ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2015
Regulatory review time and post-market safety events for novel medicines approved by the EMA between 2001 and 2010: a cross-sectional study.
Article in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Factors associated with hematological adverse reactions of drugs authorized via the centralized procedure.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Postmarketing safety of orphan drugs: a longitudinal analysis of the US Food and Drug Administration database between 1999 and 2018.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2022Article
- Approval of Cancer Drugs With Uncertain Therapeutic Value: A Comparison of Regulatory Decisions in Europe and the United States.The Milbank quarterly · 2020Article
- Health Canada's Proposal to Accelerate New Drug Reviews.Healthcare policy = Politiques de sante · 2020Article
- Article
- A comparison of new drugs approved by the FDA, the EMA, and Swissmedic: an assessment of the international harmonization of drugs.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2018Article
- Postmarketing studies for novel drugs approved by both the FDA and EMA between 2005 and 2010: a cross-sectional study.BMJ open · 2017Article
- Enhancing postmarketing surveillance: continuing challenges.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2015Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsRegulatory review time has been associated with post-market medication safety issues in the United States. Our objective was to evaluate whether regulatory review time and near deadline approval are associated with post-market safety events (PMSEs) for novel medicines approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA).
methodsWe performed a cross-sectional analysis of all novel medicines approved by the EMA through the centralized authorization procedure between 2001 and 2010. PMSEs were defined as withdrawals and communications identified through Dear Healthcare Professional Communications (DHPCs). Regulatory review time was defined as the time that elapsed between the start of the assessment procedure and approval. Near regulatory deadline approval was defined as approval within the 30 days before the EMA's 210 day regulatory deadline.
resultsAmong 161 eligible medicines, PMSEs were identified for 49 (30.4%), 44 of which were DHPCs, five of which were withdrawals. Median regulatory review time was 337 days (IQR 276-406) and was not associated with PMSEs (P = 0.57). However, when categorized by regulatory review speed tertile, there were differences in risk of PMSEs, with higher rates among medicines in the middle tertile (25 of 55, 45.4%; P = 0.01). Finally, 26 medicines were approved near the 210 day regulatory deadline, but were not more likely to have PMSEs (38.5% vs. 28.7%; P = 0.32).
conclusionsNeither faster EMA regulatory review speed nor approval near regulatory deadlines was associated with greater likelihood of PMSEs among recently approved novel medicines.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.