Ethical and scientific issues in studying the safety of approved drugs

252 Pages·2012·5.22 MB·English

by  Institute of Medicine (U.S.). Committee on Ethical and Scientific Issues in Studying the Safety of Approved Drugs

Ethical and Scientific Issues in Studying the
Safety of Approved Drugs

Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Ethical and Scientific Issues in Studying the Safety of Approved Drugs

Ethical and Scientific Issues in Studying the
Safety of Approved Drugs

Committee on Ethical and Scientific Issues in Studying the Safety of Approved
Drugs

Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Ethical and Scientific Issues in Studying the Safety of Approved Drugs
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National
Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National
Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report
were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance.
This study was supported by Contract No. HHSF223200810020I between the National Academy of Sciences and
the Food and Drug Administration. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this
publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the organizations or agencies that
provided support for this project.
International Standard Book Number 978-0-309-21813-9
Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360,
Washington, DC 20001; [phone] or [phone], http://www.nap.edu.
For more information about the Institute of Medicine, visit the IOM home page at: www.iom.edu.
Copyright 2012 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
The serpent has been a symbol of long life, healing, and knowledge among almost all cultures and religions since the
beginning of recorded history. The serpent adopted as a logotype by the Institute of Medicine is a relief carving from
ancient Greece, now held by the Staatliche Museum in Berlin.
Suggested Citation: IOM (Institute of Medicine). 2012. Ethical and Scientific Issues in Studying the Safety of
Approved Drugs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Ethical and Scientific Issues in Studying the Safety of Approved Drugs
Ethical and Scientific Issues in Studying the Safety of Approved Drugs

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars
engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their
use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has
a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone
is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of
Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the
selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal
government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national
needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M.
Vest is president of the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of
eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the
public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional
charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care,
research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad
community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the
federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has
become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of
Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities.
The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr.
Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council.

www.national-academies.org
.
Ethical and Scientific Issues in Studying the Safety of Approved Drugs

COMMITTEE ON ETHICAL AND SCIENTIFIC ISSUES IN STUDYING
THE SAFETY OF APPROVED DRUGS
RUTH R. FADEN (Co-Chair), Philip Franklin Wagley Professor of Biomedical Ethics and
Executive Director, Berman Institute of Bioethics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore,
MD
STEVEN N. GOODMAN (Co-Chair), Professor of Medicine and Health Research and Policy,
Associate Dean for Clinical and Translational Research, Stanford University School of
Medicine, CA
ALASDAIR BRECKENRIDGE, Chairman, Medicines and Healthcare Product Regulatory
Agency, London, UK
LISA EGBUONU-DAVIS, Executive Advisor, Booz Allen Hamilton, Washington, DC
MIGUEL A. HERNÁN, Professor of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston,
MA
GRACE M. LEE, Associate Professor of Population Medicine & Pediatrics, Harvard Pilgrim
Health Care Institute, Harvard Medical School & Children’s Hospital Boston, MA
MICHELLE MELLO, Professor of Law and Public Health, Harvard University, Cambridge,
MA
ERIC M. MESLIN, Director, Indiana University Center for Bioethics, Associate Dean for
Bioethics, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis
LARRY I. PALMER, (Retired), Professor, Department of Health Administration, Virginia
Commonwealth University and Professor of Law, College of William & Mary Law
School, Richmond, VA
BRUCE M. PSATY, Professor, Medicine, Epidemiology, and Health Services; Co-director,
Cardiovascular Health Research Unit, University of Washington; Investigator, Group
Health Research Institute, Seattle
THOMAS R. TEN HAVE, Professor of Biostatistics, Perelman School of Medicine, University
of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
WILLIAM K. VAUGHAN, (Retired), Health Policy Analyst, Consumers Union, Washington,
DC
Consultants
THOMAS J. BOLLYKY, B.A., J.D., Consultant
RICHARD A. MERRILL, L.L.B., Consultant
EMILY L. EVANS, M.P.H., Consultant
IOM Staff
MICHELLE C. CATLIN, Study Director
ALEJANDRA MARTÍN, Research Assistant
ALLISON L. BERGER, Senior Project Assistant (June 2010-August 2011)
THOR YOUNG, Senior Project Assistant (August 2011-November 2011)
NORMAN GROSSBLATT, Senior Editor
v
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Ethical and Scientific Issues in Studying the Safety of Approved Drugs

