Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25651859›Full record

ArticleBMC medicine2015

Delays in the post-marketing withdrawal of drugs to which deaths have been attributed: a systematic investigation and analysis.

Igho J Onakpoya, Carl J Heneghan, Jeffrey K Aronson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Pharmacovigilance and Appropriate Drug Use.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. The race for drug approvals: hasten slowly?European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2018
    Article
  18. Trade Agreements and Direct-to-Consumer Advertising of Pharmaceuticals.International journal of health policy and management · 2018
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Igho J OnakpoyaNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Centre for Evidence-based Medicine, University of Oxford, New Radcliffe House, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Oxford OX2 6GG, UK. igho.onakpoya@phc.ox.ac.uk.
Carl J Heneghan
Jeffrey K Aronson

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPost-marketing withdrawal of medicinal products because of deaths can be occasioned by evidence obtained from case reports, observational studies, randomized trials, or systematic reviews. There have been no studies of the pattern of withdrawals of medicinal products to which deaths have been specifically attributed and the evidence that affects such decisions. Our objectives were to identify medicinal products that were withdrawn after marketing in association with deaths, to search for the evidence on which withdrawal decisions were based, and to analyse the delays involved and the worldwide patterns of withdrawal.

methodsWe searched the World Health Organization's Consolidated List of [Medicinal] Products, drug regulatory authorities' websites, PubMed, Google Scholar, and textbooks on adverse drug reactions. We included medicinal products for which death was specifically mentioned as a reason for withdrawal from the market. Non-human medicines, herbal products, and non-prescription medicines were excluded. One reviewer extracted the data and a second reviewer verified them independently.

resultsWe found 95 drugs for which death was documented as a reason for withdrawal between 1950 and 2013. All were withdrawn in at least one country, but at least 16 remained on the market in some countries. Withdrawals were more common in European countries; few were recorded in Africa (5.3%). The more recent the launch date, the sooner deaths were reported. However, in 47% of cases more than 2 years elapsed between the first report of a death and withdrawal of the drug, and the interval between the first report of a death attributed to a medicinal product and eventual withdrawal of the product has not improved over the last 60 years.

conclusionsThese results suggest that some deaths associated with these products could have been avoided. Manufacturers and regulatory authorities should expedite investigations when deaths are reported as suspected adverse drug reactions and consider early suspensions. Increased transparency in the publication of clinical trials data and improved international co-ordination could shorten the delays in withdrawing dangerous medicinal products after reports of deaths and obviate discrepancies in drug withdrawals in different countries.

Indexed as

Safety-Based Drug WithdrawalsDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsEuropeHumansProduct Surveillance, Postmarketing

Identifiers

PMID25651859
PMCPMC4318389

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.