Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28238125›Full record

ArticleDrug safety2017

Post-Marketing Regulation of Medicines Withdrawn from the Market Because of Drug-Attributed Deaths: An Analysis of Justification.

Igho J Onakpoya, Carl J Heneghan, Jeffrey K Aronson

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Drug safety, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Pharmacovigilance and Appropriate Drug Use.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. 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, Gibson Building, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK. igho.onakpoya@kellogg.ox.ac.uk.
Carl J HeneghanNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, University of Oxford, Gibson Building, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK.
Jeffrey K AronsonNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, University of Oxford, Gibson Building, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionSeveral medicinal products have been withdrawn from the market because of drug-attributed deaths. However, there has been no investigation of whether such withdrawals were justified, and the extent to which confirmatory studies are used to investigate drug-adverse event relationships when deaths are reported is uncertain. We documented medicinal products withdrawn from the market because of drug-attributed deaths, identified confirmatory studies investigating the drug-adverse event relationships, examined whether withdrawals of medicinal products because of drug-attributed deaths after marketing were justified based on a mechanistic analysis, and examined the trends over time.

methodsWe searched electronic and non-electronic sources to identify medicinal products that were withdrawn because of drug-attributed deaths. We used a previously published algorithm to examine whether the withdrawals of products were justified. We then searched PubMed and Google Scholar to identify studies investigating the drug-adverse event relationships, used the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine criteria to document the levels of evidence, and assessed whether the evidence of an association was confirmed.

resultsWe included 83 medicinal products. The reasons for withdrawal appeared to have been justified in 80 cases (96%). The median interval between the first reported adverse reaction that was related to the cause of death and the first reported death was 1 year (interquartile range = 1-3); products were withdrawn sooner when the interval between the first reported relevant adverse reaction and the first death was shorter. Confirmatory studies were conducted in 57 instances (69%), and there was evidence of an association in 52 cases (63%). Four products (5%) were re-introduced after initial withdrawal.

conclusionRegulatory authorities have been justified in making withdrawal decisions when deaths have been attributed to medicinal products, using the precautionary principle when alternative decisions could have been made. Medicinal products are likely to be quickly withdrawn from the market when there is a short interval to the first reported deaths. The use of an algorithm such as we have used in this study could help to expedite the process of decision making.

Indexed as

Product Surveillance, PostmarketingAlgorithmsCause of DeathDecision MakingDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsEvidence-Based MedicineHumansSafety-Based Drug Withdrawals

Identifiers

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.