Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19810777›Full record

ArticleDrug safety2009

Risk management policy and black-box warnings: a qualitative analysis of US FDA proceedings.

Daniel M Cook, Rama K Gurugubelli, Lisa A Bero

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Drug safety, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Comparison of the safety information on drug labels in three developed countries: The USA, UK and Canada.Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society · 2017
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Different black box warning labeling for same-class drugs.Journal of general internal medicine · 2011
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Daniel M CookSchool of Community Health Sciences, University of Nevada Reno, Reno, Nevada 89557, USA. dmcook@unr.edu
Rama K Gurugubelli
Lisa A Bero
University of Nevada, Reno · USUniversity of California, San Francisco · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe US FDA increasingly applies risk management to drug safety policy. Little is known about the process by which the FDA approves labelling changes. Although advisory committees can recommend any of the risk management tools, including the use of 'black-box warnings', it is unknown whether they deliberate on these questions or how they apply the principles of risk minimization or management during their considerations of drug licensing.

objectiveTo examine the process by which risk management is considered by the FDA, including the role of FDA advisory committees. We also aimed to identify and describe drug labelling changes and additions, including the prevalence of black-box warnings.

methodsWe electronically obtained publicly available information regarding drug approvals, drug revisions and advisory committee meetings over 3 years (2004-6) from the FDA. Data in the form of meeting transcripts and full histories of labelling changes were collected on drugs discussed by advisory committees. We then searched and qualitatively analysed the meeting transcripts to identify themes in the discussion. We also created a database of all prescription drug labelling changes for 3 years and examined which drugs have had the most changes. We describe the risk management consideration process and report the frequency and characteristics of labelling changes. Excerpts from the transcripts are selected to illustrate both typical and atypical features of the discussion.

findingsA total of 174 black-box changes were made in the 3-year period of our study, of which 77 were new black-box warnings and 97 were revisions in black-box warnings. Of 77 new black-box warning additions, only 11 drugs were discussed by the advisory committees. Of the 17 most frequently revised drug labels in these 3 years, two were discussed in the advisory committee meetings. Advisory meeting discussions revealed confusion about black-box warnings and emphasized potential consequences of the warnings rather than their content.

conclusionThe safety labelling of drugs on the market is changed often. Panels of advisors consider only a few drugs, rarely discuss the labelling requirements, and display confusion about applying black-box warnings. The creation and application of black-box warnings on prescription medications should receive closer attention from the FDA and its advisors.

Indexed as

United States Food and Drug AdministrationAdvisory CommitteesDrug LabelingDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsHealth PolicyHumansLegislation, DrugRisk ManagementUnited States

Identifiers

PMID19810777
OpenAlexW64810405

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.