Adverse event detection in drug development: recommendations and obligations beyond phase 3.

Premarketing studies of drugs, although large enough to demonstrate efficacy and detect common adverse events, cannot reliably detect an increased incidence of rare adverse events or events with significant latency. For most drugs, only about 500 to 3000 participants are studied, for relatively short durations, before a drug is marketed. Systems for assessment of postmarketing adverse events include spontaneous reports, computerized claims or medical record databases, and formal postmarketing studies. We briefly review the strengths and limitations of each. Postmarketing surveillance is essential for developing a full understanding of the balance between benefits and adverse effects. More work is needed in analysis of data from spontaneous reports of adverse effects and automated databases, design of ad hoc studies, and design of economically feasible large randomized studies.

[1]  J. Drazen,et al.  Blueprint for a stronger Food and Drug Administration. , 2006, The New England journal of medicine.

[2]  A. Mitchell,et al.  When a Randomised Controlled Trial is Needed to Assess Drug Safety , 1995, Drug safety.

[3]  S. Ellenberg Safety considerations for new vaccine development , 2001, Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety.

[4]  Andrew A. Signore,et al.  Pharmaceutical Industry Profile , 2005 .

[5]  William DuMouchel,et al.  Bayesian Data Mining in Large Frequency Tables, with an Application to the FDA Spontaneous Reporting System , 1999 .

[6]  A. Mitchell,et al.  An assessment of the safety of pediatric ibuprofen. A practitioner-based randomized clinical trial. , 1995, JAMA.

[7]  C. Stein,et al.  Making medicines safer--the need for an independent drug safety board. , 1998, The New England journal of medicine.

[8]  R. W. Hansen,et al.  The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs. , 2003, Journal of health economics.

[9]  J. DiMasi New drug development in the United States from 1963 to 1999 , 2001, Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics.

[10]  J. Hasford Drug risk assessment: A case for large trials with lean protocols , 1994 .

[11]  J. Boivin,et al.  Bias and Confounding in Pharmacoepidemiology , 2002 .

[12]  Susan S Ellenberg,et al.  Evaluating the safety of new vaccines: summary of a workshop. , 2005, American journal of public health.

[13]  Peter A Gross,et al.  The FDA and drug safety: a proposal for sweeping changes. , 2006, Archives of internal medicine.

[14]  R. Coulson,et al.  Revitalizing the General Practice Research Database: plans, challenges, and opportunities , 2001, Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety.

[15]  Corri Black,et al.  Validity of the General Practice Research Database , 2003, Pharmacotherapy.

[16]  B. Strom,et al.  How the US drug safety system should be changed. , 2006, JAMA.

[17]  W. DuMouchel,et al.  Disproportionality analysis using empirical Bayes data mining: a tool for the evaluation of drug interactions in the post‐marketing setting , 2003, Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety.

[18]  S. Gutthann,et al.  Use of the UK General Practice Research Database for pharmacoepidemiology. , 1998, British journal of clinical pharmacology.

[19]  P. Rhodes,et al.  Comparative safety of two recombinant hepatitis B vaccines in children: data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD). , 1998, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[20]  R Peto,et al.  Why do we need some large, simple randomized trials? , 1984, Statistics in medicine.

[21]  Syed Rizwanuddin Ahmad,et al.  Adverse drug event monitoring at the food and drug administration , 2003, Journal of general internal medicine.

[22]  M. Braun,et al.  Data mining in the US Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS): early detection of intussusception and other events after rotavirus vaccination. , 2001, Vaccine.

[23]  C Michael Stein,et al.  Reform of drug regulation--beyond an independent drug-safety board. , 2006, The New England journal of medicine.