks , 1984 .

[12]  S. Epstein Impure Science: AIDS, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge , 1998, Nature Medicine.

[13]  S. Wolfe,et al.  Timing of new black box warnings and withdrawals for prescription medications. , 2002, JAMA.

[14]  D. Raiford,et al.  Therapeutic Ratings and End‐of‐Phase II Conferences: Initiatives to Accelerate the Availability of Important New Drugs Kenneth I. Kaitin, PhD , 1991, Journal of clinical pharmacology.

[15]  B. Strom,et al.  Screening for Unknown Effects of Newly Marketed Drugs , 1992 .

[16]  J. Senior,et al.  Troglitazone-induced liver failure: a case study. , 2003, The American journal of medicine.

[17]  Pravin K. Trivedi,et al.  Regression Analysis of Count Data , 1998 .

[18]  William E. Patrick The Food and Drug Administration , 1988 .

[19]  M. Olson Managing Delegation in the FDA: Reducing Delay in New-Drug Review , 2004, Journal of health politics, policy and law.