Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34983612›Full record

ArticleOrphanet journal of rare diseases2022

Postmarketing safety of orphan drugs: a longitudinal analysis of the US Food and Drug Administration database between 1999 and 2018.

Min Fan, Adrienne Y L Chan, Vincent K C Yan, Xinning Tong, Lauren K W Lau, Eric Y F Wan, Eliza Y T Tam, Patrick Ip, Terry Y Lum, Ian C K Wong and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Orphanet journal of rare diseases, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Special FDA designations for drug development: orphan, fast track, accelerated approval, priority review, and breakthrough therapy.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2024
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. 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

11 authors.

Min Fan *Centre for Safe Medication Practice and Research, Department of Pharmacology and Pharmacy, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, L2-59, 2/F, Laboratory Block, Faculty of Medicine Building, 21 Sassoon Road, Pokfulam, Hong Kong.
Adrienne Y L Chan *Centre for Safe Medication Practice and Research, Department of Pharmacology and Pharmacy, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, L2-59, 2/F, Laboratory Block, Faculty of Medicine Building, 21 Sassoon Road, Pokfulam, Hong Kong.
Vincent K C YanCentre for Safe Medication Practice and Research, Department of Pharmacology and Pharmacy, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, L2-59, 2/F, Laboratory Block, Faculty of Medicine Building, 21 Sassoon Road, Pokfulam, Hong Kong.
Xinning TongDepartment of Medicine, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong.
Lauren K W LauCentre for Safe Medication Practice and Research, Department of Pharmacology and Pharmacy, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, L2-59, 2/F, Laboratory Block, Faculty of Medicine Building, 21 Sassoon Road, Pokfulam, Hong Kong.
Eric Y F WanCentre for Safe Medication Practice and Research, Department of Pharmacology and Pharmacy, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, L2-59, 2/F, Laboratory Block, Faculty of Medicine Building, 21 Sassoon Road, Pokfulam, Hong Kong.
Eliza Y T TamCentre for Safe Medication Practice and Research, Department of Pharmacology and Pharmacy, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, L2-59, 2/F, Laboratory Block, Faculty of Medicine Building, 21 Sassoon Road, Pokfulam, Hong Kong.
Patrick IpDepartment of Paediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong.
Terry Y LumDepartment of Social Work and Social Administration, Faculty of Social Sciences, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong.
Ian C K WongCentre for Safe Medication Practice and Research, Department of Pharmacology and Pharmacy, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, L2-59, 2/F, Laboratory Block, Faculty of Medicine Building, 21 Sassoon Road, Pokfulam, Hong Kong.
X LiCentre for Safe Medication Practice and Research, Department of Pharmacology and Pharmacy, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, L2-59, 2/F, Laboratory Block, Faculty of Medicine Building, 21 Sassoon Road, Pokfulam, Hong Kong. sxueli@hku.hk.ORCID 0000-0003-4836-7808

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInformation about the specific regulatory environment of orphan drugs is scarce and inconsistent. Uncertainties surrounding the postmarketing long-term safety of orphan drugs remain. This study aimed to evaluate the labelling changes of orphan drugs and to identify postmarketing safety-associated approval factors.

methodsThis retrospective cohort study includes all drugs with orphan drug designation approved by the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research of the US Food and Drug Administration between 1999 and 2018. Main outcomes are safety-related labelling changes up to 31 December 2019. We defined any safety-related labelling changes as postmarketing safety events (PMSE). Safety-related withdrawals, suspensions, and boxed warnings were further categorised as severe postmarketing safety events (SPSE). Outcome measurements include frequencies of PMSE, SPSE, and association between approval factors and the occurrence of safety events.

resultsAmongst the 214 drugs identified with orphan drug designation (25.7% biologics), 83.6% were approved through at least one expedited programme, and 29.4% were approved with boxed warnings. During a median follow-up of 6.74 years since approval, 69.2% and 14.5% of the analysed orphan drugs had PMSE and SPSE, respectively. Safety-related withdrawal (0%, 0/214), suspended marketing (0.46%, 1/214) and new boxed warnings are uncommon (3.7%, 8/214). The safety-related labelling changes were more frequent in the drugs approved with boxed warnings [Incidence rate ratio (IRR): 1.95 (1.02-3.73)] and approved for long-term use [IRR: 2.76 (1.52-5.00)]. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this long-term postmarketing analysis, approximately 70% of FDA-approved orphan drugs had safety-related labelling changes although severe safety events were rare. While maintaining early access to orphan drugs, the drug regulatory body has taken timely regulatory action with postmarketing surveillance to ensure patient safety.

Indexed as

Drug ApprovalOrphan Drug ProductionHumansProduct Surveillance, PostmarketingRetrospective StudiesUnited StatesUnited States Food and Drug AdministrationAdverse eventsMedication safetyOrphan drug designationPostmarketing surveillanceRisk–benefit trade-off

Identifiers

PMID34983612
PMCPMC8728968

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.