Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Jan 23;8(1):e019759.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019759.

Investigation assessing the publicly available evidence supporting postmarketing withdrawals, revocations and suspensions of marketing authorisations in the EU since 2012

Affiliations

Investigation assessing the publicly available evidence supporting postmarketing withdrawals, revocations and suspensions of marketing authorisations in the EU since 2012

Samantha Lane et al. BMJ Open. .

Abstract

Objectives: To assess the sources of publicly available evidence supporting withdrawal, revocation or suspension of marketing authorisations ('regulatory actions') due to safety reasons in the EU since 2012 and to investigate the time taken since initial marketing authorisation to reach these regulatory decisions.

Setting: This investigation examined the sources of evidence supporting 18 identified prescription medicinal products which underwent regulatory action due to safety reasons within the EU in the period 1 July 2012 to 31 December 2016.

Results: Eighteen single or combined active substances ('medicinal products') withdrawn, revoked or suspended within the EU for safety reasons between 2012 and 2016 met the inclusion criteria. Case reports were most commonly cited, supporting 94.4% of regulatory actions (n=17), followed by randomised controlled trial, meta-analyses, animal and in vitro, ex vivo or in silico study designs, each cited in 72.2% of regulatory actions (n=13). Epidemiological study designs were least commonly cited (n=8, 44.4%). Multiple sources of evidence contributed to 94.4% of regulatory decisions (n=17). Death was the most common adverse drug reaction leading to regulatory action (n=5; 27.8%), with four of these related to medication error or overdose. Median (IQR) time taken to reach a decision from the start of regulatory review was found to be 204.5 days (143, 535 days) and decreased across the study period. Duration of marketing prior to regulatory action, from the medicinal product's authorisation date, increased across the period 2012-2016.

Conclusions: The sources of evidence supporting pharmacovigilance regulatory activities appear to have changed since implementation of Directive 2010/84/EU and Regulation (EU) No. 1235/2010. This, together with a small improvement in regulatory efficiency, suggests progress towards more rapid regulatory decisions based on more robust evidence. Future research should continue to monitor sources of evidence supporting regulatory decisions and the time taken to reach these decisions over time.

Keywords: evidence; medicinal product; pharmacovigilance; regulatory action; safety.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Time to reach a regulatory decision (days) from procedural start date, by year of regulatory action.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Duration of marketing (years) from year first authorised in the EU to regulatory decision date, grouped by year of regulatory decision accomplishment.

References

    1. Carné X, Arnaiz JA. Methodological and political issues in clinical pharmacology research by the year 2000. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2000;55:781–5. 10.1007/s002280050697 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Clarke A, Deeks JJ, Shakir SA. An assessment of the publicly disseminated evidence of safety used in decisions to withdraw medicinal products from the UK and US markets. Drug Saf 2006;29:175–81. 10.2165/00002018-200629020-00008 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Angamo MT, Chalmers L, Curtain CM, et al. . Adverse-drug-reaction-related hospitalisations in developed and developing countries: a review of prevalence and contributing factors. Drug Saf 2016;39:847–57. 10.1007/s40264-016-0444-7 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Gonzalez-Gonzalez C, Lopez-Gonzalez E, Herdeiro MT, et al. . Strategies to improve adverse drug reaction reporting: a critical and systematic review. Drug Saf 2013;36:317–28. 10.1007/s40264-013-0058-2 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Pontes H, Clément M, Rollason V. Safety signal detection: the relevance of literature review. Drug Saf 2014;37:471–9. 10.1007/s40264-014-0180-9 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms