Complain about a product or service

Researchers Question Drug Safety Crisis

Many Allegations Lack Scientific Evidence, They Argue

February 23, 2007

Drug Safety • Feds Seize More Than $24 Million in Unapproved New Drugs • Consumers Increasingly Exposed to Counterfeit Drugs • FDA Wants Black Box Warning on Antibiotics • Public Citizen Sues FDA for Failure to Act on Darvon • FDA Probes Arthritis Drug Link To Cancer • FDA Wants New Labeling Rules To Protect Pregnant, Nursing Women • Anti-Smoking Drug Chantix Linked to Seizures, Heart Problems, Diabetes • Bayer Pulls Trasylol From Market • MIT Researchers Confirm Contamination in Heparin • Be Careful Using Over-the-Counter Creams, Ointments • Another Heparin Producer Announces a Recall • FDA Moves Closer To Setting Up Shop In China • Study Raises Concerns About Anemia Drugs • Congress Hears Warnings about FDA • China Connection in Heparin Problems? • Heparin Linked to Severe Allergic Reactions • Antibiotic Leads to Tendon Ruptures • Second Safety Warning on Fentanyl Skin Patch • Merck Recalls Children's Vaccines • Study: Avandia May Do More Harm than Good • Texas Sues Drug Manufacturer Blamed for West Coast Deaths • Bayer Withdraws Antibleeding Drug Trasylol --- • More drug safety news ...

There's a widespread belief that the United States is experiencing a drug safety crisis. But is it really?

An editorial published in Health Economics by Tomas Philipson and colleagues at the University of Chicago finds little evidence of any crisis and no scientific evidence to back up sweeping recommendations recently made by the Institute of Medicine (IOM).

The current drug controversy is largely due to the withdrawal of Vioxx from the market, but the decrease in drug approval times thanks to the Prescription Drug User Fee Acts (PDUFA), and undue influence from the pharmaceutical industry that these acts may have invited have also played a role, Philipson writes.

Yet the scientific basis that too many unsafe drugs enter the market is lacking, he argues.

The IOM report does not document, for example, whether the reduction in approval times for bringing drugs to the market negatively affects the well being of consumers. The editorial points to a study that the social benefit from reducing drug approval times from 1979 to 2002 -- a sum estimated at $16 to $32 billion -- substantially outweighed any decrease in safety.

Although a lengthier approval process might reduce the number of drug withdrawals, this doesn't necessarily mean that too many drugs are withdrawn. Removing a few drugs from the market may be a necessary price to pay for bringing a larger number of medications more quickly to the public.

The report recommends a two-year ban on advertising drugs directly to consumers because it may lead to increased exposure to unsafe drugs, but it would also mean that fewer consumers would benefit from these medications. Also, it is not clear if restricting this advertising would limit consumption since it represents only a 15% share of total advertising expenditures.

The authors agree with the report's recommendation that extensive testing should be done after drugs are on the market.

"The science of approval is far more elaborate than the science of withdrawal, many times done under great political pressure," they note.

They point to a strong need for FDA-mandated post-approval studies, since pharmaceutical companies have little incentive to undertake this research on their own, as it could potentially lower their profits.

The FDA has picked up on this point; at the end of January, the agency announced a new policy to comprehensively assess drugs 18 months after they are introduced.

Report Your Experience
If you've had a bad experience -- or a good one -- with a consumer product or service, we'd like to hear about it. All complaints are reviewed by class action attorneys and are considered for publication on our site. Knowledge is power! Help spread the word. File your consumer report now.