ROSE MARIE MARTINEZ, Director, Board on Population Health and
Public Health Practice
CAROL MASON SPICER, Associate Program Officer
vi
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Ethical and Scientific Issues in Studying the Safety of Approved Drugs

REVIEWERS
This report has been reviewed in draft form by persons chosen for their diverse
perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National
Research Council’s Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to
provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published
report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for
objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft
manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to
thank the following individual’s for their review of this report:
Jesse Berlin, Janssen Research & Development
Dan Carpenter, Harvard University
Perry D. Cohen, Project Director for the Parkinson Pipeline Project
Susan Ellenberg, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine
Barbara Evans, University of Houston
Thomas R. Fleming, University of Washington
Sean Hennessy, University of Pennsylvania
Peter Honig, AstraZeneca
Karen Jenni, Insight Decisions, LLC
Cato T. Laurencin, University of Connecticut
Bernard Lo, University of California, San Francisco
Jon Merz, University of Pennsylvania
Richard Platt, Harvard Medical School
Joseph Rodricks, ENVIRON
Paul D. Stolley, University of Maryland School of Medicine
Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and
suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they
see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Ron
Brookmeyer, University of California, Los Angeles, and Brian L. Strom, University of
Pennsylvania School of Medicine. Appointed by the National Research Council and the Institute
of Medicine, they were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this
report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments
were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with
the authoring committee and the institution.
vii
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Ethical and Scientific Issues in Studying the Safety of Approved Drugs

viii
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Ethical and Scientific Issues in Studying the Safety of Approved Drugs

PREFACE
This report comes, not coincidentally, at an extraordinary time for both the US Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) and this country. With half of all Americans taking at least one
prescription drug daily and many older Americans using five or more, and with an increasing
array of drugs available to treat more illnesses and more people, the public health consequences
of drug exposure—both negative and positive—could not be higher.
At the same time, the costs of health care consume a steadily increasing proportion of our
nation’s budget, with drug expenditures representing a sizable fraction of total health care
dollars. Finally, there is the role of US academic and industry pharmaceutical research as an
engine of innovation, bringing enormous economic, scientific, and medical benefits to our
populace.
In the middle of this stands FDA, whose goal is to balance those pressures appropriately
and to ensure that the drugs it approves do not have risks that outweigh their benefits, while not
acting in ways that stifle biomedical innovation. The passage of the FDA Amendments Act of
2007 has afforded FDA broad new powers to monitor the safety of drugs after they reach the
marketplace and to take corrective action if drugs’ risks are judged to be unacceptable in light of
their benefits.
Over the last few decades, there has been a series of high-profile episodes in which drugs
in wide use after approval were found to cause harms that justified their withdrawal or restricted
®
use. The highest-profile of these involved Vioxx (rofecoxib), selective serotonin reuptake
inhibitors (SSRIs) in children, Fen-Phen (fenfluramine and phentermine), and most recently,
®
Avandia (rosiglitazone). It is no secret that the present report was born amid the challenges that
FDA was facing in its consideration of the cardiovascular risks associated with the antidiabetic
drug Avandia. FDA first requested a letter report from this committee to aid in its deliberation
about the scientific and ethical issues surrounding the continuation of the Thiazolidinedione
Intervention with Vitamin D Evaluation (TIDE) trial, which had been required of the Avandia
manufacturer by FDA. The letter report was presented during the Avandia hearings and is
included as an appendix.
But both the letter report and this longer, final report are about much more than the
Avandia case. The final report was prepared in response to a series of questions about the kinds
of studies and protections for research participants that could or should be mounted by FDA in
response to drug safety concerns in the postmarketing period. The committee quickly recognized
that the questions posed were not readily answerable when framed from the vantage of a
postmarketing crisis where there are few, if any, good options. To provide useful guidance, the
committee found itself inexorably drawn to how FDA could have avoided these moments of
crisis when the costs in human suffering and dollars to get the evidence it needed were seen by
many as unacceptable. The committee hopes that its recommendations, if adopted, will go much
further toward resolution of the questions that were posed to it than would have been the case if
it had taken a more narrow approach.
This journey took longer than we expected it to, but it produced a report that should stand
the test of time. The committee’s most important recommendation is that FDA, in its role as a
ix
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.