BACKGROUND: At time of approval, knowledge of the full benefit risk of any drug is limited, in particular with regards to safety. Post-approval surveillance of potential drug safety concerns is recognized as an important task of regulatory agencies. For innovative, often first-in-class drugs, safety knowledge at time of approval is often even less extensive and these may require tighter scrutiny post approval. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated whether more post-approval serious safety issues were identified for drugs with a higher level of innovation. METHODS: A cohort study was performed that included all new active substances approved under the European Centralized Procedure and for which serious safety issues were identified post-approval from 1 January 1999 to 1 January 2012. Serious safety issues were defined as issues requiring a Direct Healthcare Professional Communication to alert individual healthcare professionals of a new serious safety issue, or a safety-related drug withdrawal. Data were retrieved from publicly available websites of the Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board and the European Medicines Agency. The level of innovation was scored using a validated algorithm, grading drugs as important (A), moderate (B) or modest (C) innovations or as pharmacological or technological (pharm/tech) innovations. The data were analyzed using appropriate descriptive statistics and Kaplan-Meier analysis, with a Mantel-Cox log-rank test, and Cox-regression models correcting for follow-up duration, to identify a possible trend in serious safety issues with an increasing level of innovation. RESULTS: In Europe, 279 new drugs were approved between 1999 and 2011. Fifty-nine (21 %) were graded as important, 63 (23 %) moderate, or 34 (12 %) modest innovations and 123 (44 %) as non-innovative (pharm/tech), while 15 (25 %), 13 (21 %), 8 (24 %) and 17 (14 %) had post-approval safety issues, respectively (p = 0.06, linear-by-linear test). Five drugs were withdrawn from the market. The Kaplan-Meier-derived probability for having a first serious safety issue was statistically significant, log-rank (Mantel-Cox) p = 0.036. In the final adjusted Cox proportional hazard model there was no statistically significant difference in occurrence of a first serious safety issue for important, moderate and modest innovations versus non-innovative drugs; hazard ratios 1.76 (95 % CI 0.82-3.77), 1.61 (95 % CI 0.76-3.41)], and 1.25 (95 % CI 0.51-3.06), respectively. CONCLUSION: A higher level of innovation was not clearly related to an increased risk of serious safety issues identified after approval.
BACKGROUND: At time of approval, knowledge of the full benefit risk of any drug is limited, in particular with regards to safety. Post-approval surveillance of potential drug safety concerns is recognized as an important task of regulatory agencies. For innovative, often first-in-class drugs, safety knowledge at time of approval is often even less extensive and these may require tighter scrutiny post approval. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated whether more post-approval serious safety issues were identified for drugs with a higher level of innovation. METHODS: A cohort study was performed that included all new active substances approved under the European Centralized Procedure and for which serious safety issues were identified post-approval from 1 January 1999 to 1 January 2012. Serious safety issues were defined as issues requiring a Direct Healthcare Professional Communication to alert individual healthcare professionals of a new serious safety issue, or a safety-related drug withdrawal. Data were retrieved from publicly available websites of the Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board and the European Medicines Agency. The level of innovation was scored using a validated algorithm, grading drugs as important (A), moderate (B) or modest (C) innovations or as pharmacological or technological (pharm/tech) innovations. The data were analyzed using appropriate descriptive statistics and Kaplan-Meier analysis, with a Mantel-Cox log-rank test, and Cox-regression models correcting for follow-up duration, to identify a possible trend in serious safety issues with an increasing level of innovation. RESULTS: In Europe, 279 new drugs were approved between 1999 and 2011. Fifty-nine (21 %) were graded as important, 63 (23 %) moderate, or 34 (12 %) modest innovations and 123 (44 %) as non-innovative (pharm/tech), while 15 (25 %), 13 (21 %), 8 (24 %) and 17 (14 %) had post-approval safety issues, respectively (p = 0.06, linear-by-linear test). Five drugs were withdrawn from the market. The Kaplan-Meier-derived probability for having a first serious safety issue was statistically significant, log-rank (Mantel-Cox) p = 0.036. In the final adjusted Cox proportional hazard model there was no statistically significant difference in occurrence of a first serious safety issue for important, moderate and modest innovations versus non-innovative drugs; hazard ratios 1.76 (95 % CI 0.82-3.77), 1.61 (95 % CI 0.76-3.41)], and 1.25 (95 % CI 0.51-3.06), respectively. CONCLUSION: A higher level of innovation was not clearly related to an increased risk of serious safety issues identified after approval.
Authors: Peter G M Mol; Sabine M J M Straus; Sigrid Piening; Jonie T N de Vries; Pieter A de Graeff; Flora M Haaijer-Ruskamp Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2010-06-01 Impact factor: 5.606
Authors: Harald E Heemstra; Thijs J Giezen; Aukje K Mantel-Teeuwisse; Remco L A de Vrueh; Hubert G M Leufkens Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2010-02-01 Impact factor: 5.606
Authors: Arna H Arnardottir; Flora M Haaijer-Ruskamp; Sabine M J Straus; Hans-Georg Eichler; Pieter A de Graeff; Peter G M Mol Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Ruben G Duijnhoven; Sabine M J M Straus; June M Raine; Anthonius de Boer; Arno W Hoes; Marie L De Bruin Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2013-03-19 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Alexandra C Pacurariu; Preciosa M Coloma; Anja van Haren; Georgy Genov; Miriam C J M Sturkenboom; Sabine M J M Straus Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 5.606
Authors: Yasamin A Jodat; Min G Kang; Kiavash Kiaee; Gyeong J Kim; Angel F H Martinez; Aliza Rosenkranz; Hojae Bae; Su R Shin Journal: Curr Pharm Des Date: 2018 Impact factor: 3.116
Authors: Tanja Waldmann; Eugen Rempel; Nina V Balmer; André König; Raivo Kolde; John Antonydas Gaspar; Margit Henry; Jürgen Hescheler; Agapios Sachinidis; Jörg Rahnenführer; Jan G Hengstler; Marcel Leist Journal: Chem Res Toxicol Date: 2014-01-21 Impact factor: 3.739
Authors: B Zimmer; G Pallocca; N Dreser; S Foerster; T Waldmann; J Westerhout; S Julien; K H Krause; C van Thriel; J G Hengstler; A Sachinidis; S Bosgra; M Leist Journal: Arch Toxicol Date: 2014-04-02 Impact factor: 5.153
Authors: Carla J Jonker; H Marijke van den Berg; Marcel S G Kwa; Arno W Hoes; Peter G M Mol Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2017-10-06 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Vaibhav Shinde; Lisa Hoelting; Sureshkumar Perumal Srinivasan; Johannes Meisig; Kesavan Meganathan; Smita Jagtap; Marianna Grinberg; Julia Liebing; Nils Bluethgen; Jörg Rahnenführer; Eugen Rempel; Regina Stoeber; Stefan Schildknecht; Sunniva Förster; Patricio Godoy; Christoph van Thriel; John Antonydas Gaspar; Jürgen Hescheler; Tanja Waldmann; Jan G Hengstler; Marcel Leist; Agapios Sachinidis Journal: Arch Toxicol Date: 2016-05-17 Impact factor: 5.153