Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26483954›Full record

ArticleJournal of pharmaceutical policy and practice2015

Regulatory withdrawal of medicines marketed with uncertain benefits: the bevacizumab case study.

Agnes Vitry, Tuan Nguyen, Vikky Entwistle, Elizabeth Roughead

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Aducanumab, Accelerated Approvals & the Agency: Why the FDA Needs Structural Reform.The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2023
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Formulating an Ethics of Pharmaceutical Disinvestment.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2020
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Population-Based Outcomes in NSCLC.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2019
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. 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

4 authors.

Agnes VitryQuality Use of Medicines and Pharmacy Research Centre, Sansom Institute, School of Pharmacy and Medical Sciences, University of South Australia, GPO Box 2471, Adelaide, SA 5001 Australia.
Tuan NguyenQuality Use of Medicines and Pharmacy Research Centre, Sansom Institute, School of Pharmacy and Medical Sciences, University of South Australia, GPO Box 2471, Adelaide, SA 5001 Australia.
Vikky EntwistleHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD United Kingdom.
Elizabeth RougheadQuality Use of Medicines and Pharmacy Research Centre, Sansom Institute, School of Pharmacy and Medical Sciences, University of South Australia, GPO Box 2471, Adelaide, SA 5001 Australia.

Funding

Chief Scientist Office HSRU2
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWithdrawal of conditional regulatory approval or subsidization of new medicines when subsequent evidence does not confirm early trial results may not be well understood or accepted by the public.

objectivesWe present a case study of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s decision to withdraw the indication of bevacizumab for the treatment of advanced breast cancer and include an analysis of the reactions of stakeholders with a view to identifying opportunities for improving risk management for new medicines with conditional approval or funding.

methodsWe drew on a range of information sources, including FDA documents, medical journals and media reports, to describe the evidentiary basis of the FDA decisions. We analysed the reactions and perspectives of the stakeholders.

resultsIn 2008 bevacizumab was granted conditional approval for treatment of advanced breast cancer by the FDA pending submission of supplementary satisfactory evidence. In 2011 the FDA decision to withdraw the indication was met with a hostile reaction from many clinicians and cancer survivors. There were different interpretations of the therapeutic value of bevacizumab with strong beliefs among cancer survivors that the medicine was effective and potential harm was manageable. High expectations of the public may have been encouraged by overly positive media reports and limited understanding by the public of the complexity of the scientific evaluation of new medicines and of the regulatory processes.

conclusionsImproving understanding and acceptance of approval or coverage schemes conditional to evidence development may require the development of risk management plans by regulatory and funding institutions. They may include a range of strategies such as requirements for formal patient acknowledgment of the conditional availability of the medicine, 'black-triangle' equivalent labels that identify full approval is based on pending evidence, and ongoing communication with the media, public and health professionals.

Indexed as

Coverage with evidence developmentManaged entry agreementMedicine subsidizationPharmaceutical policy

Identifiers

PMID26483954
PMCPMC4610052

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.