The FDA and drug safety: A proposal for sweeping changes

Archives of Internal Medicine

Volumn 166, Issue 18, 2006, Pages 1938-1942

  Furberg, Curt D ^a   Levin, Arthur A ^b   Gross, Peter A ^c,d   Shapiro, Robyn S ^e   Strom, Brian L ^f  

^a WAKE FOREST SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b Center for Medical Consumers   (United States)

^c HACKENSACK UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^d RUTGERS NEW JERSEY MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^e Medical College of Wisconsin Center for the Study of Bioethics   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BROMFENAC; CENTRAL STIMULANT AGENT; CISAPRIDE; CYCLOOXYGENASE 2 INHIBITOR; DEXFENFLURAMINE; FENFLURAMINE; MIBEFRADIL; PHENTERMINE; SEROTONIN UPTAKE INHIBITOR; TERFENADINE; TOLCAPONE; TROGLITAZONE; TROVAFLOXACIN;

ATTENTION DEFICIT DISORDER; DEPRESSION; DRUG APPROVAL; DRUG INDUSTRY; DRUG MARKETING; DRUG MONITORING; DRUG SAFETY; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; LAW ENFORCEMENT; MEDICAL PROFESSION; PAIN; POSTMARKETING SURVEILLANCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLIC HEALTH; REVIEW; TRICUSPID VALVE DISEASE;

DRUG APPROVAL; HUMANS; PRODUCT SURVEILLANCE, POSTMARKETING; RISK MANAGEMENT; SAFETY; UNITED STATES; UNITED STATES FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION;

EID: 33749583399     PISSN: 00039926     EISSN: 15383679     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1001/archinte.166.18.1938     Document Type: Review

References (34)

1. Moore TJ. Prescription for Disaster: The Hidden Dangers in Your Medicine Cabinet. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster; 1998:17.
2. Lazarou J, Pomeranz BH, Corey PN. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. JAMA. 1998;279:1200-1205.
3. Kelly WN. Can the frequency and risks of fatal adverse drug events be determined? Pharmacotherapy. 2001;21:521-527.
4. Goozner M. Public's faith in FDA shows sharp slide. May 24, 2006. http://gooznews.com. Accessed August 8, 2006.
5. Connolly HM, Crary JL, McGoon MD, et al. Valvular heart disease associated with fenfluramine-phentermine. N Engl J Med. 1997;337:581-588.
6. Mundy A. Dispensing With the Truth: The Victims, the Drug Companies, and the Dramatic Story Behind the Battle Over Fen-phen. New York, NY: St Martin's Press; 2001.
7. Moore TJ. Deadly Medicine: Why Tens of Thousands of Heart Patients Died in America's Worst Drug Disaster. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster; 1995.
8. US Senate, Committee on Finance. Opening statement of US Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Chairman, Senate Committee on Finance: hearing - FDA, Merck and Vioxx: putting patient safety first? November 18, 2004. http://finance. senate.gov/hearings/statements/111804cg.pdf. Accessed August 8, 2006.
9. Committee on Government Reform. Opening statement of Chairman Tom Davis: risk and responsibility: the roles of FDA and pharmaceutical companies in ensuring the safety of approved drugs, like Vioxx. May 5, 2005. http://reform.house.gov/GovReform/Hearings/EventSingle.aspx?EventID=26298. Accessed August 8, 2006.
10. Psaty BM, Furberg CD, Ray WA, et al. Potential for conflict of interest in the evaluation of suspected adverse drug reactions: use of cerivastatin and risk of rhabdomyolysis. JAMA. 2004;292:2622-2631.
11. Caplovitz A; The New Jersey Public Interest Research Group Law and Policy Center. Turning Medicine Into Snake Oil: How Pharmaceutical Marketers Put Patients at Risk . May 2006. http://njpirg.org/reports/TurningMedintoSnakeOil. pdf. Accessed August 8, 2006.
12. Moore TJ, Psaty BM, Furberg CD. Time to act on drug safety. JAMA. 1998;279:1571-1573.
13. Wood AJJ, Stein CM, Woosley R. Making medicines safer - the need for an independent drug safety board. N Engl J Med. 1998;339:1851-1854.
14. Ray WA, Stein CM. Reform of drug regulation - beyond an independent drug safety board. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:194-201.
15. Strom BL. How the US drug safety system should be changed. JAMA. 2006;295:2072-2075.
16. Roth-Cline MD. Clinical trials in the wake of Vioxx: requiring statistically extreme evidence of benefit to ensure the safety of new drugs. Circulation. 2006;113:2253-2259.
17. Avorn J. Evaluating drug effects in the post-Vioxx world: there must be a better way. Circulation. 2006;113:2173-2176.
18. US General Accounting Office. FDA Drug Review: Post-approval Risks, 1976-85. Washington, DC: US General Accounting Office; April 26, 1990. GAO/PEMD 90-15.
19. Wysowski DK, Swartz L. Adverse drug event surveillance and drug withdrawals in the United States, 1969-2002: the importance of reporting suspected reactions. Arch Intern Med. 2005;165:1363-1369.
20. Kessler DA. Introducing MEDWatch: a new approach to reporting medication and device adverse events and product problems. JAMA. 1993;269:2765-2768.
21. Scott HD, Rosenbaum SE, Waters WJ, et al. Rhode Island physicians' recognition and reporting of adverse drug reactions. R I Med J. 1987;70:311-316.
22. Friedman MA, Woodcock J, Lumpkin MM, Shuren JE, Hass AE, Thompson LJ. The safety of newly approved medicines: do recent market removals mean there is a problem? JAMA. 1999;281:1728-1734.
23. Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997. Pub L No. 105-115, 111 Stat 2296 (1997).
24. Food and Drug Administration. Report on the performance of drug and biologics firms in conducting post-marketing commitment studies: availability. 71 Federal Register 10978-10979 (2006).
25. United States Government Accountability Office. Drug Safety: Improvement Needed in FDA's Postmarket Decision-Making and Oversight Process. Washington, DC: US Government Accountability Office; March 2006. GAO-06-402 FDA Postmarket Drug Safety.
26. Prescription Drug User Fee Act of 1992. Pub L No. 102-571, 106 Stat 4491 (1992).
27. Croley SP. Practical guidance on the applicability of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Am University Administrative Law J. 1996;1996:111-178.
28. FDA Awards Contracts on Databases of Adverse Effects of Marketed Drugs: Ability to Monitor Approved Drugs Enhanced. Food and Drug Administration. October 7, 2005. Talk paper T05-30. http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/answers/2005/ ans01368.html. Accessed January 6, 2006.
29. Joint Commission on Prescription Drug Use. Report of the Joint Commission on Prescription Drug Use: Final Report. Rockville, Md: Joint Commission on Prescription Drug Use Inc; 1990.
30. Strom BL. Potential for conflict of interest in the evaluation of suspected adverse drug reactions: a counterpoint. JAMA. 2004;292:2643-2646.
31. Mukherjee D, Nissen SE, Topol EJ. Risk of cardiovascular events associated with selective COX-2 inhibitors. JAMA. 2001;286:954-959.
32. TMT review of COX-2 committee voting. March 2, 2005. http://www. masterdocs.com/voting.htm. Accessed January 16, 2005.
33. Nissen SE, Wolski K, Topol EJ. Effect of muraglitazar on death and major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. JAMA. 2005;294:2581-2586.
34. Center for Science in the Public Interest. Conflicts of interest on COX-2 panel: research from CSPIs Integrity in Science Project. February 25, 2005. http://www.cspinet.org/integrity/press/200502251.html. Accessed January 22, 2006.