SRxA’s Word on Health was alarmed to read a new study showing that almost a quarter of prescription drugs approved in Canada over 16 years were later slapped with serious safety warnings or yanked from the market for safety reasons. As Canada’s drug safety agency operates much like the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the study may reflect the state of drug safety in the United States as well.
When assessing a new drug, regulators at Health Canada and the FDA are entrusted with making critical and difficult scientific judgments that can affect the health of hundreds of thousands of patients in a matter of months after product launch.
And the cost of error may be high given that the number of people exposed to unsafe drugs may be in the millions.
Lexchin found that drugs approved this way were 50% more likely to end up with safety warnings, compared with drugs approved according to the customary deliberation period.
And while you might assume that the most-risky drugs would be those those fast-tracked for approval for life-threatening diseases such as cancer and HIV, Lexchin discovered they were no more likely to have safety concerns than drugs fast-tracked for less serious illnesses.
That was a surprise, because regulators could be expected to accept some heightened risks when approving new medications to treat serious illness.
In an accompanying editorial, Thomas J. Moore of the Institute for Safe Medication Practices suggests that new drugs should carry special labeling for their first three years on the market, so that doctors are reminded to prescribe with caution.
“Getting faster access to newer, less-thoroughly tested drugs is at best a mixed blessing,” said Moore. “For the first three years after approval, new drugs should carry a special warning akin to the black triangle used in Britain. It should be prominent and mean to every physician, ‘New Drug: Caution Indicated.’ ”
That caution may be worth remembering by both physicians and patients when considering switching to new drugs.